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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but the amendment of 8 June 2026 required the new grounds of rejection shown below.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”; US 2019/0140532), in view of Wisbar (US 2022/0329121) and Fiseni et al. (“Fiseni”; US 2014/0339945).
Regarding claim 1: Wang discloses a motor structure (Fig. 1) comprising:
a rotor core (3);
a plurality of permanent magnets (1) inserted into the plurality of core segments, each of the plurality of permanent magnets having a protruding end portion protruding from an end of the rotor core in an axial direction (protruding out of 3 and into 11 and 12); and
a first retainer (12) having a plurality of insertion portions (shown in Fig. 1) configured to receive and mechanically engage with the protruding end portions of the plurality of permanent magnets, respectively, inserted to support the plurality of permanent magnets in a radial direction of the rotor core (as shown in Fig. 1).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the rotor core including a plurality of core segments circumferentially arranged to form a ring shape, wherein each core segment of the plurality of core segments is a non-laminated integral body formed of a single solid mass.
However, Wisbar discloses the rotor core including a plurality of core segments (12) circumferentially arranged to form a ring shape (10, shown in Fig. 2, each segment shown in more detail in Fig. 5).
And, Fiseni discloses each core segment of the plurality of core segments is a non-laminated integral body formed of a single solid mass (claim 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rotor core of Kim to have the segments of Wisbar in order to minimize manufacturing costs (paragraph 0025) and to make the rotor core segments solid, as disclosed by Fiseni, in order to allow for it to be more efficiently magnetized (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 2: Wang discloses each permanent magnet of the plurality of permanent magnets has a first protruding end portion protruding from one end of the rotor core (into 12, right side of Fig. 1), and wherein the first retainer is installed to restrain and support the first protruding end portion of the permanent magnet (as the contact inherently provides support).
Regarding claim 3: Wang discloses each permanent magnet of the plurality of permanent magnets has a second protruding end portion protruding from an opposite end of the rotor core (left side on Fig. 1), wherein a second retainer (11) is provided at the opposite end of the rotor core, and wherein the first and second protruding end portions protrude in the axial direction (shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4: Wang discloses the first retainer includes a disk-shaped disk portion (it is a disk, Fig. 1) having insertion portions (as the magnets are inserted into 12).
Regarding claim 5: Wang discloses the insertion portions of the disk portion are provided as insertion holes penetrating the disk portion (shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7: Wang discloses the plurality of permanent magnets (each 1, Fig. 1) are disposed circumferentially surrounding the axis of the rotor core (Fig. 3), and wherein, in the disk portion of the retainer, the insertion portions are provided at positions such that centrifugal forces of the plurality of permanent magnets provided in the rotor core cancel each other out (as the retainer 12 surrounds the magnets and would help hold them in place).
Regarding claim 8: Wang discloses a motor structure (Fig. 1) comprising:
a stator (5);
a rotor core (3) rotatably inserted into the stator (5, Fig. 1);
permanent magnets (1) inserted parallel to a rotation axis of the rotor core and protruding from at least one end of the rotor core (into 12 and 11), each of the permanent magnets having a protruding end portion protruding from the one end of the rotor core in an axial direction (protruding into 12); and
a retainer (12) having a plurality of insertion portions into which the protruding end portions of the permanent magnets are respectively inserted and received, the retainer being configured to mechanically restrain the permanent magnets from moving in a radial direction, to secure the one end of the rotor core (as there are 4 magnets, Fig. 3).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the rotor core including a plurality of core segments circumferentially arranged to form a ring shape, wherein each core segment of the plurality of core segments is a non-laminated integral body formed of a single solid mass.
However, Wisbar discloses the rotor core including a plurality of core segments (12) circumferentially arranged to form a ring shape (10, shown in Fig. 2, each segment shown in more detail in Fig. 5).
And, Fiseni discloses each core segment of the plurality of core segments is a non-laminated integral body formed of a single solid mass (claim 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rotor core of Kim to have the segments of Wisbar in order to minimize manufacturing costs (paragraph 0025) and to make the rotor core segments solid, as disclosed by Fiseni, in order to allow for it to be more efficiently magnetized (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 9: Wang discloses the retainer restrains the permanent magnets from moving in a radial direction with respect to the rotor core (as 12 surrounds the magnets).
Regarding claim 10: Wang discloses the permanent magnets (1) are disposed along a circumferential direction of the rotor core (Fig. 3), and wherein the retainer is provided in a disk shape such that protruding end portions of the permanent magnets are inserted at the one end of the rotor core (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11: Wang discloses the permanent magnets are inserted so as to protrude from the one end and an opposite end (into 11) of the rotor core, and wherein another retainer (11) is installed at the opposite end of the rotor core (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12: Wang discloses the retainer is provided with a plurality of insertion holes (allowing 1 to be inserted into the retainer), and wherein the protruding end portions of the permanent magnets are respectively inserted into the plurality of insertion holes (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14: Wang discloses wherein, in the retainer, the protruding end portions of the permanent magnets are inserted are into insertion portions provided at positions symmetrical to each other about the rotation axis of the rotor core to cancel out centrifugal forces of the permanent magnets provided in the rotor core (the magnets is distributed around the circumference of the rotor core, each cancelling on another out, Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights