DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/436,428, filed on 8 February, 2024, were presented for examination. In a preliminary amendment filed 29 May, 2025, new claims 19-20 were added. Claims 1-20 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 March, 2026, was filed before the mailing date of this Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The response begins its arguments against the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 14-15, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Applicant notes that claims 1-2, 11-13, 15, and 19 were amended to more clearly state and distinguish Applicant’s invention vis-à-vis Zhang.
With clear reference to claim 1, Applicant asserts that claim 1 distinguishes over Zhang because Zhang teaches a permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM). The preamble of claim 1 calls the claimed invention a variable flux memory motor (VFMM). Applicant characterizes Zhang as being said permanent magnet motor and thus allegedly it does not meet the limitations of the claim.
The Examiner takes multiple positions counter to this characterization, as enumerated below:
I.) The limitation allegedly absent from Zhang is not in the body of the claim. It is in the preamble which creates the intended function and/or context for the rotor’s use. The VFMM recitation is attached to the motor which the claimed rotor is a “rotor of…” Therefore, the claim does not require a VFMM. The VFMM is part of the intended use and therefore not required by the claim as long as Zhang’s rotor could be used in a VFMM, which the Examiner believes it could because it is nearly identical to the rotor of the claimed invention.
II.) Even if the claim had the VFMM in the preamble without it being intended use, the body of the claim does not tie its components or functionalities to the VFMM (other than that the magnets are magnetizable and de-magnetizable, which the rejection of the prior Office Action, which has been repeated below, has shown that Zhang teaches). In this case the preamble is only doing the work of calling the rotor something. The body of the claim must provide some feature that distinguishes over the prior art – as long as it does not, a person could call Zhang a VFMM so long as it could reasonably have a varying flux memory. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read Zhang, would determine that the flux will vary and repeatedly have at least one vector that reliably shows up once per cycle – enough to say Zhang’s capability includes having variable flux memory. And they would do this even if the limitation “if the permanent magnet with low coercive force is adopted…, the motor has a wider speed regulation range when running at high speed, and the permanent magnet is in a low magnetization state, so that large direct-axis demagnetizing current does not need to be applied…” was not in Zhang, but Zhang does have this recitation in ¶ 0028.
III.) The last few lines bring the discussion back to Applicant’s allegation/characterization that Zhang is a permanent magnet synchronous motor. The translation does use the term “permanent magnet synchronous motor” but then goes on to say it has a “reverse salient pole characteristic” and literally say the “permanent magnet with a low coercive force is adopted” which means that the flux will change and not remain static, counter to Applicant’s characterization, which at the bottom of page 3 implies that Zhang, by being a permanent magnet synchronous motor, will maintain a static magnetization state during operation. Because a low-coercive-force magnet is used in Zhang, it will be repeatedly magnetized to an extent and demagnetized to an extent during operation.
IV.) And finally, as noted below in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), the Examiner is not making an inherency argument, because the VFMM limitation is in the preamble and not tied to the body of the claim except where the magnets are magnetizable and de-magnetizable, which Zhang does teach by teaching a low-coercive-force magnet. However, to advance prosecution, the Examiner points out that Zhang is nearly identical in its location of parts, geometries, etc., to the device of the instant application. And since it teaches low-coercive-force magnets, when placed in an appropriate stator Zhang would have the same fluxes, flux memories, magnetizations, and de-magnetizations that the rotor of the instant application has. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 below, the appropriate guidance/precedence on the inherency doctrine is MPEP 2112 (II) which provides that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time (of the reference). Since Zhang’s rotor and the claimed invention are basically identical, Zhang’s motor is inherently, and its rotor is for use in a motor that is inherently, a variable flux memory motor – not only in name but because whatever the claimed invention can experience or exhibit in the way of flux fields, flux variations, etc., Zhang will also experience or exhibit. Therefore Zhang’s device was a VFMM at the time of invention, even if Zhang’s authors did not know what the flux was doing and regardless of the terminology that is in its specification.
So, to conclude the arguments against the rejection of claim 1 under Zhang, the variable flux memory feature is only intended use. It is in the preamble and tied to the body of the claim via the requirement that the magnets be operably magnetizable and de-magnetizable. The Examiner has shown that Zhang’s magnets are operably magnetizable and de-magnetizable and during use each one’s flux would revert to a certain vector repeatedly during each oscillation (meaning it would have a flux memory). Claim 1 does not have a limitation that materially defines over Zhang. And even if VFMM language were used in the body of the claim, it would not define over Zhang because Zhang inherently is a VFMM because it is shaped like Applicant’s claimed invention and its magnets are low coercive force magnets.
Section IV of the response, on page 4, addresses the claims of 4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103, but the argument goes back to the arguments against claim 1. Similarly section V does the same with respect to claims 6 and 12-13. Applicant alleges that Glaser and Zhang fail to teach magnets that are “…operably magnetizable and de-magnetizable…” even though it has been show that Zhang does teach this.
In section VI of the response Applicant addresses the rejection of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ko. The arguments include an allegation that Ko does not teach “…at least one pair of wedges extending from the rotor core…. being operably coupled with a subset of the set of magnets and a corresponding rib” even though Ko was only used to show it would be obvious for Zhang to have a shaft. It is noted that claim 17 does require a variable flux memory motor (preamble of an independent claim) or at least a motor that could be reasonably called this term. However, Applicant did not contrast claim 17 to Zhang on this topic so the Examiner will merely refer to reason IV above (in the discussion of the rejection of claim 1).
With respect to formal matters, Applicant asserts that the amendments to the title and the claims overcome the specification objection and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Examiner concurs with two exceptions: a) the rejection of claim 15 he is maintaining after the amendment and b) a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 that incurred from the most recent amendment (see below).
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 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation “to be operably magnetizable and de-magnetizable the rotor core…” in lines 4-5. The Examiner will omit explaining how or why it is indefinite since the confusion it can cause a reader is self-evident at first glance. The Examiner believes that either “the rotor core” should be removed or something (that might have been intended to be there but got inadvertently deleted) should follow or precede “the rotor core” in line 5.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the sleeve comprising at least one laminated magnetically conductive material and/or unlaminated magnetically conductive material”. The Examiner cannot find support in the specification of the sleeve comprising both a laminated material and an unlaminated material. The Examiner originally rejected this under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) but the amendment changed the nature of the rejection. However, the Examiner still believes the issue is one of misunderstanding and not an enablement issue, such that no rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claims 2-14 and 16 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 114552827 A, reference provided with machine translation herein).
With respect to claim 1, Zhang teaches a rotor of a variable flux memory motor {¶ 0028 of the translation recites “if the permanent magnet with low coercive force is adopted…, the motor has a wider speed regulation range when running at high speed, and the permanent magnet is in a low magnetization state, so that large direct-axis demagnetizing current does not need to be applied…” – although Zhang does not use the VFMM terminology, the low coercivity and demagnetizing current do add up to variable flux memory because the magnetization will vary based on the stator state – because this limitation is in the preamble, and not in the body of the claim, the doctrine of equivalence will not be invoked here – still please see MPEP 2112 (II) which provides that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time (of the reference – Zhang’s device is shaped almost exactly like the figures of the instant application and also has the low-coercivity magnets, and therefore if the instant application’s motor is a VFMM, Zhang’s is also, even if the reference does not use that language} comprising:
a rotor core [support member 6];
a set of magnets [permanent magnets 3] configured to be operably magnetizable and de-magnetizable (all permanent magnets can be magnetized and demagnetized – further, ¶ 0028 of the translation recites “if the permanent magnet with low coercive force is adopted…” which means that the magnets are more easily magnetized and demagnetized than high coercivity magnets and/or medium-coercivity magnets)
the rotor core [support member 6]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
708
1206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one pair of wedges (see the annotated excerpts of figs. 1-3 attached above, wherein the Examiner has labeled one pair, all pairs being part of the overall structure 5 which the reference calls a “core” because it is magnetic iron, as opposed to the present application which calls the support member a “core” apparently because it is in the center of the rotor) operably coupled with the rotor core [6] (¶ 0024 recites “the rotor core 5 is further provided with a support member 6 on an inner circumference thereof”), each wedge of the at least one pair of wedges being operably coupled with a corresponding rib [outer circle] (labeled “rib” by the Examiner and established by ¶ 0025 which recites “a third magnetic barrier 4 is further arranged between the permanent magnet 3 and the outer circle of the rotor core 5…” – it is noted that although the rib is labeled “7” in fig. 3, this is not described in the translation – the rib is evidenced by its having the same gray color as the wedges, as opposed to white which establishes the voids, i.e. flux barriers), wherein each wedge and corresponding rib being operably configured to mechanically retain at least a subset [a single one] of the set of magnets (they surround the magnet and are solid, therefore the magnet is immobile and thus retained by the wedges).
With respect to claim 2/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein at least one of the pair of wedges being operably configured to radially extend outward from the rotor core [6] (see annotated excerpt of the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
507
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the rotor core [6] comprises at least one magnetic resistant material (¶ 0024 recites “the support member 6 is made of a diamagnetic material…”).
With respect to claim 5/2/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the at least one pair of wedges [5] are selected from a group comprising ferrous materials, Cobalt, Nickel, and magnetic composites (the abstract and ¶ 0008 refer to the core, which in Zhang is item 5 and therefore all of the wedges, as “the rotor iron core”, indicating it is made of iron, which is the most ferrous of all ferrous materials).
With respect to claim 7/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one pair of wedges comprises at least one inter flux barrier [first magnetic barrier 1] to operably modify torque ripple and reluctance torque of the synchronous motor (see fig. 1 and ¶ 0024).
With respect to claim 8/7/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the at least one internal flux barrier comprises at least one of prismatic shape, a frustum shape, a truncated pyramidal shape, a cylindrical shape, a conical shape, and a frustoconical shape (each one consists of a quarter-sector of a cylinder, and therefore is “cylindrical” in shape – see fig. 1 and ¶ 0024).
With respect to claim 9/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the at least one pair of wedges [5] (pairs of wedges labeled by the Examiner in the blown-up snapshot of fig. 3 below) radially extends from the rotor core [6] to form a central flux barrier [third magnetic barrier 4] between the subset of magnets [3] and the corresponding rib (labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 3 snapshot below).
Fig. 3 (enlarged)
PNG
media_image3.png
422
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19/9/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the central flux barrier [4] is configured to separate the subset of magnets [3] by an air gap in the synchronous motor {see rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) – whatever the intended meaning of this claim limitation was/is, Zhang teaches it by having the same elements with the same overall configurations and geometries as figs. 2A-2D of the instant application – the air gap is clearly shown in fig. 3}.
With respect to claim 20/9/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 19, and further teaches wherein the central flux barrier [4] comprises at least one of a prismatic shape, a frustum shape, a truncated pyramidal shape, a cylindrical shape, a conical shape, and a frustoconical shape (it comprises a truncated pyramidal shape).
With respect to claim 10/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein each wedge in the at least one pair of wedges tapers from a proximal end to a distal end (see new annotated excerpt of fig. 2 attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled the distal end with width D1 and the proximal end with width D2 – although the reference does not mention that the drawings are to-scale, all of the drawings clearly show D1 < D2. In addition to this, each proximal end includes an “extra taper” for good measure, this also having been labeled by the Examiner).
PNG
media_image4.png
337
535
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the corresponding rib (still referring to the fig. 2 excerpt above, wherein the Examiner has labeled the rib’s curve and circumferential axis) of each of the at least one pair of wedges comprises a curve along a circumference (see rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
With respect to claim 14/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one pair of wedges being operably coupled with each other (via the bridge).
With respect to claim 15/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, and further teaches a sleeve [the rib] (see annotated excerpts of figs 1-3 above) on a surface (of the wedge where the rib meets the wedge) of the rotor, the sleeve comprising at least one laminated magnetically conductive material and unlaminated magnetically conductive material (it will be iron, the same substance as the rest of element 5 – see the rejection of fig. 5).
It is noted that in the instant application, ¶ 34 recites (in the last 3 lines) “the sleeve may be the rib (210)”.
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.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Coupart (EP 1796248 A1, provided with translation herein).
With respect to claim 4/3/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 3, but omits teaching wherein the at least one magnetic resistant material comprises at least one of aluminum, and/or steel, and/or composite metals, and/or plastic, and/or ceramics.
Coupart discloses a rotor [1] for a synchronous machine (see abstract), the rotor comprising permanent magnets [5] each surrounded by pairs of wedges [pole pieces 4], the entire assembly assembled on a core [hub 3] (see ¶ 0039 and the annotated fig. 1 excerpt attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled a pair of wedges).
Coupart teaches wherein the at least one magnetic resistant material comprises at least one of aluminum, and/or steel, and/or composite metals, and/or plastic, and/or ceramics (¶ 0042 recites “the hub is, for example, made of a non-magnetic material such as aluminum or non-magnetic stainless steel”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing a hub made of aluminum or stainless steel, as taught by Coupart, in order to provide high strength and durability while incorporating low-to-moderate material cost and manufacturing complexity, as is well known in the art.
PNG
media_image5.png
544
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, but omits teaching a sleeve on a surface of the rotor, at least one portion of the sleeve comprising at least one magnetically conductive material and/or magnetically resistant material.
Coupart discloses a rotor [1] for a synchronous machine (see abstract), the rotor comprising permanent magnets [5] each surrounded by pairs of wedges [pole pieces 4], the entire assembly assembled on a core [hub 3] (still referring to ¶ 0039 and the annotated fig. 1 excerpt attached above).
Coupart teaches a sleeve [envelope] on a surface of the rotor [1], at least one portion of the sleeve [10] comprising at least one magnetically conductive material and/or magnetically resistant material (it is noted that the claimed range of “magnetically conductive material” and “magnetically resistant material” is infinite for solid substances – for example, ¶ 0046 recites that it could be made of a carbon fiber composite, which has multiple substances in it – necessarily at least one of these is one of magnetically resistant or magnetically conductive).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing a sleeve, as taught by Coupart, in order to hold the magnets (Coupart ¶ 0004).
Claims 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Glaser (US 4,445,062 A).
With respect to claim 6/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the at least one pair of wedges comprise at least one groove, and the rotor core comprises at least one tooth, the at least one groove and the at least one tooth interlocking to operably attached the at least one pair of wedges to the rotor core.
Glaser discloses a rotor [10] for a machine, the rotor comprising permanent magnets [43] each surrounded by pairs of wedges [support members 26, 28, 44, 45, 46, etc..], the entire assembly assembled on a core [12, including tongues 14] (referring to annotated fig. 1 excerpt attached below and col. 2).
Glaser teaches wherein at least one pair of wedges [26/28/44/45/46] comprise at least one groove [47], and the rotor core [12] comprises at least one tooth [undulation 16], the at least one groove [47] and the at least one tooth [16] interlocking to operably attached the at least one pair of wedges [26/28] to the rotor core [12] (col. 2, lines 55-64 recite “when the rotor 10 is assembled, the side 38 of the support member 28 is in contact with the support member… the undulating portions of the support members 28 and 44 form a groove 47 which interlocks around the undulating sides 16 and 18 of the tongues 14…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing an interlocking system with undulating tongues that project out from the core to interlock with grooves provided on the wedges, as taught by Glaser, in order to hold the magnets between the wedges such that they are mechanically joined without the need for high temperature brazing or high pressure bonding methods of joining two dissimilar materials (Glaser col. 1, lines 43-50).
PNG
media_image6.png
317
511
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, but does not teach wherein at least one of the set of magnets is operably under compression between the at least one pair of wedges.
Glaser was discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above, and is deemed analogous art. The following discussion will continue referring to the annotated fig. 1 excerpt above.
Glaser teaches wherein the set of magnets [43] is operably under compression between the at least one pair of wedges [26/28/44/45/46] (because of the angle Ɵ, when the motor rotates the magnets will try to migrate outward against the slope and lodge themselves between the wedges via centrifugal force).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing an interlocking system with undulating tongues that project out from the core to interlock with grooves provided on the wedges, as taught by Glaser, in order to hold the magnets between the wedges such that they are mechanically joined without the need for high temperature brazing or high pressure bonding methods of joining two dissimilar materials (Glaser col. 1, lines 43-50).
With respect to claim 13/1, Zhang teaches the rotor of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the at least one of the pair of wedges comprises at least one interlocking structure that operably engage at least one of the set of magnets. It is noted that the wedges appear to have interlocking structures in the same area that fig. 2d of the instant application shows, but they are not described in such a way that the Examiner can allege for certain that they are what they appear to be.
Glaser was discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above, and is deemed analogous art. The following discussion will continue referring to the annotated fig. 1 excerpt above.
Glaser teaches wherein the at least one of the pair of wedges [26/28/44/45/46] comprises at least one interlocking structure [the angle Ɵ of wall 82 where the wedges meet the side surface of the magnets] (see fig. 4) that operably engage at least one of the set of magnets [43/68] (see the last clause of claim 1 of Glaser).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing an interlocking system with undulating tongues that project out from the core to interlock with grooves provided on the wedges, such that the magnets are radially constrained, as taught by Glaser, in order to hold the magnets between the wedges such that they are mechanically joined without the need for high temperature brazing or high pressure bonding methods of joining two dissimilar materials (Glaser col. 1, lines 43-50).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ko (US 2020/0014289 A1).
With respect to claim 17, Zhang teaches a Variable Flux Memory Motor (VFMM) {see abstract – also, ¶ 0029 recites “as shown in fig. 3, the present embodiment is a 72 slot/6 pole motor including a rotor of the permanent magnet synchronous motor with a reverse salient pole characteristic…”} comprising:
a stator (see ¶ 0029 which recites “the rotor being nested inside the stator…” – the stator is unlabeled in fig. 3 but clearly shown);
a rotor, (see line 1 of the abstract), the rotor comprising:
a rotor core [support member 6];
a set of magnets [permanent magnets 3] configured to be operably magnetizable and de-magnetizable (all permanent magnets can be magnetized and demagnetized – further, ¶ 0028 of the translation recites “if the permanent magnet with low coercive force is adopted…” which means that the magnets are more easily magnetized and demagnetized than high coercivity magnets and/or medium-coercivity magnets); and
PNG
media_image1.png
708
1206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one pair of wedges (see the annotated excerpts of figs. 1-3 attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled one pair, all pairs being part of the overall structure 5 which the reference calls a “core” because it is magnetic iron, as opposed to the present application which calls the support member a “core” apparently because it is in the center of the rotor) extending from the rotor core [6] (¶ 0024 recites “the rotor core 5 is further provided with a support member 6 on an inner circumference thereof”), each wedge of the at least one pair of wedges being operably coupled with a subset [subset 1, labeled by the Examiner] of the set of magnets [3] and a corresponding rib [outer circle] (labeled “rib” by the Examiner and established by ¶ 0025 which recites “a third magnetic barrier 4 is further arranged between the permanent magnet 3 and the outer circle of the rotor core 5…” – it is noted that although the rib is labeled “7” in fig. 3, this is not described in the translation – the rib is evidenced by its having the same gray color as the wedges, as opposed to white which establishes the voids, i.e. flux barriers).
Zhang omits wherein the rotor being operably connected to a shaft and wherein the rotor is configured to operably rotate the shaft in response to the stator.
Ko is nearly identical to Zhang except it omits the rib and has a fixed magnet 181a radially outside of the variable magnet 191a where Zhang’s flux barrier is, and so is deemed analogous art.
PNG
media_image7.png
563
441
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ko teaches a rotor [160] connected to a shaft [161] (see fig. 2 above and also ¶ 0061-0062, 0070, and 0080), the rotor [160] being operably configured to operably rotate the shaft in response to the stator [131] (see ¶ 0169-0170 which recite, inter alia, when the magnetic flu generated in the stator 130 passes through…. the variable magnet 191 may be demagnetized… after the demagnetization of the variable magnet 191, the rotor 160 can be rotated by interaction…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor of Zhang, while utilizing s shaft, as taught by Ko, in order for Zhang’s machine to drive an external element to perform work, as is well known in the art. Zhang’s authors clearly omitted inclusion and discussion of its shaft because they knew that readers of ordinary skill in the art would know the shaft is part of the machine, where it is located, and how it operates, and focused their discussion instead on more salient issues they wished to convey. In no reasonable interpretation would one of ordinary skill in the art expect to operate Zhang’s machine without a shaft.
With respect to claim 18/17, Zhang in view of Ko teaches the motor of claim 17, Zhang further teaches at least one pair of wedges coupled with each other (by the bridge).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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