DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11, in the reply, filed on 03/10/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 21-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that: “the invention cannot be separated, as each invention recites the same fundamental components” and “inventions II and III are not distinct from invention 1” and further “Applicant respectfully submits that there is no serious search or examination burden for the three alleged inventions”, see remarks: page 9. This is not found persuasive because as it has been indicated in the previous office action also, regarding claim 1 vs. claim 21 are independent and distinct because they are related as combination / sub-combination inventions and the combination of claim 1 does not require the particulars of claim 21. Further, the subcombination has a separate utility such as a system for producing a permanent magnet (PM) synchronous reluctance machines (PMSynRM) rotor or a laminated rotor with cavities for the reasons listed in previous office action. Similarly, claims 1 vs. 26 and claims 21 vs. 26 are independent and distinct for the similar reasons and the distinct reasons mentioned in the previous office action, mailed on 03/10/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 – 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of “the respective rotor stack cavity” and “the respective secondary flow channel” in 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because even though prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 recites “a plurality of rotor stack cavities”, in 3rd line, and “a flow channel”, in 9th line, neither claims 1 and 2 recite “a respective rotor stack cavity” and “a respective secondary flow channel”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of "the length dimension of a second rotor stack cavity" in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 4 fails to define “a length dimension of a second rotor stack cavity".
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “the width dimension of the second rotor stack cavity” in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 4 fails to define “a width dimension of the second rotor stack cavity”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of "the respective rotor stack cavity" in 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 4 fails to define “a respective rotor stack cavity”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of “the width dimension of one of the plurality of rotor stack cavities” in 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 4 fails to define “a width dimension of one of the plurality of rotor stack cavities”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of “the respective rotor stack cavity” in 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, neither claims 1 and 5 disclose “a respective rotor stack cavity”.
Claims 6 – 7 recite the limitation of “the width dimension of at least one of the adjacent rotor stack cavities” in 3rd- 4th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation neither claims define “a width dimension of at least one of the adjacent rotor stack cavities”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of “the cavity cross-sectional area” in 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 10 fails to define “a cavity cross-sectional area”. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama et al. (US 2018/0212497).
As to claim 1, Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) disclose a rotor core mold assembly (40, Figs. 6 and 7) comprising:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A plurality of rotor stack cavities (25))]- a rotor stack (a rotor core 21, ¶ [0042] - ¶ [0043]) having a top surface and at least one rotor pole, the at least one rotor pole (the lamination plane S, ¶ [0045]) defined by a plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013] and ¶ [0045]) extending from the top surface through the rotor stack (a rotor core 21, ¶ [0042] - ¶ [0043]), each of the plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013] and ¶ [0045]) having an aspect ratio defined by a width (¶ [0046]) of a respective rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) and a longitudinal length of the rotor stack (a rotor core 21, ¶ [0042] - ¶ [0043]); and,
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rotor poles (S))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
362
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A rotor core 21)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
269
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- a distribution plate (a movable die 42, ¶ [0050] - ¶ [0051], and Fig. 7) having a top surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface removably locatable on the top surface of the rotor stack (a rotor core 21, ¶ [0042] - ¶ [0043]) to thereby form a fluid seal, the distribution plate (42, ¶ [0050] - ¶ [0051], and Fig. 7) further comprising:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Injection gate (48))][AltContent: textbox (A flow channel (46))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A distribution plate (42))]
PNG
media_image3.png
420
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
- a flow channel (a spool 46, ¶ [0053]) positioned on the top surface of the distribution plate (a movable die 42, ¶ [0050] - ¶ [0051], and Fig. 7) and extending through the distribution plate (a movable die 42, ¶ [0050] - ¶ [0051], and Fig. 7);
- an injection gate (gates 48, ¶ [0053] - ¶ [0055]) positioned proximate the bottom surface of the distribution plate (a movable die 42, ¶ [0054]) in fluid communication with the flow channel (a spool 46, ¶ [0053]); and,
- a plurality of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) coupled between the injection gate (gates 48, ¶ [0053] - ¶ [0055]) and the bottom surface of the distribution plate (a movable die 42, ¶ [0050] - ¶ [0051], and Fig. 7) in fluid communication with the injection gate (gates 48, ¶ [0053] - ¶ [0055]), each of the plurality of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) being in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013] and ¶ [0045]), each of the plurality of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) having a channel cross-sectional area (see Fig. 7).
Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) disclose all the structural limitations of claim 1, but is silent on disclosing the distribution plate (a movable die 42, ¶ [0050] - ¶ [0051], and Fig. 7) is locatable removably on the top surface of the rotor stack, as claimed in claim 1.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the positioning of the distribution plate, as taught by Okuyama et al. (US ‘497), so for the distribution plate to be position-able removably on the top surface of the rotor stack in order to enhance the ease of molding process through facilitating an effective ejection process for molded product. Further, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V.) (B.)
As to claim 2, even though Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) is silent on disclosing the limitations of claim 2, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the channel cross-sectional area (see Fig. 7) of each of the plurality of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9), as taught by Okuyama et al. (US ‘497), so to be proportional to the aspect ratio of the respective rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013] and ¶ [0045]) with which the respective secondary flow channel (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) is in fluid communication in order to reduce exerted stress on the core member (22) during formation of the product.
As to claim 3, Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) disclose a first number of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) are in fluid communication with a first rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) and a second number of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) are in fluid communication with the second rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]), the first number of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) being greater than the second number of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) such that the first rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) and the second rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) are filled by a material injected through the secondary flow channel (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) at a substantially equal rate. Even though Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) is silent on disclosing, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of the applicant’s invention, to modify the aspect ratio of a first rotor stack cavity of the plurality of rotor stack cavities, as taught by Okuyama et al. (US ‘497), so to be greater than an aspect ratio of a second rotor stack cavity of the plurality of rotor stack cavities in order to reduce exerted stress on the core member (22) during formation of the product.
As to claim 4, Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) teach a first rotor stack cavity of the plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) has a length dimension greater than the length dimension of a second rotor stack cavity of the plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]), and wherein the first rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) has a width dimension less than the width dimension of the second rotor stack cavity, the length dimension being defined between closed ends of each of the plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) and the width dimension being defined between opposing walls forming each of the plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]), the cavity cross-sectional area being substantially equal between the first rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) and the second rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) such that the first rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) and the second rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) are filled by a material injected through the secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) at a substantially equal rate. (See the above figures)
As to claim 5, Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) disclose the width dimension of one of the plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) is substantially uniform along the length dimension between closed ends of the respective rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]).
As to claims 6-7, even though Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) is silent on disclosing, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of the applicant’s invention, to modify a distance between adjacent rotor stack cavities of the plurality of rotor stack cavities, as taught by Okuyama et al. (US ‘497), is such that a ratio of the distance between adjacent rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) to the width dimension of at least one of the adjacent rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) to be approximately 1.2 to 1 so that the bonded magnet material easily spreads uniformly in the direction orthogonal to the direction of injection, thus, an improvement in the ratio of the magnetic orientation can be expected.
As to claim 8, Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) disclose the plurality of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) extend outwardly from the flow channel (a spool 46, ¶ [0053]).
As to claim 9, Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) teach each of the plurality of secondary flow channels (runners 47, ¶ [0053] and Fig. 9) includes an outlet interface defined on the bottom surface of the distribution plate (a movable die 42, ¶ [0050] - ¶ [0051], and Fig. 7) in fluid communication with at least one of the plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]).
As to claim 10, Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) disclose the rotor stack (a rotor core 21, ¶ [0042] - ¶ [0043]) has a plurality of rotor poles (lamination planes S, ¶ [0045]), each of the plurality of rotor poles (lamination planes S, ¶ [0045]) being defined by the plurality of rotor stack cavities (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]), wherein the cavity cross-sectional area of a respective rotor stack cavity (a through hole 25, ¶ [0013]) is substantially similar for each of the plurality of rotor poles (lamination planes S, ¶ [0045]).
As to claim 11, even though Okuyama et al. (US ‘497) is silent on disclosing the limitations of claim 11, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the aspect ratio of the one or more of the plurality of rotor stack cavities, as taught by Okuyama et al. (US ‘497), so for the aspect ratio of the one or more of the plurality of rotor stack cavities to be greater than 0.02 in order to reduce exerted stress on the core member (22) during formation of the product.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 02/16/2026
Prosecution Insights