DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/336,016, filed on 16 June, 2023, were presented for examination. In the response filed 2 July, 2025, claims 1-16 were canceled and new claims 21-36 were added. In the response filed 3 October, 2025, claims 27, 30, and 33-34 were withdrawn. In the response filed 4 March, 2026, claims 19-20, 27, 30, and 33-34 were canceled. Claims 17-18, 21-26, 28-29, 31-32, and 35-42 are currently pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed as PCT/JP2022/004737 on 7 February, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 of the response received 4 March, 2026, the Examiner is considering, in full, the IDS filed 28 August, 2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4 March, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 112, the rejections of claims 17-20, 22-23, 25, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ezhov, of claims 17-18, 21-22, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tojima, of claims 17 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Muszynski, and of claims 17, 22, 24, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ishiguro, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant asserts that claim 17 has been amended to incorporate features from previous claim 36 which were indicated as allowable in the First Office Action (on the merits). The arguments in page 13 of the response refer to the Examiner’s reasons for indicating the allowability of claim 36, and since those have been included in the Allowable Subject Matter below, discussion of the arguments/reasoning is omitted here, except for the Examiner to concur with the handful of additional points made by Applicant in the top half of page 14. The intermediate line, when mentally drawn by the Examiner on all the figures of all the prior art of record and based on the standard/conventional understanding of the d-axis and q-axis, never crosses a corner of a non-circular shaft.
The arguments against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 at the bottom of page 14 are moot due to the amendment to claim 17.
Applicant asserts in page 11 of the response that new claim 38 corresponds to previous claim 36 which was indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the First Office Action. Although the wording is not exactly what claim 38 was, the Examiner has compared the claim to the prior art of record and determined that it is not anticipated by any of it, for the same reasoning that claim 17, as currently amended, is not anticipated by the prior art of record.
The response does not argue for the patentability of new claims 41-42 vis-à-vis any reference or combination of references. Thus, their patentability discussions will be left for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 41, below, and the Allowable Subject Matter section below (for claim 42), and not gone into detail here.
Applicant further asserts that the amendment to claim 36 overcomes the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. The Examiner concurs.
Consequently, the rejections of claims 17-26, 28-29, 31-32, and 35-36 have been withdrawn. However, the amendments did create new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 102, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 18, 21, 24-26, 35-36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
14 The basis for all the following rejections stem from a single fact – the amendment to independent claim 17 has resulted in claims 17-18, 21-26, 28-29, 31-34, and 35-37 being directed to the embodiment of fig. 31. The new limitation wherein “the corner of the non-circular shape is located at a center point in the circumferential direction between the d-axis and the q-axis…” is not supported by any other figure of the drawings. This support is established specifically by and only by fig. 31 and ¶ 0135-0136. The Examiner allows that a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art in reviewing fig. 31 and ¶ 0135-0136 would recognize that there are elements of motors, either in the specification as originally filed or generally in the state of the art, that are or could be incorporated into this embodiment. However, the new limitation in the claim absolutely requires the shaft to be as shown in fig. 31, for claim 17 and all claims dependent therefrom.
This explanation should suffice for Applicant to understand the following rejections, such that they can be succinct. Unless the Examiner is completely in error in one or more of them, the claims must be canceled for prosecution to proceed, unless Applicant wishes to file an RCE. Originally the independent claim 17 was generic and the various dependent claims were directed to different embodiments. Claim 17 by currently only appertaining to the embodiment of fig. 31 cannot have depending from it claims directed to the other embodiments when the embodiments are not disclosed as being hybridized or usable together.
Claim 18 recites in lines 7-9 that a first length along the d-axis is different from a second length in the q-axis. This cannot be. These lengths are exactly equal, not different, in fig. 31. Claim 18, as amended (via the amendment to claim 17) is not supported by fig. 31 and ¶ 0135-0136 of the application as-filed, such that one skilled in the art could not reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention upon filing. The amendment, by including features of plural embodiments not described as being hybridized or usable together, inherently adds information to the specification that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed.
Claim 21 recites wherein the “shaft member includes a plurality of shaft portions that extend in the rotational axis direction…” This limitation is supported by the embodiments of figs. 9B, 9D, 10A-10C, 20B, and 20D, which embodiments are not disclosed as usable together with the embodiment of fig. 31, which has only one shaft portion, such that one skilled in the art could not reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention upon filing. The amendment, by including features of plural embodiments not described as being hybridized or usable together, inherently adds information to the specification that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed.
Claim 24 recites in lines 2-3 that a first length along the d-axis is greater than a second length in the q-axis. This cannot be. These lengths are exactly equal, not different, in fig. 31, such that one skilled in the art could not reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention upon filing. The amendment, by including features of plural embodiments not described as being hybridized or usable together, inherently adds information to the specification that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed.
Claim 25 recites in lines 2-3 that a first length along the d-axis is less than a second length in the q-axis. This cannot be. These lengths are exactly equal, not different, in fig. 31, such that one skilled in the art could not reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention upon filing. The amendment, by including features of plural embodiments not described as being hybridized or usable together, inherently adds information to the specification that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed.
Claim 26 in lines 2-3 recites the limitation that the shaft member has an elongated shape…” This limitation is supported by the embodiments of figs. 2-3, 5, 8A-9A, 9C, 11-13, 17, 19A-20D, 22-23, and 25, which embodiments are not disclosed as usable together with the embodiment of fig. 31, which has a square shaft member – squares are not elongated; no matter which mutually-orthogonal directions they are measured along, the measurements will always be equal – such that one skilled in the art could not reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention upon filing. The amendment, by including features of plural embodiments not described as being hybridized or usable together, inherently adds information to the specification that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed.
Claim 35 recites in lines 11-13 that a “first cross-sectional area delimited by the d-axis and the intermediate line is different from a second cross-sectional area delimited by the q-axis and the intermediate line…” This cannot be. These areas are exactly equal, not different, in fig. 31, such that one skilled in the art could not reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention upon filing. The amendment, by including features of plural embodiments not described as being hybridized or usable together, inherently adds information to the specification that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed.
Claim 36 is rejected for depending from rejected claim 35.
Claim 39 recites in lines 8-10 that a “first cross-sectional area delimited by the d-axis and the intermediate line is different from a second cross-sectional area delimited by the q-axis and the intermediate line…” This cannot be. These areas are exactly equal, not different, in fig. 31, such that one skilled in the art could not reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention upon filing. The amendment, by including features of plural embodiments not described as being hybridized or usable together, inherently adds information to the specification that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu (WO 2021095149 A1, provided herein with machine translation).
With respect to claim 41, Komatsu teaches a surface magnet rotor [1b] comprising:
a shaft member [shaft 2] extending along a rotational axis [100] (see fig. 1), wherein a cross-section of the shaft member taken perpendicularly to the rotational axis has a non-circular shape (see annotated excerpt of fig. 8 attached below), and wherein an ease of passage of a magnetic flux through the shaft member is greatest in a magnetic flux direction of the cross-section (this is inherent in the reference, as something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property, as per MPEP 2112(I) – this section of the MPEP was relied upon multiple times in the prior Office Action – instead of pasting it in here again, Applicant is referred to the rejection of claim 1 under Ezhov); and
a magnet portion [combined core 4 and through-holes 4b which hold permanent magnets] mounted on the shaft member [2], wherein the magnet portion [4/4b] forms a first magnetic pole and a second magnetic pole opposite to the first magnetic pole, and wherein the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole are positioned in relation to the magnetic flux direction so as to generate a reluctance torque in response to a stator magnetic field to cause the rotor to rotate (se abstract, ¶ 0008, 0012, and 0018);
PNG
media_image1.png
535
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in the cross-section of the shaft member,
a d-axis extends [d] from the rotational axis to the first magnetic pole,
a q-axis [q] extends from the rotational axis to a center point (labeled by the Examiner) in a circumferential direction between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole,
an intermediate line (labeled by the Examiner) extends from the rotational axis to a center point in the circumferential direction between the d-axis and the q-axis, and a first cross-sectional area delimited by the d-axis and the intermediate line is equal to a second cross-sectional area delimited by the q-axis and the intermediate line (the Examiner has shaded and labeled the first cross-sectional area and the second cross-sectional areas – although the figure is not described as being drawn to scale, the areas are necessarily similar because the intermediate line is defined as being “to a center point in the circumferential direction between the d-axis and the q-axis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 22-23, 28-29, 31-32, 37-38, 40, and 42 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 17, and all claims depending therefrom, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a surface magnet rotor comprising:
a shaft member extending along a rotational axis, wherein a cross-section of the shaft member has a non-circular shape forming a corner, wherein in case of passage of a magnetic flux through the shaft member is greatest in a magnetic flux direction of the cross- section; and
a magnet portion mounted on the shaft member, wherein the magnet portion forms a first magnetic pole and a second magnetic pole opposite to the first magnetic pole, and wherein the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole are positioned in relation to the magnetic flux direction so as to generate a reluctance torque in response to a stator magnetic field, to cause the rotor to rotate,
wherein in the cross-section of the shaft member,
a d-axis extends from the rotational axis to the first magnetic pole,
a q-axis extends from the rotational axis to a center point in a circumferential direction between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole, and
the corner of the non-circular shape is located at a center point in the circumferential direction between the d-axis and the q-axis of the magnet portion.
With respect to claim 38, and all claims depending therefrom, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a surface magnet rotor comprising:
a shaft member extending along a rotational axis, wherein a cross-section of the shaft member taken along a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis has a square shape, and wherein an ease of passage of a magnetic flux through the shaft member is greatest in a magnetic flux direction of the cross-section; and
a magnet portion mounted on the shaft member, wherein the magnet portion forms a first magnetic pole and a second magnetic pole opposite to the first magnetic pole, and wherein the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole are positioned in relation to the magnetic flux direction so as to generate a reluctance torque in response to a stator magnetic field to cause the rotor to rotate,
wherein in the cross-section of the shaft member,
a d-axis extends from the rotational axis to the first magnetic pole,
a q-axis extends from the rotational axis to a center point in a circumferential direction between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole, and
a selected corner of the square shape of the cross-section is located at a center point in the circumferential direction between the d-axis and the q-axis of the magnet portion.
With respect to claim 42, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a surface magnet rotor comprising:
a shaft member extending along a rotational axis, wherein a cross-section of the shaft member taken perpendicularly to the rotational axis has a non-circular shape, and wherein an ease of passage of a magnetic flux through the shaft member is greatest in a magnetic flux direction of the cross-section; and
a magnet portion mounted on the shaft member, wherein the magnet portion forms a first magnetic pole and a second magnetic pole opposite to the first magnetic pole, and wherein the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole are positioned in relation to the magnetic flux direction so as to generate a reluctance torque in response to a stator magnetic field to cause the rotor to rotate,
wherein in the cross-section of the shaft member,
a d-axis extends from the rotational axis to the first magnetic pole,
a q-axis extends from the rotational axis to a center point in a circumferential direction between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole,
an intermediate line extends from the rotational axis to a center point in the circumferential direction between the d-axis and the q-axis, and a first cross-sectional area delimited by the d-axis and the intermediate line is equal to a second cross-sectional area delimited by the q-axis and the intermediate line,
wherein the non-circular shape of the cross-section of the shaft member forms a corner that intersects the intermediate line.
As discussed in the prior Office Action, Ezhov teaches a rotor very similar to claim 17 (and therefore claim 39 which is very similar to claim 17) and fig. 31 of the instant application, and further teaches wherein the magnet portion [2] forms four or more opposite magnetic poles [N1/S1/N2/S2] (labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 1 excerpt below), including the first magnetic pole [N1] and the second magnetic pole [S1], that are arranged [N-S-N-S] alternately along the circumferential direction,
PNG
media_image2.png
539
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the cross-section of the shaft member [3] has a square shape.
However, the Examiner can see no way to reasonably draw the axes and intermediate line in such a way that the latter intersects one of the corners of the square shape. The Examiner has shaded in a region that is fairly representative of what can be considered the corner of the square shape, and the intermediate line does not cross it. This feature could not be found in the art reviewed during the search.
Claim 42 does not include the limitation of claims 17 and 38 that the cross-section of the shaft member is square. This opens it up to be potentially anticipated by Komatsu, as claim 41 (its parent claim) was. However, as can be seen in the excerpt of Komatsu fig. 8 above (in the rejection of claim 41), the corners lie on the d-axes, not the intermediate lines.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270 - 5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights