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 statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the protrusions (50) must be clearly shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant’s Figs 3 and 4 merely point to a general area which appears to denote a cavity of some sort, rather than the claimed protrusion?
PNG
media_image1.png
766
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also, applicant mentions element 50 in their para 30 (US 20240339878 A1), but Fig 3 shows no element 50?
PNG
media_image2.png
742
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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) 1,4-6,8-11,14,15,19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto et al. (US 20220006341)
Regarding claim 1, Takemoto et al. discloses:
A rotor for an electric motor (abstract) comprising:
a yoke extending from a first end to a second end along a longitudinal axis L (22b, Fig 3), and
a plurality of magnets (23) held by the yoke,
wherein the yoke (22b) is formed from a plurality of laminations (para 30) and comprises an inner peripheral surface (24b) surrounding a cavity (by 22a),
the inner peripheral surface (24b) having a plurality of rectangular cut-out sections (Fig 3), each rectangular cut-out section configured to receive a respective magnet (23, Fig 4) of the plurality of magnets,
wherein the inner peripheral surface (24b) further comprises a protrusion (24a) extending toward the cavity (by 22a), each protrusion (24a) having a flat surface facing the cavity (Fig 4).
Takemoto et al. do not appear to teach the protrusion extending a length of longest dimension along the longitudinal axis L of one of the magnets of the plurality of magnets.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of having the protrusion extending a length of longest dimension along the longitudinal axis L of one of the magnets of the plurality of magnets, since it would further help secure the magnet and make the machine more robust.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. to have the protrusion extending a length of longest dimension along the longitudinal axis L of one of the magnets of the plurality of magnets.
The motivation to do so would be based on cost, weight and desired level of securement of the magnets.
Regarding claim 4/1, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein each magnet (23) is held within its respective rectangular cut-out section of the yoke between side surfaces of adjacent protrusions of the yoke (Figs 3-4 arrows showing insertion of magnets 23 and secured as shown in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5/4, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein each magnet (23, Figs 2-4) contacts the side surfaces of adjacent protrusions (24a) of the yoke (22b).
Regarding claim 6/1, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of magnets (23), Fig 4 comprises a rectangular cross-sectional shape.
Regarding claim 8/1, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein an outer peripheral surface of the yoke (22b, Fig 1) comprises a plurality of surface features extending along an axial length of the yoke (see annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
796
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9/8, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of surface features comprises a rounded protrusion extending axially along the axial length of the yoke (see annotated Fig 1 above – implicit since the motor’s components extend axially).
Regarding claim 10/8, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of surface features is a channel extending along the axial length of the yoke (see annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
796
537
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Takemoto et al. discloses:
An electric motor assembly comprising:
a motor shaft (44);
a printed circuit board {PCB} (50, Fig 1, para 20);
a stator (30);
a rotor (20) fixed to the motor shaft (44),
the rotor (20) comprising a yoke extending from a first end to a second end along a longitudinal axis L (22b, Fig 3) and a plurality of magnets (23),
wherein the yoke (22b) is formed from a plurality of laminations (para 30) and comprises an inner peripheral surface (24b) surrounding a cavity (by 22a),
the inner peripheral surface (24b) having a plurality of rectangular cut-out sections (Fig 3),
each rectangular cut-out section configured to receive a respective magnet (23, Fig 4) of the plurality of magnets,
wherein the inner peripheral surface (24b) further comprises a protrusion (24a) extending toward the cavity (by 22a), each protrusion (22a) having a flat surface facing the cavity (Fig 4).
Takemoto et al. do not appear to teach the protrusion extending a length of longest dimension along the longitudinal axis L of one of the magnets of the plurality of magnets.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of having the protrusion extending a length of longest dimension along the longitudinal axis L of one of the magnets of the plurality of magnets, since it would further help secure the magnet and make the machine more robust.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. to have the protrusion extending a length of longest dimension along the longitudinal axis L of one of the magnets of the plurality of magnets.
The motivation to do so would be based on cost, weight and desired level of securement of the magnets.
Regarding claim 14/11, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein each magnet (23) is held within its respective rectangular cut-out section of the yoke between side surfaces of adjacent protrusions of the yoke (Figs 3-4 arrows showing insertion of magnets 23 and secured as shown in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 15/11, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of magnets (23), Fig 4 comprises a rectangular cross-sectional shape.
Regarding claim 19/11, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein the yoke (22b, Fig 2) has an exposed outer peripheral surface such that the electric motor assembly is sleeveless.
Regarding claim 20/11, Takemoto et al. discloses wherein an outer peripheral surface of the yoke (22b, Fig 1) comprises a plurality of surface features extending along an axial length of the yoke (see annotated Fig 1 above).
Claim(s) 2,3,12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto et al. (US 20220006341) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20150326078).
Regarding claim 2/1, Takemoto et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a non-rare earth magnet.
Tanaka et al. teach a device wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a non-rare earth magnet (para 19, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a non-rare earth magnet, as Tanaka et al. teach.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired strength, weight, cost, magnetic flux, performance and ease of manufacture (paras 2-7,10-12 of Tanaka et al.).
Regarding claim 3/1, Takemoto et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a ferrite magnet.
Tanaka et al. teach a device wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a ferrite magnet (para 19, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a ferrite magnet, as Tanaka et al. teach.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired strength, weight, cost, magnetic flux, performance and ease of manufacture (paras 2-7,10-12 of Tanaka et al.).
Regarding claim 12/11, Takemoto et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a non-rare earth magnet.
Tanaka et al. teach a device wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a non-rare earth magnet (para 19, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a non-rare earth magnet, as Tanaka et al. teach.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired strength, weight, cost, magnetic flux, performance and ease of manufacture (paras 2-7,10-12 of Tanaka et al.).
Regarding claim 13/11, Takemoto et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a ferrite magnet.
Tanaka et al. teach a device wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a ferrite magnet (para 19, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. wherein each of the plurality of magnets is a ferrite magnet, as Tanaka et al. teach.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired strength, weight, cost, magnetic flux, performance and ease of manufacture (paras 2-7,10-12 of Tanaka et al.).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto et al. (US 20220006341) in view of Wolters et al. (US 2014/0284183).
Regarding claim 7/1, Takemoto et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the yoke further comprises a plurality of circular holes disposed circumferentially about the cavity, wherein each of the plurality of circular holes is configured to accommodate a rotor interlock therethrough to hold the laminations together.
Wolters et al. teach an apparatus wherein the yoke further comprises a plurality of circular holes disposed circumferentially about the cavity, wherein each of the plurality of circular holes is configured to accommodate a rotor interlock therethrough to hold the laminations together (Fig 13b, para 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. wherein the yoke further comprises a plurality of circular holes disposed circumferentially about the cavity, wherein each of the plurality of circular holes is configured to accommodate a rotor interlock therethrough to hold the laminations together, as Wolters et al. teach.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to secure the laminations as needed.
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto et al. (US 20220006341) in view of Oguma (US 20130009494).
Regarding claim 16/11, Takemoto et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, except further comprising a fan coupled to the yoke, wherein the motor shaft extends through a central opening of the fan and the fan is configured to rotate with the rotor.
Oguma teach a device further comprising a fan (by 54, Fig 3) coupled to the yoke (52), wherein the motor shaft (31) extends through a central opening of the fan and the fan is configured to rotate with the rotor (Fig 3, paras 28-31,34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. further comprising a fan coupled to the yoke, wherein the motor shaft extends through a central opening of the fan and the fan is configured to rotate with the rotor, as Oguma teach.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired application in different apparatuses, industries, appliances, etc. (para 34 of Oguma).
Regarding claim 17/16, Takemoto et al. in view of Oguma discloses the invention as discussed above. Takemoto et al. do not teach further comprising a fan coupled to the yoke, wherein the motor shaft extends through a central opening of the fan and the fan is configured to rotate with the rotor.
Oguma teach a device wherein the fan comprises a fan base (by 53, Fig 3), the fan base having a first side in contact with the yoke (52) and a second side having a plurality of vanes (54) extending therefrom (Fig 3, paras 28-31,34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. in view of Ogama to wherein the fan comprises a fan base, the fan base having a first side in contact with the yoke and a second side having a plurality of vanes extending therefrom, as Oguma teach.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired application in different apparatuses, industries, appliances, etc. (para 34 of Oguma).
Regarding claim 18/16, Takemoto et al. in view of Oguma discloses the invention as discussed above. Takemoto et al. do not teach wherein the fan, rotor, and the PCB are axially arranged along the motor shaft.
Oguma teach a device wherein the fan (by 54, Fig 3), rotor (3), and the PCB (24) are axially arranged along the motor shaft (Fig 3, paras 28-31,34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Takemoto et al. in view of Ogama to wherein the fan, rotor, and the PCB are axially arranged along the motor shaft, as Oguma teach.
The motivation to do so would depend on desired application in different apparatuses, industries, appliances, etc. (para 34 of Oguma).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that their added limitations overcome current art of record. Examiner disagrees, since the claimed protrusion with the dimension L (length) is not shown in their drawings? Takemoto et al. teach applicant’s currently claimed invention per above since it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention was made to modify Takemoto et al. to have the protrusion extending a length of longest dimension along the longitudinal axis L of one of the magnets of the plurality of magnets. The motivation to do so would be based on cost, weight and desired level of securement of the magnets (and also make the machine more robust).
Examiner invites applicant to clearly identify the inventive structural component(s) and make amendments accordingly to advance prosecution of case on merits.
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 NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights