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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
The Applicant’s election of Species A, Figure 3 in the reply filed on 3/11/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3, 4, 8-10, 13, 14, 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/11/2026.
The Applicant acknowledged that claims 13, 18 are drawn to non-elected species in the reply filed on 3/11/2026.
Claim 3, 16 are withdrawn as being drawn to the non-elected species of FIG. 7 having the second slit connected to the central hole.
Claims 4, 8, 17 are withdrawn as being drawn to the non-elected species of FIG. 8 having the outer surface of the shaft includes a recessed groove.
Claims 9, 10 are withdrawn as being drawn to the non-elected species of FIG. 6 having the outer flux barrier portion protruding radially inward.
Claim 14 is withdrawn as being drawn to the non-elected species of FIG. 9 having conductors in the first slits.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ROTOR WITH MAGNETS AND FLUX BARRIERS AND MOTOR.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng (CN 106208450 A).
As to claim 1, Zheng shows (FIG. 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
603
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A rotor rotatable about a central axis as a rotation axis, the rotor comprising:
a rotor core 3 extending along an axial direction; and
a plurality of auxiliary magnets 5 disposed in the rotor core 3, wherein
the rotor core 3 includes:
a slit group 8A including a plurality of first slits 8A aligned in a radial direction; and
a second slit 4 disposed on a radially inner side of the slit group 8A when viewed from the axial direction,
a plurality of the slit groups 8A and a plurality of the second slits 4 are respectively aligned in a circumferential direction,
each of the plurality of first slits 8A extends along the circumferential direction in a shape protruding radially inward when viewed from the axial direction,
the second slit 4 includes:
a magnet housing portion 5H extending along the radial direction; and
a pair of outer flux barrier portions 8B extending from a radially outer end of the magnet housing portion 5H to one side and another side in the circumferential direction, and
each of the auxiliary magnets 5 is disposed in the magnet housing portion 5H with the circumferential direction as a magnetization direction (reference characters para [0022]; magnetization direction is perpendicular to the magnet slot para [0014]).
As to claim 2/1, Zheng further shows (FIG. 1 above) the second slit 4 includes a pair of inner flux barrier portions 8B extending from a radially inner end of the magnet housing portion 5H to the one side and the other side in the circumferential direction.
As to claim 5/1, Zheng further shows (FIG. 1 above) the second slit 4 includes a plurality of magnet housing portions 5H aligned in the circumferential direction and each housing each of the plurality of auxiliary magnets 5.
As to claim 6/1, Zheng further shows (FIG. 1 above) the outer flux barrier portion 8B has a circumferential dimension larger than a radial dimension.
As to claim 7/2/1, Zheng further shows (FIG. 1 above) the outer flux barrier portion 8B has a circumferential dimension larger than a radial dimension.
As to claim 12/1, Zheng further shows (FIG. 1 above) the rotor includes six or more of the slit groups (eight slit groups, two pairs of first slits 8A for each pole).
As to claim 15/1, Zheng further shows (FIG. 1 above):
the rotor according to claim 1; and
a stator 1 that surrounds the rotor from a radially outer side (stator core 1 para [0022]) .
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.
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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 106208450 A) in view of Oikawa et al. (US 2019/0199149 A1, hereinafter Oikawa).
As to claim 11/1, Zheng was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for wherein each of the plurality of auxiliary magnets is a rare earth sintered magnet.
Oikawa describes the magnet is a rare earth sintered magnet (para [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnets of Zheng to have each of the plurality of auxiliary magnets is a rare earth sintered magnet as taught by Oikawa, for the advantageous benefit of the auxiliary magnets having high energy densities to improve energy-saving performance as taught by Oikawa (para [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Legranger (EP 2866344 A2) shows a rotor with flux barriers;
Wang (CN 107222045 A) shows a rotor with flux barriers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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, TULSIDAS 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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights