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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, lines 6-8, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to objections to the specification, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, line 5 to page 7, line 6, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 7, line 7-12 filed 12/01/2025, regarding obviousness over Uchida have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Uchida discloses the necessary elements to arrive at the claimed invention as a result-effective variable, as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UCHIDA (US 20060017345).
Regarding claim 1, UCHIDA discloses a rotor (10) comprising:
a rotor core (14); and
permanent magnets (16) embedded in the rotor core (14),
wherein:
the rotor (10) has a plurality of magnetic poles arranged in a circumferential direction (see para [0032] and Fig. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
564
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
619
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
each of the magnetic poles includes one of the permanent magnets (16) and one of outer core portions, the outer core portions being portions of the rotor core (14) which are located radially outside the permanent magnets (16) (see Fig. 1);
each of the outer core portions has a radially outer surface that has an arc shape in an axial view, the arc shape being such that the radially outer surface becomes closer to a rotation axis of the rotor (10) as it extends from a magnetic-pole center of the magnetic pole toward both sides in the circumferential direction (see Fig. 1);
the rotor core (14) has a maximum diameter at the magnetic-pole center;
a circle having a diameter equal to the maximum diameter of the rotor core (14) and centering on the rotation axis is defined as a reference circle (see annotated Fig. 1, above);
an outer circumferential surface of the rotor core (14) has, at intersections between the arc-shaped radially outer surfaces of the outer core portions adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction, maximum displacement portions that are most displaced from the reference circle radially inward (see annotated Fig. 1, above) ; and
a displacement amount (Gmax-Gmin) of the maximum displacement portions from the reference circle is smaller than a maximum thickness (H) of the permanent magnets (16) in an axial view (see para [0046], table 1, and Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
338
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
H
Gmin
Gmax
Gmax-Gmin
Gmax-Gmin / H
Gmax-Gmin / Gmin
2.7
0.5
0.5
0
0.00
0.00
2
0.4
1.5
1.1
0.55
2.75
2
0.4
2.25
1.85
0.93
4.63
2.7
0.5
1.3
0.8
0.30
1.60
2.7
0.5
1.9
1.4
0.52
2.80
2.7
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.22
0.86
2.7
0.5
1.3
0.8
0.30
1.60
2.7
0.5
1.9
1.4
0.52
2.80
2.7
0.5
3
2.5
0.93
5.00
However, UCHIDA does not disclose the ratio of the displacement amount (Gmax-Gmin) to the maximum thickness (H) of the permanent magnets (16) satisfies 0.33 ≤ (Gmax-Gmin /H) ≤ 0.47.
UCHIDA teaches that arrangements of different rotor displacement amounts and magnet thicknesses can be used in a rotor (see para [0042-0046]), making the displacement amounts and magnet thicknesses result effective variables, in order to improve cogging torque (see para [0043, 0045, and 0046]). UCHIDA teaches individual displacement amounts and magnets which would fall in the claimed range of ratios if combined, such as the 1.1mm Gmax-Gmin rotor and the 2.7mm magnet (.407) or the 0.8mm Gmax-Gmin rotor with the 2mm magnet (.400).
Thus, it 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 to arrange the displacement amounts and magnets according to the claimed ratio between 0.33 ≤ (Gmax-Gmin /H) ≤ 0.47.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the cogging torque, as taught by UCHIDA (see para [0043, 0045, and 0046]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 6, UCHIDA teaches a rotating electric machine comprising:
a stator (22); and
the rotor (10) as set forth in Claim 1, the rotor (10) being arranged radially inside the stator (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, UCHIDA teaches the rotating electric machine as set forth in Claim 6, wherein:
the displacement amount (Gmax-Gmin) is set to be larger than or equal to an air gap (Gmin) that is a difference between an inner radius of the stator and a radius of the reference circle (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, UCHIDA teaches the rotating electric machine as set forth in Claim 7.
However, UCHIDA does not disclose a ratio of the displacement amount (to the air gap satisfies 1.67 ≤ (displacement amount / air gap) ≤ 2.33.
UCHIDA discloses the ratio at 1.6 and 2.75 (see para [0046], table 1; ).
UCHIDA teaches that arrangements of different air gap maximum and minimum displacement amounts can be used in a rotating electric machine (V), making the air gap displacement amounts result effective variables, in order to improve cogging torque (see para [0046]).
Thus, it 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 to arrange the air gap displacement amounts according to the claimed ratio between 1.67 ≤ (displacement amount / air gap) ≤ 2.33.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the cogging torque, as taught by UCHIDA (see para [0046]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UCHIDA in view of KANDA (US 20170070111).
Regarding claim 2, UCHIDA teaches the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
However, UCHIDA does not disclose each of the permanent magnets (16) has a folded shape that is convex radially inward.
KANDA discloses a rotor with permanent magnets that have folded shape that is convex radially inward (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
382
319
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It 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 to provide the rotor of UCHIDA with the folded shape magnets similar to those of KANDA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the orientation rate and the magnetization rate of the magnets as taught by KANDA (see para [0038].)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UCHIDA in view of YAMADA (US 20130106208.)
Regarding claim 3, UCHIDA teaches the rotor as set forth in Claim 1.
However, UCHIDA does not disclose the rotor core has axial end faces formed as flat surfaces and each of the permanent magnets has protruding portions that protrude respectively from the axial end faces of the rotor core.
YAMADA discloses a rotor with axial end faces formed as flat surfaces and permanent magnets (interpole magnets 31, 32) having protruding portions that protrude respectively from the axial end faces of the rotor core (see Figs. 8 and 9).
PNG
media_image5.png
235
294
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
263
298
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It 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 to provide the rotor of UCHIDA with a rotor core having axial end faces formed as flat surfaces and each of the permanent magnets having protruding portions that protrude respectively from the axial end faces of the rotor core.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to reduce leakage flux as taught by YAMADA (see para [0011])
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UCHIDA in view of TANAKA (US 20170085143).
Regarding claim 9, UCHIDA teaches the rotating electric machine as set forth in Claim 6, wherein:
the number of the magnetic poles of the rotor (10) is eight; and
However, UCHIDA does not disclose the stator has twelve slots in which windings are wound.
TANAKA discloses a rotating electric machine with eight poles (16) and a stator (1A) having twelve slots in which windings (3) are wound (see Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image7.png
374
337
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It 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 to provide the stator of UCHIDA with twelve slots, similar to that of TANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide a motor with designated step skew angle to reduce torque ripples as taught by TANAKA (see para [0101]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN STEFANON whose telephone number is (703)756-4648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays 8AM - 5PM EDT.
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, Oluseye 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.
/JUSTIN STEFANON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834