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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025, 12/23/2025, and 01/23/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 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.
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 1-2, 4-6 ,8-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOKIZAWA ‘587 (US 20180331587; previously cited) in view of DAUGHERTY (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, TOKIZAWA ‘587 discloses a rotary electric machine (G) comprising:
a rotor core (GR)
a stator core (1) provided outside an outer periphery of the rotor core (GR) and including a steel plate (10; see para. [0035]) laminated in the axial direction, wherein
in the steel plate of the stator core (1), a plate thickness of an entire portion (13b) from a predetermined position to a radially outer edge in a radial direction around a rotation axis is smaller than a plate thickness of a portion (11, 12, 13b) from the predetermined position to a radially inner edge in the radial direction (see para [0035-0037]).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
212
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, TOKIZAWA ‘587 does not disclose a rotor core including a steel plate laminated in an axial direction of a rotation shaft of a rotor; and an average plate thickness of the steel plate of the stator core is smaller than an average plate thickness of the steel plate of the rotor core.
DAUGHERTY discloses a rotor core (44) including a steel plate (42) laminated in an axial direction of a rotation shaft (26) of a rotor (40) (see Fig. 2); and an average plate thickness of the steel plate of the stator core (32) is smaller than an average plate thickness of the steel plate of the rotor core (44) (see para [0032]).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
778
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to provide the machine of TOKIZAWA ‘587 with a rotor core including a steel plate laminated in an axial direction of a rotation shaft of a rotor; and an average plate thickness of the steel plate of the stator core is smaller than an average plate thickness of the steel plate of the rotor core, similar to DAUGHERTY.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide for a more mechanically robust rotor lamination while decreasing the core losses due to eddy currents in the stator lamination, as taught by DAUGHERTY (see para [0032 and 0035])
Regarding claim 2, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein
TOKIZAWA ‘587 teaches the stator core (1) includes a yoke portion (13) extending in a circumferential direction around the rotation axis, and a tooth portion (11) extending from the yoke portion (13) toward the rotation axis, and
the predetermined position is included in the yoke portion (13) (see para [0035-0037]).
Regarding claim 4, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein
TOKIZAWA ‘587 teaches a plate thickness of a portion of the stator core (1) between the predetermined position and the radially outer edge decreases toward the radially outer edge (see Fig 2d and 2f).
Regarding claim 5, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein
DAUGHERTY teaches the mechanical strength of the steel sheet (30) of the stator core (32) is lower than mechanical strength of the steel sheet (42) of the rotor core (44) (see para [0030]).
Regarding claim 6, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein
DAUGHERTY teaches magnetic permeability of the steel sheet (42) of the rotor core (44) is higher than magnetic permeability of the steel sheet (30) of the stator core (32) (see para [0029] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1,
DAUGHERTY teaches a housing (12) accommodating the rotor (40) and the stator core (32), wherein the housing accommodates a cooling fluid inside together with the rotor (40) and the stator core (32), and
the rotor (40) and the stator core (32) are installed in the housing (12) so that the cooling fluid is flowable on an outer peripheral surface (68) of the stator core (32) (see para [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1,
DAUGHERTY teaches a cooling jacket (68) arranged at an outer periphery of the stator core (32) and including a flow portion through which a cooling fluid flows(see para [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein
TOKIZAWA ‘587 teaches in the steel plate of the stator core (1), the entire portion (13b) from the predetermined position to the radially outer edge has a tapered shape in which the plate thickness decreases toward a tip (see Fig 2d and 2f).
Regarding claim 13, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein
TOKIZAWA ‘587 teaches in the steel plate of the stator core (1), the plate thickness of the entire portion (13b) from the predetermined position to the radially outer edge is smaller than an average plate thickness of the portion (11, 12, 13b) from the predetermined position to the radially inner edge (see Fig 2d and 2f).
Regarding claim 14, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein
TOKIZAWA ‘587 teaches in the steel plate of the stator core (1), the plate thickness of the entire portion (11, 12, 13b) from the predetermined position to the radially inner edge has an equal plate thickness (see Fig 2d and 2f).
Claims 3, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ABE (US 20080012445, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1,
However, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY does not teach a plate surface of the steel plate of the stator core has an insulating layer, and a thickness of the insulating layer at a portion of the steel plate of the stator core between the predetermined position and the radially outer edge is smaller than a thickness of the insulating layer at a portion between the predetermined position and the radially inner edge.
ABE teaches a rotary electric machine (10) with a plate surface of the steel plate (see para [0170]) of the stator core (42) has an insulating layer (see para [0122]), and a thickness of the insulating layer at a portion of the steel sheet of the stator core (42) is less where the thickness of the steel sheet is less (see para [0075]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to provide the plate of TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY with a plate surface of the steel plate of the stator core has an insulating layer, and a thickness of the insulating layer at a portion of the steel sheet of the stator core between the predetermined position and the radially outer edge is smaller than a thickness of the insulating layer at a portion between the predetermined position and the radially inner edge, by making the insulation thinner where the sheet is thinner similar to ABE.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve punching work property and maintain good insulation property as taught by ABE (see para [0071])
Regarding claim 7, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1.
However, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY does not teach a plate surface of the steel plate of the rotor core has an insulating layer, a plate surface of the steel plate of the stator core has an insulating layer, and a total thickness of the insulating layer of the rotor core is smaller than a total thickness of the insulating layer of the stator core.
ABE teaches that arrangements of different insulation film thicknesses can be used in a rotary electric machine with steel plates in rotor and stator cores (see para [0074]), making the insulation film thicknesses result effective variables, in order to improve punching work property and maintain good insulation property (see para [0071]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to arrange the insulation film thickness of TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY according to the claimed total thickness of the insulating layer of the rotor core is smaller than a total thickness of the insulating layer of the stator core.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the punching work property and maintain good insulation property, as taught by ABE (see para [0071]) and to prioritize functional properties of the rotor and stator such as improved magnetic permeability of the rotor (see DAUGHERTY, para [0027]-[0030]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1,
However, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY does not teach a plate surface of the steel plate of the rotor core has an insulating layer, a plate surface of the steel plate of the stator core has an insulating layer, and a thickness of the insulating layer of the steel plate of the rotor core is smaller than a thickness of the insulating layer of the steel plate of the stator core.
ABE teaches that arrangements of different insulation film thicknesses can be used in a rotary electric machine with steel plates in rotor and stator cores (see para [0074]), making the insulation film thicknesses result effective variables, in order to improve punching work property and maintain good insulation property (see para [0071]).
ABE teaches that arrangements of different insulation film thicknesses can be used in a rotary electric machine with steel plates in rotor and stator cores (see para [0074]), making the insulation film thicknesses result effective variables, in order to improve punching work property and maintain good insulation property (see para [0071]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to arrange the insulation film thickness of TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY according to the claimed thickness of the insulating layer of the rotor core is smaller than a thickness of the insulating layer of the stator core.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the punching work property and maintain good insulation property, as taught by ABE (see para [0071]) and to prioritize functional properties of the rotor and stator such as improved magnetic permeability of the rotor (see DAUGHERTY, para [0027]-[0030]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 11, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1,
However, TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY does not teach a plate surface of the steel plate of the rotor core has an insulating layer, a plate surface of the steel plate of the stator core has an insulating layer, and a thickness of the insulating layer of the steel plate of the stator core is smaller than a thickness of the insulating layer of the steel plate of the rotor core.
ABE discloses a rotary electric machine (10) with a plate surface of the steel plate (see para [0170]) of the stator core (42) has an insulating layer (see para [0122]), and a thickness of the insulating layer at a portion of the steel sheet of the stator core (42) is less where the thickness of the steel sheet is less (see para [0075]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to provide the plate of TOKIZAWA ‘587 in view of DAUGHERTY with a plate surface of the steel plate of the rotor core has an insulating layer, a plate surface of the steel plate of the stator core has an insulating layer, and a thickness of the insulating layer of the steel plate of the stator core is smaller than a thickness of the insulating layer of the steel plate of the rotor core, by making the insulation thinner where the sheet is thinner similar to ABE.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve punching work property and maintain good insulation property as taught by ABE (see para [0071]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-4794778-A Fritzsche discloses tapered core sheets.
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 JUSTIN STEFANON whose telephone number is (703)756-4648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays 8AM - 5PM EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN STEFANON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights