DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment/Remarks filed on 03/06/2026. As directed by the amendment: no claims have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (hereinafter “Yamada”) (Pub. No.: US 2011/0001370 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada discloses an integrated electro-hydraulic unit (see Abstract) comprising:
a stator (stator 18 of the electric motor 7 is provided at an outer periphery of the rotor 16, as stated in Paragraph [0067])
a plurality of rotor magnets (magnets 17 that are arranged around a rotor 16, see Paragraph [0061]);
a shaft (driving shaft 3 of the hydraulic motor 2, see Paragraph [0068]);
a cylinder block (cylinder block 11, as discussed in Paragraph [0067]) coupled to the shaft (cylinder block 11 is undoubtedly coupled to the driving shaft 3, as best seen in annotated Figure 3) and configured to rotate around a central axis (the cylinder block 12 is undoubtedly being configured to rotate about a central axis AA of the driving shaft 3, as depicted in annotated Figure 1), the cylinder block (cylinder block 11, as shown in annotated Figure 3) receiving the plurality of rotor magnets (as best seen in annotated Figure 3, the cylinder block 11 is surely receiving the plurality of magnets 17); and
a plurality of pistons (pistons 13) received in the cylinder block (pistons 13 being arranged in the circumferential direction of the driving shaft 3 while being received in the cylinder block 11, as detailed in Paragraph [0060]), the plurality of pistons (pistons 13) configured to reciprocate (capable of reciprocating within the cylinders 12, as stated in Paragraph [0059]) with respect to the cylinder block in response to rotation of the cylinder block (the pistons 13 reciprocates in the cylinders 12 along an axial direction (right-and-left direction) and by causing the pistons 13 generating the torque to move in the circumferential direction, the cylinder block 11 and the driving shaft 3 are integrally rotated, as noted in Paragraph [0060]).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Particularly, Yamada demonstrates the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, wherein, as stated in Paragraph [0061], “the electric motor 7 is a synchronous motor configured such that magnets 17 are arranged around a rotor 16, and an armature winding 19 is provided at a stator 18. The electric motor 7 is configured such that the rotor 16 is fixed to the driving shaft 3, and the stator 18 is fixed to an inner side portion of the casing 4. The electric motor 7 is configured such that: a magnetic field is generated by supplying current to the armature winding 19 provided at the stator 18; by electromagnetic force generated by changing the magnetic field, a driving force is generated at the magnets 17 arranged around the rotor 16; and the driving shaft 3 is thus rotated integrally with the rotor 16. Wires and the like related to the driving of the electric motor 7 are not shown. Moreover, the electric motor may be an induction motor which does not use magnets.”
PNG
media_image2.png
710
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As best seen in annotated Figure 3, Yamada evidently illustrates as how an air gap being defined by an outer surface of the cylinder block 11 and the stator 18.
Further, rotor 16 that receives magnets 17 is fixed to cylinder block 11 and cylinder block 11 rotates together with rotor 16 Yamada as disclosed in paragraph [0061], thus forming an integrated motor. Although rotor 16 of motor 7 and cylinder 11 of motor 2 appear to be two separate structures that are fixed to each other, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor 16 and cylinder 11 as an integral one-piece structurer since it has been held “that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In addition, Yamada discloses that oil passages 36 are provided in rotor 16 in its circumferential direction as shown in annotated Figure 5 and disclosed in paragraph [0079]. As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, forming oil passages 36 would be easier and would require less parts and less process steps if rotor 16 and cylinder block 11 were formed as a unitary one-piece construction.
PNG
media_image3.png
530
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize that a cylinder block 11 receiving the plurality of rotor magnets 17 while a plurality of pistons 13 received in the cylinder block 11, as instantly claimed.
Thus, Yamada appears to disclose all aspects of Applicant’s claimed invention.
7. Claims 1, 7-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Horii et al. (hereinafter “Horii”) (Pub. No.: US 2016/0149450 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses an integrated electro-hydraulic unit (see Abstract) comprising:
a stator (stator 18 of the electric motor 7 is provided at an outer periphery of the rotor 16, as stated in Paragraph [0067])
a shaft (driving shaft 3 of the hydraulic motor 2, see Paragraph [0068]);
a cylinder block (cylinder block 11, as discussed in Paragraph [0067]) coupled to the shaft (cylinder block 11 is undoubtedly coupled to the driving shaft 3, as best seen in annotated Figure 3) and configured to rotate around a central axis (the cylinder block 12 is undoubtedly being configured to rotate about a central axis AA of the driving shaft 3, as depicted in annotated Figure 1);
a plurality of pistons (pistons 13, as detailed in Paragraphs [0059]-[0060]) received in the cylinder block (received in the cylinder block 11, as detailed in Paragraph [0060]) the plurality of pistons (plurality of pistons 13) configured to reciprocate (capable of reciprocating within the cylinders 12, as expressly stated in Paragraph [0059]) with respect to the cylinder block (with respect to the cylinder block 11 that includes a plurality of cylinders 12, as discussed in Paragraph [0060]) in response to rotation of the cylinder block (the pistons 13 reciprocates in the cylinders 12 along an axial direction (right-and-left direction) and by causing the pistons 13 generating the torque to move in the circumferential direction, the cylinder block 11 and the driving shaft 3 are integrally rotated, as noted in Paragraph [0060]); and
a plurality of rotor magnets (magnets 17 that are arranged around a rotor 16, see Paragraph [0061]) wherein the cylinder block (cylinder block 11) includes a shaft aperture along the central axis configured to receive the shaft (as best seen in annotated Figure 3, the cylinder block 11 is clearly including a shaft aperture SA3 along the central axis AA configured to receive the driving shaft 3 of the hydraulic motor 2),
a plurality of piston apertures (inner surfaces IS12 of each of the plurality of cylinders 12 defines a plurality of piston apertures, as shown in annotated Figure 3) each configured to receive a piston of the plurality of pistons (each inner surface IS12 configured to receive the piston 13, as depicted in annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
724
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Particularly, Yamada demonstrates the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, wherein, as stated in Paragraph [0061], “the electric motor 7 is a synchronous motor configured such that magnets 17 are arranged around a rotor 16, and an armature winding 19 is provided at a stator 18. The electric motor 7 is configured such that the rotor 16 is fixed to the driving shaft 3, and the stator 18 is fixed to an inner side portion of the casing 4. The electric motor 7 is configured such that: a magnetic field is generated by supplying current to the armature winding 19 provided at the stator 18; by electromagnetic force generated by changing the magnetic field, a driving force is generated at the magnets 17 arranged around the rotor 16; and the driving shaft 3 is thus rotated integrally with the rotor 16.”
Further, rotor 16 that receives magnets 17 is fixed to cylinder block 11 and cylinder block 11 rotates together with rotor 16 Yamada as disclosed in paragraph [0061], thus forming an integrated motor. Although rotor 16 of motor 7 and cylinder 11 of motor 2 appear to be two separate structures that are fixed to each other, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor 16 and cylinder 11 as an integral one-piece structurer since it has been held “that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In addition, Yamada discloses that oil passages 36 are provided in rotor 16 in its circumferential direction as shown in annotated Figure 5 and disclosed in paragraph [0079]. As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, forming oil passages 36 would be easier and would require less parts and less process steps if rotor 16 and cylinder block 11 were formed as a unitary one-piece construction.
PNG
media_image3.png
530
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As outlined above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design Yamada’s integrated electro-hydraulic unit such that the plurality of rotor magnets 17 and the a plurality of pistons 13 are received in the cylinder block 11 by forming cylinder 11 and rotor 16 as a unitary ne-piece structure.
Although Yamada discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, he is silent as to the specifics regarding magnet apertures.
Nonetheless, internal rotors having a plurality of pockets or apertures or openings or holes for receiving a plurality of magnets are well-known in the art, as taught by Horii.
Horii in the same field of endeavor teaches another inner-rotor motor, wherein, as stated in Abstract, “a permanent magnet 21 is housed in a magnet housing aperture 20, an adhesive is disposed only between an outside wall surface 20 a that is positioned on a radially outer side of an inner wall surface of the magnet housing aperture 20 and an outside surface 21a that is positioned on a radially outer side of a surface of the permanent magnet 21 such that the permanent magnet 21 is fixed so as to be closer to the outside wall surface 20a, and a cooling flow channel 23 through which a coolant is made to flow is formed by an inside surface 21b that is positioned on a radially inner side of the surface of the permanent magnet 21 and an inside wall surface 20b that is positioned on a radially inner side of the inner wall surface of the magnet housing aperture 20”.
Horii, in Paragraph [0026], explicitly teaches: The rotor 15 includes: a cylindrical rotor core 17; the shaft 16, which is press-fitted into and fixed to a shaft insertion aperture 19 that is formed so as to pass through a central axial position of the rotor core 17; sixteen permanent magnets 21 that are each mounted so as to pass through an outer circumferential side of the rotor core 17; and a first end plate 25 and a second end plate 29 that are press-fitted onto and fixed to the shaft 16, and that are disposed so as to contact two axial end surfaces of the rotor core 17.
Further, in Paragraph [0044], Horii especially details: The adhesive 22 that fixes the permanent magnets 21 is applied only between the outside surfaces 21a of the permanent magnets 21 and the outside wall surfaces 20a of the magnet housing apertures 20. Thus, usage of the adhesive 22 is reduced, enabling costs to be reduced. Because the cross-sectional area of the magnet housing apertures 20 can be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the amount of adhesive 22, distances between the permanent magnets 21 and the inner wall surfaces of the magnet housing apertures 20 are shortened, suppressing increases in magnetoresistance between the permanent magnets 21 and the rotor core 17. Reductions in the amount of magnetic flux from the permanent magnets 21 that result from increases in magnetoresistance can thereby be suppressed.
PNG
media_image5.png
660
752
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, most importantly in Horii is his idea of utilizing the permanent magnets within magnet housing apertures 20.
Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that applying an idea of providing the magnet housing apertures 20, as taught by Horii, to another internal rotor would improve efficiency and/or would further increase magnetic resistance between the permanent magnets and the rotor core.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using magnet housing apertures 20, as taught by Horii, in the rotor of Yamada, in order to further increase magnetic resistance between the permanent magnets and the rotor core and/or further lead to reductions in the amount of magnetic flux from the permanent magnets, as motivated by Horii in Paragraph [0006].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably apprised that a plurality of magnet apertures would be further configured to further receive the plurality of rotor magnets to further form a rotor, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 7 and 8-9, Yamada and Horii substantially disclose the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, as claimed and detailed above.
PNG
media_image6.png
724
700
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Additionally, as best seen immediately above, Yamada evidently demonstrates as how the shaft aperture AS3 and the plurality of piston apertures PA12 extending continuously through the cylinder block 11 while being disposed symmetrically about the central axis AA.
PNG
media_image7.png
440
610
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
500
462
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Moreover, in Paragraph [0066], Horii explicitly teaches as how: magnet housing apertures 20A are formed on a rotor core 17A such that two width direction ends of inside wall surfaces 20 b thereof protrude radially outward. The protruding portions of the two-width direction ends of the inside wall surfaces 20b of the magnet housing apertures 20A constitute supporting portions 43.
As such, according to the combination, the Examiner must assert that the plurality of magnet apertures 20 would be surely extending continuously through the cylinder block 11 of Yamada and/or would be disposed symmetrically about the central axis YY, as depicted in annotated Figures 1&7.
Therefore, according to the combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the shaft aperture AS3, the plurality of piston apertures PA12, and the plurality of magnet apertures 20 extend continuously through the cylinder block 11 and/or each of the plurality of rotor magnets 21 would be extending continuously through a corresponding one of the plurality of magnet apertures 20 and/or the shaft aperture SA3, the plurality of piston apertures PA12, and the plurality of magnet apertures 20 would be disposed symmetrically about the central axis, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Regarding claims 11 and 12-13, Yamada and Horii substantially disclose the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, in Abstract, Horii expressly states that: a permanent magnet 21 is housed in a magnet housing aperture 20, an adhesive is disposed only between an outside wall surface 20a that is positioned on a radially outer side of an inner wall surface of the magnet housing aperture 20 and an outside surface 21a that is positioned on a radially outer side of a surface of the permanent magnet 21 such that the permanent magnet 21 is fixed so as to be closer to the outside wall surface 20a.
Further, in Paragraph [0043], Horii discloses: the outside surfaces 21a of the permanent magnets 21 are fixed adhesively to the outside wall surfaces 20a of the magnet housing apertures 20, and the permanent magnets 21 are positioned on a side near the outside wall surfaces 20a inside the magnet housing apertures 20.
Furthermore, in Paragraph [0068], Horii more specifically teaches as how: In a rotor 15A that uses a rotor core 17A that is configured in this manner, two width direction ends of the inside surfaces 21b of the permanent magnets 21 that are housed inside the magnet housing apertures 20A are supported by the supporting portions 43. Thus, because the layers of adhesive 22 that glue together the outside surfaces 21a of the permanent magnets 21 and the outside wall surfaces 20a of the magnet housing apertures 20A can be made thinner, the cross-sectional area of the magnet housing apertures 20A can be reduced in proportion to the reductions in the layers of adhesive 22, suppressing reductions in the amount of magnetic flux from the permanent magnets 21.
In fact, Horii’s rotor assembly is certainly configured such that a gap disposed between each of the plurality of rotor magnets 21 and a corresponding one of the plurality of magnet apertures 20 and/or each gap accommodates glue or layers of adhesive that bonds the rotor magnet 21 in the corresponding magnet aperture 20, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Hence, in light of these advantages, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of using permanent magnets, corresponding magnet housing aperture 20 and adhesive, as taught by Horii, in the rotor of Yamada/ Horii, in order to further provide increasing magnetic resistance between the permanent magnets and the rotor core, as motivated by Horii in Paragraph [0006].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that each of the plurality of rotor magnets would be further being a permanent magnet and/or each of the plurality of rotor magnets would be further coupled to the plurality of magnet apertures via glue and/or a gap would be further disposed between each of the plurality of rotor magnets and a corresponding one of the plurality of magnet apertures and/or each gap would be further accommodating glue that would be further bonding the rotor magnet in the corresponding magnet aperture, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Yamada substantially discloses the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, as best seen immediately below, Yamada evidently demonstrates as how the shaft aperture AS3 and the plurality of piston apertures PA12 extending continuously through the cylinder block 11 while being disposed symmetrically about the central axis AA.
PNG
media_image6.png
724
700
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In fact, as depicted in annotated Figure 3, Yamada certainly exhibits as how the cylinder block 11 includes a shaft aperture AS3 along the central axis AA configured to receive the shaft/driving shaft 3, a plurality of piston apertures PA12, wherein each configured to receive a piston 13 of the plurality of pistons 13.
Although Yamada discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, he is silent as to the specifics regarding magnet apertures.
Nonetheless, internal rotors having a plurality of pockets or apertures or openings or holes for receiving a plurality of magnets are well-known in the art, as taught by Horii.
Horii in the same field of endeavor teaches another inner-rotor motor, wherein, as stated in Abstract, “a permanent magnet 21 is housed in a magnet housing aperture 20, an adhesive is disposed only between an outside wall surface 20 a that is positioned on a radially outer side of an inner wall surface of the magnet housing aperture 20 and an outside surface 21a that is positioned on a radially outer side of a surface of the permanent magnet 21 such that the permanent magnet 21 is fixed so as to be closer to the outside wall surface 20a, and a cooling flow channel 23 through which a coolant is made to flow is formed by an inside surface 21b that is positioned on a radially inner side of the surface of the permanent magnet 21 and an inside wall surface 20b that is positioned on a radially inner side of the inner wall surface of the magnet housing aperture 20”.
Horii, in Paragraph [0026], explicitly teaches: The rotor 15 includes: a cylindrical rotor core 17; the shaft 16, which is press-fitted into and fixed to a shaft insertion aperture 19 that is formed so as to pass through a central axial position of the rotor core 17; sixteen permanent magnets 21 that are each mounted so as to pass through an outer circumferential side of the rotor core 17; and a first end plate 25 and a second end plate 29 that are press-fitted onto and fixed to the shaft 16, and that are disposed so as to contact two axial end surfaces of the rotor core 17.
PNG
media_image5.png
660
752
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Further, in Paragraph [0044], Horii especially details: The adhesive 22 that fixes the permanent magnets 21 is applied only between the outside surfaces 21a of the permanent magnets 21 and the outside wall surfaces 20a of the magnet housing apertures 20. Thus, usage of the adhesive 22 is reduced, enabling costs to be reduced. Because the cross-sectional area of the magnet housing apertures 20 can be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the amount of adhesive 22, distances between the permanent magnets 21 and the inner wall surfaces of the magnet housing apertures 20 are shortened, suppressing increases in magnetoresistance between the permanent magnets 21 and the rotor core 17. Reductions in the amount of magnetic flux from the permanent magnets 21 that result from increases in magnetoresistance can thereby be suppressed.
However, most importantly in Horii is his idea of utilizing the permanent magnets within magnet housing apertures 20.
Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that applying an idea of providing the magnet housing apertures 20, as taught by Horii, to another internal rotor would improve efficiency and/or would further increase magnetic resistance between the permanent magnets and the rotor core.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using magnet housing apertures 20, as taught by Horii, in the rotor of Yamada, in order to further increase magnetic resistance between the permanent magnets and the rotor core and/or further lead to reductions in the amount of magnetic flux from the permanent magnets, as motivated by Horii in Paragraph [0006].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably apprised that a plurality of magnet apertures would be further configured to further receive the plurality of rotor magnets to further form a rotor and/or the shaft aperture SA3, the plurality of piston apertures PA12, and the plurality of magnet apertures or magnet housing apertures 20 would be further extending continuously or without interruptions through the cylinder block 11, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Yamada and Horii substantially disclose the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, as best seen immediately below, Yamada evidently demonstrates as how the shaft aperture AS3 and the plurality of piston apertures PA12 extending continuously through the cylinder block 11 while being disposed symmetrically about the central axis AA.
In fact, as depicted in annotated Figure 3, Yamada certainly exhibits as how the cylinder block 11 includes a shaft aperture AS3 along the central axis AA configured to receive the shaft/driving shaft 3, a plurality of piston apertures PA12, wherein each configured to receive a piston 13 of the plurality of pistons 13.
With reference to annotated Figure 3 again, Yamada successfully illustrates as how the magnets 17 being positioned around the piston apertures PA12 extending continuously through the cylinder block 11.
PNG
media_image6.png
724
700
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In addition, Horii, in Paragraph [0032], explicitly teaches that: eight rotor grooves 24 that have a groove direction in an axial direction are respectively formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotor core 17 so as to have groove shapes that have an identical rectangular cross section so as to extend from a first axial end to a second end of the rotor core 17, and are arranged at a uniform angular pitch circumferentially. Circumferential centers of these rotor grooves 24 are positioned between adjacent magnetic poles.
Specifically, the integrated electro-hydraulic unit of Yamada/ Horii utilizes spatial relationships existing between the piston bores of Yamada and magnets bores, as disclosed by Horii.
Clearly, according to the combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would surely recognize that magnet bores would be disposed around the piston bores.
In other words, according to the combination, one skilled in the art would surely recognize that the plurality of piston apertures would be further including a piston pitch circle diameter and the plurality of magnet apertures would be further including a magnet pitch circle diameter, wherein the magnet pitch circle diameter would be necessarily larger than the piston pitch circle diameter since the magnets are disposed around the pistons, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Yamada substantially discloses the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in Paragraph [0061], Yamada especially notes that: The electric motor 7 is a synchronous motor configured such that magnets 17 are arranged around a rotor 16, and an armature winding 19 is provided at a stator 18. The electric motor 7 is configured such that the rotor 16 is fixed to the driving shaft 3, and the stator 18 is fixed to an inner side portion of the casing 4. The electric motor 7 is configured such that: a magnetic field is generated by supplying current to the armature winding 19 provided at the stator 18; by electromagnetic force generated by changing the magnetic field, a driving force is generated at the magnets 17 arranged around the rotor 16.
However, although Yamada discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, he is still silent as to the fact that each of the plurality of rotor magnets being coupled to the cylinder block via an interference fit.
Horii in the same field of endeavor teaches another inner-rotor motor, wherein, as stated in Abstract, “a permanent magnet 21 is housed in a magnet housing aperture 20, an adhesive is disposed only between an outside wall surface 20 a that is positioned on a radially outer side of an inner wall surface of the magnet housing aperture 20 and an outside surface 21a that is positioned on a radially outer side of a surface of the permanent magnet 21 such that the permanent magnet 21 is fixed so as to be closer to the outside wall surface 20a, and a cooling flow channel 23 through which a coolant is made to flow is formed by an inside surface 21b that is positioned on a radially inner side of the surface of the permanent magnet 21 and an inside wall surface 20b that is positioned on a radially inner side of the inner wall surface of the magnet housing aperture 20”.
Further, in Paragraph [0044], Horii especially details that: The adhesive 22 that fixes the permanent magnets 21 is applied only between the outside surfaces 21a of the permanent magnets 21 and the outside wall surfaces 20a of the magnet housing apertures 20. Thus, usage of the adhesive 22 is reduced, enabling costs to be reduced. Because the cross-sectional area of the magnet housing apertures 20 can be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the amount of adhesive 22, distances between the permanent magnets 21 and the inner wall surfaces of the magnet housing apertures 20 are shortened, suppressing increases in magnetoresistance between the permanent magnets 21 and the rotor core 17. Reductions in the amount of magnetic flux from the permanent magnets 21 that result from increases in magnetoresistance can thereby be suppressed.
Hence, although Horii teaches using adhesive to secure the magnets in the magnet housing apertures using glue, it is well-known to also use interference fit to secure parts in apertures.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have coupled the plurality of rotor magnets of Yamada/Horii to the cylinder block using interference fit instead of adhesive as an obvious matter of design choice since it would have amounted to choosing between well-known methods of securing parts within apertures with a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that each of the plurality of rotor magnets would be further coupled to the cylinder block via an interference fit, as instantly claimed.
8. Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Horii, and further in view of Claar et al. (hereinafter “Claar”) (Patent No.: US 5,708,311).
Regarding claims 2-3, Yamada and Horii substantially disclose the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, as claimed and detailed above. Although the combination of Yamada and Horii discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, it is still silent as to the fact that the cylinder block comprises a plurality of stacked metal plates and/or that at least two of the plurality of stacked metal plates being uniform in structure with one another.
Nonetheless, the use of rotors having the claimed structure is well-known in the art, as taught by Claar. Claar in the same field of endeavor teaches another integrated electric motor-driven in-line hydraulic pump that includes a housing with an internal shaft, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 3 of Yamada, and performs as how “the rotor of an electric motor has an internally affixed bearing sleeve that is rotatably supported with respect to the shaft surrounding the cylinder block within the housing” (see Abstract).
Claar, in column 2 lines 42-50, successfully teaches as how: An electric motor 50 is mounted within housing 12 and operatively coupled to cylinder block 24. More specifically, motor 50 includes a rotor 52 having a multiplicity of stacked laminations with an internal cylindrical bore 54.
Clearly, with reference to annotated Figure 1, Claar explicitly exhibits as how the cylinder block 24 comprising an assembly of multiple laminations or plurality of stacked metal plates and/or how entire stack is held together and/or how at least two of the plurality of stacked metal plates or laminations being uniform in structure with one another, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a plurality of laminations of an inner rotor that are assembled to form the core of an electric motor’s rotor, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of multiple laminations assembled with each other in integrated electro-hydraulic unit, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to improve energy efficiency and to prevent overheating in the unit. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the cylinder block would be further comprising a plurality of stacked metal plates and/or at least two of the plurality of stacked metal plates would be further being uniform in structure with one another, as instantly claimed.
9. Claims 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Horii, and further in view of Wagenseil et al. (hereinafter “Wagenseil”) (Patent No.: US 4,602,554 A).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada and Horii substantially disclose the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, as claimed and detailed above.
However, although the combination of Yamada and Horii discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it does not explicitly disclose that the cylinder block comprising a plurality of sleeves received within the plurality of piston apertures.
Nevertheless, Wagenseil in the same field of endeavor teaches another axial piston pump, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 3, and performs as how: The pistons 8 are driven by the inclined disc 5, against which the pistons 8 are held only axially. That is to say, as the cylinder 9 rotates, the sliding blocks 6 slide in a circumferential direction against the inclined disc 5, thereby producing the axial movement of the pistons 8 (see column 4 lines 30-40).
Wagenseil, in column 4 lines 40-48, specifically teaches that: The cylinder 9 has a bore 15 through which a driving shaft 4 engages with play, and which driving shaft is supported in the region of its ends by means of roller bearings 16 and 17. The cylinder 9 is supported against the driving shaft 4 only at its end which is remote from the control surface 13, by a radially acting support 18. Between the driving shaft 4 and the support 18 there is a rotational-drive connection 19, acting in a circumferential direction, in the form of a keyway connection.
PNG
media_image9.png
808
776
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As best seen in annotated Figure 1, Wagenseil explicitly exhibits as how the cylinder or cylinder block or block 9 comprising a plurality of sleeves S9 received within the plurality of piston apertures or control openings 14 and/or how each of the plurality of sleeves including an outer sleeve diameter DS9 while each of the plurality of piston apertures including a diameter DP and/or the outer sleeve diameter DS9 being larger than the diameter DP of the plurality of piston apertures and/or each of the plurality of sleeves extending continuously through a corresponding one of the plurality of piston apertures.
PNG
media_image10.png
670
970
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using sleeves that are received within the plurality of piston apertures, as taught by Wagenseil, with the cylinder block of Yamada/Horii, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of a sleeves in an integrated electro-hydraulic unit to achieve predictable results, in this case, to control the fluid flow through the system. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the cylinder block would be further comprising a plurality of sleeves received within the plurality of piston apertures and/or each of the plurality of sleeves would be further directly receiving a piston 13 of the plurality of pistons 13, as taught by Yamada, and/or each of the plurality of sleeves S9 would be further including an outer sleeve diameter DS9 and each of the plurality of piston apertures would be further including a diameter and/or the outer sleeve diameter DS9 would be further larger than the diameter DP of the plurality of piston apertures and/or each of the plurality of sleeves would be further extending continuously through a corresponding one of the plurality of piston apertures, as instantly claimed.
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Yamada et al. (hereinafter “Yamada’394”) (Patent No.: US 2013/0177394 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada substantially discloses the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, as claimed and detailed above.
PNG
media_image1.png
724
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, with reference to annotated Figure 3, Yamada explicitly exhibits as how the cylinder block includes a shaft aperture SA3 along the central axis AA configured to receive the shaft or driving shaft 3.
Although Yamada discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, he is silent as to the fact that the shaft aperture including a keyway.
Nonetheless, the use of a keyway in a shaft aperture is well-known in the art, as taught by Yamada’394.
Yamada’394 in the same field of endeavor successfully teaches as how: A recess 37 into which the rotating shaft 11 of the inserted oil-pressure motor 10 is inserted is formed on an inner bottom surface of the iron core 32a. A plurality of keyways 37a extending in parallel with the axis line Li and formed for spline coupling are formed on an inner peripheral surface of the recess 37 so as to be spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction. A plurality of keys 11a corresponding to the plurality of keyways 37a are formed on one end portion of the rotating shaft 11. The plurality of keys 11a extend in parallel with the axis line L1 and are formed to be spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction. The iron core 32a and the rotating shaft 11 engage with each other such that the recess 37 and the keys 11a engage with each other. The keyways 37a and the keys 11a are designed such that a valley portion of each keyway 37a and a tip end portion of each key 11a are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance d in the radial direction. With this, a gap S is formed between the keyway 37a and the key 11a, and the relative displacement of the rotating shaft 11 with respect to the rotor 32 in the recess 37 is allowed. The keyways 37a and the keys 11a constitute a spline joint portion 38 (see Paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
Likewise, in Paragraph [0060], Yamada’394 specifies: Keys 11a are formed on an outer peripheral surface of a portion of the rotary output shaft 11B, the portion penetrating the rotor 32. Keyways 37a are formed on the iron core 32a of the rotor 32 so as to correspond to the keys 11a. The keys 11a and the keyways 37a constitute the spline joint portion 38, and the rotary output shaft 11B and the rotor 32 engage with each other.
PNG
media_image11.png
406
520
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of using a keyway, as taught by Yamada’394, with the drive shaft of Yamada, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of a keyway in a rotor assembly to achieve predictable results, in this case, to further control the spline joint portion. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the cylinder block would be further including a shaft aperture along the central axis configured to further receive the shaft and/or the shaft aperture would be further including a keyway, as instantly claimed.
11. Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Claar.
Regarding claim 16, Yamada substantially discloses the integrated electro-hydraulic unit, as claimed and detailed above.
Although Yamada discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, it is still silent as to the fact that the cylinder block comprises a plurality of stacked metal plates.
Nonetheless, the use of rotors having the claimed structure is well-known in the art, as taught by Claar. Claar in the same field of endeavor teaches another integrated electric motor-driven in-line hydraulic pump that includes a housing with an internal shaft, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 3 of Yamada, and performs as how “the rotor of an electric motor has an internally affixed bearing sleeve that is rotatably supported with respect to the shaft surrounding the cylinder block within the housing” (see Abstract).
Claar, in column 2 lines 42-50, successfully teaches as how: An electric motor 50 is mounted within housing 12 and operatively coupled to cylinder block 24. More specifically, motor 50 includes a rotor 52 having a multiplicity of stacked laminations with an internal cylindrical bore 54.
Clearly, with reference to annotated Figure 1, Claar explicitly exhibits as how the cylinder block 24 comprising an assembly of multiple laminations or plurality of stacked metal plates and/or how entire stack is held together and/or how at least two of the plurality of stacked metal plates or laminations being uniform in structure with one another, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a plurality of laminations of an inner rotor that are assembled to form the core of an electric motor’s rotor, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of multiple laminations assembled with each other in integrated electro-hydraulic unit, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to improve energy efficiency and to prevent overheating in the unit. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that the cylinder block would be further comprising a plurality of stacked metal plates, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicants’ arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants' arguments reside in contention that “Yamada and Horii, alone, or in combination, do not disclose a cylinder block receiving both pistons and magnets, as claimed in claims 1 and 14.” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 7, first paragraph).
In particular, Applicants argue that, because “the alleged cylinder block (cylinder block 11) is coupled to the rotor 16, and the rotor magnets 17 are received in the rotor 16. In contrast to claims 1 and 14, the cylinder block 11 does not receive the rotor magnets 17”, and because “even if the rotor 16 of Yamada was modified with the magnet housing apertures 20 of Horii, which Applicant does not concede, modified Yamada would still have a rotor 15 that is separate from the cylinder block 11” (see Applicant’s Remarks on page 8, first paragraph), the Applicants disagree with the combinations of the references in arriving at the claimed invention.
Further, Applicants argue that since “FIGS. 5 and 6 of the present application (…), in which the cylinder block 100 includes magnet apertures 116 that receive the magnets 132. The cylinder block 100 includes piston apertures 112 that receive sleeves 124, which receive the pistons 70. That is, the cylinder block 100 also serves as the rotor, (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 6, last paragraph), and thus, “the cylinder block 11 does not receive the rotor magnets, as claimed in 1 and 14” (see Applicant’s Remarks at page 8, first paragraph).
As outlined in the rejections, rotor 16 that receives magnets 17 is fixed to cylinder block 11 and cylinder block 11 rotates together with rotor 16 Yamada as disclosed in paragraph [0061], thus forming an integrated motor. Although rotor 16 of motor 7 and cylinder 11 of motor 2 appear to be two separate structures that are fixed to each other, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed rotor 16 and cylinder 11 as an integral one-piece structurer since it has been held “that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). In addition, Yamada discloses that oil passages 36 are provided in rotor 16 in its circumferential direction as shown in annotated Figure 5 and disclosed in paragraph [0079]. As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, forming oil passages 36 would be easier and would require less parts and less process steps if rotor 16 and cylinder block 11 were formed as a unitary one-piece construction.
Applicant's assertions of the allowability of claims 2-13 and 15-20 are based on the alleged distinction between the Yamada reference and/ Yamada and Horii references and the claimed invention however, the arguments related to the Yamada reference were found to be unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILYA PEKARSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights