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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-4, 6-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As amended, claim 1 recited: “ a length by which the second opposite inward end protrudes beyond the width of the permanent magnet of the second set is greater than a length by which the first outward end protrudes beyond the width of the permanent magnet of the second set ”, such recitation is new matter which was not disclosed in the original disclosure as filed. Examiner Noted MPEP 2125: “PROPORTIONS OF FEATURES IN A DRAWING ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PROPORTIONS WHEN DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000)” Claims 2- 4, 6-16 and 19 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1, 3 , 4, 6, 8, 10, 11-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangi et al. (US 2020 / 0259377 A1 ) in view of Soma et al. (US 2021 / 0242732 A1 ) and Takahashi (US 2015 / 0137650 A1 ) . RE claim 1, Gangi teaches a rotor 14 of an electric rotating machine 10 (Figs.1-3) that is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis (along shaft 16, see Figs.1, 2) , the rotor 14 comprising: a plurality of magnetic poles 24 arranged circumferentially relative to the rotor 14 , each of the magnetic pole s 24 comprising at least a first set 26 and a second set 28 each having a permanent magnet configuration 32, 36 including a permanent magnet 32, 36 and a flux barrier configuration 37, 38 , the first set 26 being located proximate an outer edge of the rotor 14 (Fig.3) and the second set 28 being located relative to the longitudinal axis of the rotor radially farther from the outer edge than the first set 26 , wherein each magnetic pole 24 has the following configuration, in a transverse cross section of the rotor relative to the longitudinal axis: each of the first set 26 and second set 28 is symmetrical with respect to a radially-extending symmetry d-axis ( Ld ) (Fig.3 and ¶ 33, 35) of the magnetic pole 24 and comprises two symmetrical parts located on either side of the symmetry axis d-axis, and , each of the symmetrical part s in the second set 28 has two opposite ends terminating respectively with an outer flux barrier 37 of the flux barrier configuration that is located proximate the outer edge of the rotor 14 and an inner flux barrier 38 of the flux barrier configuration that is located farther from the outer edge than the outer flux barrier 37 , the inner flux barriers 38 of both symmetrical parts (28) being separated from each other by an arrangement comprising radially-extending inner bridge 52 flanking a central radially-extending flux barrier that is aligned along the symmetry d-axis ( Ld ) , each of the inner flux barriers 38 (Fig.3) includes a widened portion (OE1, OE2) with a first outward end (OE1) and a second opposite inward end (OE2) that are aligned with the radial direction, the first outward end (OE1) and the second opposite inward end (OE2) protrude beyond a width of the permanent magnet 36 of the second set . 3771900 4137660 OE 1 0 0 OE 1 2924175 4118610 OE 2 0 0 OE 2 2447924 2242184 0 0 2457450 2699385 0 0 Gangi does not teach : two radially- extending inner bridge s ( Gangi only teaches one bridge 52). a length by which the second opposite inward end protrudes beyond the width of the permanent magnet of the second set is greater than a length by which the first outward end protrudes beyond the width of the permanent magnet of the second set . RE ( i ) above, Soma teaches two radially- extending inner bridge s 51, 52 (Fig.2). As a result, the bending stress generated in the rotor core due to the weight variation of the first inner diameter side arc magnet and the second inner diameter side arc magnet can be reduced . Furthermore, such structure also allows the stress concentration at the rib to be reduced (¶ 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi by having two radially- extending inner bridge s , as taught by Soma , for the same reasons as discussed above. RE (ii) above, Takahashi teaches a length (A) by which the second opposite inward end (of flux barrier 25) protrudes beyond the width of the permanent magnet 23 is greater than a length (B) by which the first outward end protrudes beyond the width of the permanent magnet 23 (Fig.6), thereby enabling the second magnetic flux to function better as a magnetic void space (¶ 66) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi by having a length by which the second opposite inward end protrudes beyond the width of the permanent magnet of the second set is greater than a length by which the first outward end protrudes beyond the width of the permanent magnet of the second set , as taught by Takahashi , for the same reasons as discussed above. RE claim 3/1, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches the permanent magnet 32 configuration of the first set 26 is substantially V-shaped or rectilinear (Fig.3) and the permanent magnet configuration of the second set 28 is substantially U-shaped or V-shaped (Fig.3) . RE claim 4/1, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches the permanent magnet 36 in each of the symmetrical part s of the second set 28 includes a first permanent magnet 36 and a second permanent magnet 36 that extend successively and respectively along a first direction that is inclined with respect to the radially-extending symmetry d-axis and along a second direction that is inclined with respect to the first direction such that the first permanent magnet 36 and the second permanent magnet 36 of both symmetrical parts conjointly form a U shape (Fig.3) . RE claim 6/5, as discussed above, Soma teaches the central radially-extending flux barrier 60 that is separated from the inner flux barriers 420 of the second set by the two radially-extending inner bridges 51, 52 extends over a radial distance that is substantially the same as the radial distance between the first outward end and the second inward end of each of the inner flux barrier s 420 (see Fig.2). RE claim 8/1, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches each of the symmetrical part s (32) in the first set 26 has two opposite ends of which an outer end terminates with an outer flux barrier 37 of the flux barrier configuration that is located proximate the outer edge of the rotor 14 (Fig.3). RE claim 10/8, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches the permanent magnet 32 extends along a direction that is inclined with respect to the radially-extending symmetry d-axis ( Ld ) such that the permanent magnets 32 of both symmetrical parts conjointly form a V shape (see annotated Fig.3 above) . RE claim 11/8, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches each of the outer flux barrier s 37 in the first set 26 extends from the permanent magnet 32 that is adjacent towards the outer edge of the rotor 14 along a direction that is inclined with respect to the direction of extension of the permanent magnet 36 that is adjacent . RE claim 12/8, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches each of the symmetrical part s 32 in the first set 26 has an inner end opposite the outer end and both inner ends are separated from each other by a radially-extending bridge 50 that is aligned along the symmetry d-axis ( Ld ) (Fig.3). RE claim 13/8, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches each of the outer flux barrier s 37 of each of the first set and the second set (32, 36) is not separated from the permanent magnet configuration of a respective one of the first set and the second set (Fig.3). RE claim 15/1, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches a n electric rotating machine 10 comprising a rotor according to claim 1 (¶ 30). RE claim 16/1, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches a vehicle comprising an electric rotating machine 10 according to claim 15 (¶ 30). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2022 / 0311292 A1 ) . RE claim 2/1, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi does not teach each of the two radially-extending inner bridges extends transversely in a direction perpendicular to the radial direction over a dimension from 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm . Liu teaches each of the two radially-extending inner bridges 9 extends transversely in a direction perpendicular to the radial direction over a dimension that is in a range lying from 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm (see ¶ 17) , depending on the rotor dimensions . The dimension of the bridge can be adjusted to withstand rotor centrifugal force while optimize weight and density. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi in view of Soma by having each of the two radially-extending inner bridges extends transversely in a direction perpendicular to the radial direction over a dimension from 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm , as taught by Liu , for the same reasons as discussed above. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (US 2013 / 0307363 A1 ) . RE claim 7/4, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches each of the outer flux barrier s 37 in the second set 28 extends from the second permanent magnet 36 that is adjacent towards the outer edge of the rotor 14 along the second direction (i.e. longitudinal direction of second magnet 36). Gangi does not teach the outer flux barrier terminates with an end portion that includes a side tip extending along a circumference of the rotor away from the first set . Sano teaches the outer flux barrier 40 (Fig.4) terminates with an end portion that includes a side tip extending along a circumference of the rotor away from the first set (of magnets 26a, 26). The size and shape of the flux barrier can be adjusted to o suppress leaks of magnetic flux from the permanent magnet and magnet magnetic flux in the magnetic pole can therefore be further increased (¶ 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi by having the outer flux barrier terminates with an end portion that includes a side tip extending along a circumference of the rotor away from the first set , as taught by Sano , for the same reasons as discussed above. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Matsubara et al. (US 2020 / 0044501 A1 ) . RE claim 9/8, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi does not teach each of the outer flux barrier s in the first set extends in a circumferential direction in a nose-type shape having a first side or nose bridge that extends parallel to the outer edge of the rotor from a first outward end or top of the nose to a second opposite outward end or tip of the nose and a second side or nose base that extends from the second end away from the outer edge and towards a third inward end, the second outward end being located farther from the permanent magnet configuration than the first outward end . However, in a different embodiment (Fig.8), Gangi suggests that different shape can be utilize for flux barrier 38. Matsubara teaches each outer flux barrier 10 (Figs.1-3) in the first set extends (of magnets 7) in a circumferential direction in a nose-type shape (Fig.1) having a first side or nose bridge 4 that extends parallel to the outer edge 4a (Fig.3) of the rotor 2 from a first outward end 10a or top of the nose 4 to a second opposite outward end 10c or tip of the nose and a second side or nose base that extends from the second end away from the outer edge 4a and towards a third inward end 10b , the second outward end 10c being located farther from the permanent magnet configuration 7 than the first outward end 10a (Fig.3). T he reluctance generated thereby can also be used for the rotation of the rotor. As a result, the rotational torque of the rotor can be improved (¶ 71). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi by having each of the outer flux barrier s in the first set extends in a circumferential direction in a nose-type shape having a first side or nose bridge that extends parallel to the outer edge of the rotor from a first outward end or top of the nose to a second opposite outward end or tip of the nose and a second side or nose base that extends from the second end away from the outer edge and towards a third inward end, the second outward end being located farther from the permanent magnet configuration than the first outward end , as taught by Matsubara , for the same reasons as discussed above. Furthermore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tang (US 2018 / 0241262 A1 ) . RE claim 14/8, Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi has been discussed above. Gangi further teaches an outer bridge is located between the outer edge of the rotor and each of the outer flux barrier s 37 of each of the first set and the second set (26, 28). Gangi does not teach the outer bridge of the second set extending over a radial distance between the outer edge of the rotor and each outer flux barrier that is greater than of the outer bridge of the first set. Tang teaches the outer bridge 150 of the second set 112 extending over a radial distance between the outer edge 156 of the rotor and each outer flux barrier 106 that is greater than the outer bridge 154 of the first set 138 (Fig.2), doing so would optimize torque ripple and leakage flux of magnet (¶ 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi by having the outer bridge of the second set extending over a radial distance between the outer edge of the rotor and each outer flux barrier that is greater than of the outer bridge of the first set , as taught by Tang , for the same reasons as discussed above. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangi et al. (US 2020 / 0259377 A1 ) in view of Soma et al. (US 2021 / 0242732 A1 ) and Cesa et al. (US 2019 / 0199150 A1 ) . RE claim 17, Gangi teaches a rotor 14 of an electric rotating machine 10 (Figs.1-3) that is configured to rotate about a longitudinal axis, the rotor 14 comprising: a plurality of magnetic poles 24 arranged circumferentially relative to the rotor 14 , each of the magnetic poles 24 comprising at least a first set 26 and a second set 28 each having a permanent magnet configuration including a permanent magnet 32, 36 and a flux barrier configuration 37, 38 , the first set 26 being located proximate an outer edge of the rotor 14 and the second set 28 being located relative to the longitudinal axis of the rotor 14 radially farther from the outer edge than the first set 26 , wherein each magnetic pole has the following configuration, in a transverse cross section of the rotor relative to the longitudinal axis: each of the first set 26 and the second set 28 is symmetrical with respect to a radially- extending symmetry d-axis ( Ld ) (Fig.3 and ¶ 33, 35) of the magnetic pole 24 and comprises two symmetrical parts located on either side of the symmetry d-axis ( Ld ) , and each of the symmetrical parts in the second set 28 has two opposite ends terminating respectively with an outer flux barrier 37 of the flux barrier configuration that is located proximate the outer edge of the rotor and an inner flux barrier 38 of the flux barrier configuration that is located farther from the outer edge than the outer flux barrier, the inner flux barriers 38 of both symmetrical parts being separated from each other by an arrangement comprising a radially- extending inner bridge 52 flanking a central radially-extending flux barrier that is aligned along the symmetry d-axis (Fig.3) , and Gangi does not teach: two radially- extending inner bridge s ( Gangi only teaches one bridge 52). the outer edge has a first recess or indent and a second recess or indent, and a first end of the outer flux barrier is between the first recess or indent and the second recess or indent RE ( i ) above, Soma teaches two radially- extending inner bridge s 51, 52 (Fig.2). As a result, the bending stress generated in the rotor core due to the weight variation of the first inner diameter side arc magnet and the second inner diameter side arc magnet can be reduced . Furthermore, such structure also allows the stress concentration at the rib to be reduced (¶ 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi by having two radially- extending inner bridge s , as taught by Soma , for the same reasons as discussed above. RE (ii) above, Cesa teaches the outer edge has a first recess 1 4 - 1 or indent and a second recess 14-2 or indent, and a first end of the outer flux barrier ( of magnet aperture 10- 1 ) is between the first recess 14 - 1 or indent and the second recess 14-2. The flux barrier configuration can be adjusted to increase torque generated by the electric machine (¶ 53, 55, 85 and Figs.1-6 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi in view of Soma by having the outer edge has a first recess or indent and a second recess or indent, and a first end of the outer flux barrier is between the first recess or indent and the second recess or indent , as taught by Cesa , for the same reasons as discussed above. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangi in view of Soma and Cesa as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (US 2013 / 0307363 A1 ) . RE claim 18/17, Gangi in view of Soma and Cesa has been discussed above. Gangi does not teach the central radially-extending flux barrier is filled with a resin. Sano teaches the central radially-extending flux barrier is filled with a resin (¶ 67) for the purpose of suppressing flow of magnetic flux (¶ 66, 67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi in view of Soma and Cesa by having the central radially-extending flux barrier is filled with a resin , as taught by Sano , for the same reasons as discussed above. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangi in view of Soma and Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (US 2013 / 0307363 A1 ) . RE claim 19 /1, Gangi in view of Soma has been discussed above. Gangi does not teach the central radially-extending flux barrier is filled with a resin. Sano teaches the central radially-extending flux barrier is filled with a resin (¶ 67) for the purpose of suppressing flow of magnetic flux (¶ 66, 67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi in view of Soma by having the central radially-extending flux barrier is filled with a resin, as taught by Sano, for the same reasons as discussed above. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim (s) 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5532 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Seye Iwarere can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /THOMAS TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834