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 .
Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of Amendment filed September 16, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recitation of “the outer center bridges and the inner center bridges each incline with their radially outer sides fanning out” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2021/0135521 A1) in view of Misu et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2017/0019006 A1).
For claim 1, Makino et al. disclose the claimed invention comprising: a rotor shaft (reference numeral 22) extending in a rotation axis direction (see figures 1, 2); a rotor core (reference numeral 24) attached to the rotor shaft (reference numeral 22, see figures 1, 2), and having, in each magnetic pole (reference numeral 14, see figure 2), a first outer through hole and a second outer through hole (i.e. outer holes 34A, figure 2) that are formed on a radially outer side to make a pair (see figure 2) and a first inner through hole and a second inner through hole (i.e. inner holes 34B, figure 2) that are formed on a more radially inner side than the first outer through hole and the second outer through hole to make a pair (see figure 2); a first outer magnet and a second outer magnet (i.e two magnets M1, see figure 2) housed in the first outer through hole and the second outer through hole (outer holes 34A, see figure 2) respectively; and a first inner magnet and a second inner magnet (i.e. two magnets M2, see figure 2) housed in the first inner through hole and the second inner through hole (inner holes 34B, see figure 2) respectively, wherein an outer opening angle between radially outward extension directions of a radially outer wall of the first outer through hole and a radially outer wall of the second outer through hole (i.e. angle formed by sides 37a of the two magnets M1, figure 2) is larger than an inner opening angle between radially outward extension directions of a radially outer wall of the first inner through hole and a radially outer wall of the second inner through hole (i.e. angle formed by sides 42a of the two magnets M2, see figure 2), and wherein an inter-inner through hole length between the first inner through hole and the second inner through hole (i.e. the length of section V2 in the circumferential direction of the rotor 24, see figure 2) is larger than an inter-outer through hole length between the first outer through hole and the second outer through hole (i.e. the length of section V1 in the circumferential direction of the rotor 24, see figure 2). Makino et al. however do not specifically disclose the first outer through hole and the second outer through hole being adjacent to each other across two outer center bridges therebetween and each of the two outer center bridges including a straight portion, wherein of the first inner through hole and the second inner through hole are adjacent to each other across two inner center bridges therebetween, and each of the two inner center bridges includes a straight portion, and wherein the outer center bridges and the inner center bridges each incline with their radially outer sides fanning out.
Misu et al. disclose two outer through holes (i.e. holes 11b, figure 2) being adjacent to each other across two outer center bridges (reference numeral 16b, figure 2) therebetween with the two outer center bridges including a straight portion (reference numeral 16b, see figure 2), and two inner through holes (i.e. holes 11a, figure 2) being adjacent to each other across two inner center bridges (reference numeral 16a, figure 2) therebetween with the two inner center bridges including a straight portion (reference numeral 16a, see figure 2), wherein the outer center bridges (reference numeral 16b) and the inner center bridges (reference numeral 16a) each incline with their radially outer sides fanning out (see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer center bridges and the inner center bridges as disclosed by Misu et al. for the first and second outer through holes and the first and second inner through holes of Makino et al. for providing a desired mechanical strength for the device (see Misu et al.’s paragraph [0018]).
For claim 4, Makino et al. disclose with respect to a d-axis which is a center of the magnetic pole (see figure 2), the first inner through hole and the second inner through hole being symmetrical (i.e. inner through holes 34B, see figure 2) and the first outer through hole and the second outer through hole being symmetrical (i.e. outer through holes 34A, see figure 2).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. in view of Misu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hisada et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2022/0209600 A1).
For claim 3, Makino et al. in view of Misu et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the first outer through hole and the second outer through hole, and the first inner through hole and the second inner through hole communicating with a radially outer side of the rotor core. Hisada et al. disclose the through holes for magnets (i.e. holes 34a for magnets M, see figure 8) communicating with a radially outer side of the rotor core (i.e. reference numeral 34c, see figure 8), which when applied to the outer through holes and inner through holes of Makino et al. in view of Misu et al. would disclose the first outer through hole and the second outer through hole, and the first inner through hole and the second inner through hole communicating with a radially outer side of the rotor core. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the through holes communicating with the radially outer side of the rotor core as disclosed by Hisada et al. for the outer through holes and inner through holes of Makino et al. in view of Misu et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating the flux characteristics of the device.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. in view of Misu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0228038 A1).
For claim 5, Makino et al. disclose the claimed invention of a permanent magnet rotary electric machine (see figure 1) comprising: the permanent magnet rotor according claim 1 (rotor 14, see figure 1); a stator having a stator core in a cylindrical shape (stator core 16, cylindrical as disclosed in paragraph [0021]) arranged on a radially outer side of the rotor core (see figure 1) and a stator winding (reference numeral 18) wound around the stator core (see figure 1). Makino et al. in view of Misu et al. however do not specifically disclose two bearings to rotatably support two sides of the rotor shaft in terms of the rotation axis direction; two bearing brackets to statically support the two bearings respectively; and a frame arranged to cover a radially outer side of the stator and to support the two bearing brackets. Takahashi discloses two bearings (reference numerals 6, 7) to rotatably support two sides of the rotor shaft (reference numeral 2) in terms of the rotation axis direction (see figure 1); two bearing brackets (i.e. portions of frame 4a, 4b attached to bearings 6, 7, see figure 1) to statically support the two bearings (reference numerals 6, 7, see figure 1) respectively; and a frame (reference numerals 4, 4a, 4b) arranged to cover a radially outer side of the stator (reference numeral 31) and to support the two bearing brackets (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bearings, bearing brackets, and the frame as disclosed by Takahashi for the rotor and stator of Makino et al. in view of Misu et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for facilitating the proper functioning of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ALEX W MOK whose telephone number is (571)272-9084. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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.
/ALEX W MOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834