DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 24 June 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed, claims 1 and 5-6 are now pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 June 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 4-5 of the Remarks) alleges that Komura does not disclose the amended limitation requiring each magnetic body to have line symmetry about the d-axes. While the argument alleges this is because the bodies are not positioned at the d-axis, this is not a requirement of having “line symmetry”. Line symmetry simply requires that a figure can be folded over the line, in this case the d-axis, such that each half perfectly overlaps. Since the magnetic bodies of Komura are evenly spaced between the d-axes, as shown in figure 2 of Komura, they do possess line symmetry about said axes.
However, this argument is moot in view of the fact that the primary reference, Makita, already discloses the magnetic bodies [6] having line symmetry about the d-axis (see annotated figure 1 of Makita, below). In response to the Applicant's argument against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Since Makita clearly discloses the newly claimed “line symmetry”, the argument against Komura is both unpersuasive, as stated above, and entirely moot.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 5-6 of the Remarks) alleges that Kusase does not “overcome the deficiencies of Makita and Komura”. Since, both Makita and Komura disclose the recited line symmetry, this argument is also unpersuasive for the same reasons provided above.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makita et al. (JP 2014-039424 A), hereinafter referred to as “Makita”, in view of Komuro et al. (JP 2004-120892 A), hereinafter referred to as “Komuro”.
Regarding claim 1, Makita discloses an inner rotor [1] comprising:
a rotor body [11] that rotates about a rotation axis (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0015);
a polar anisotropic magnet [12] that has magnetic poles [5] arranged in a circumferential direction centered on the rotation axis (fig. 1; ¶ 0017-0021),
the polar anisotropic magnet [12] being located at an outer peripheral surface of the rotor body [11] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0021); and
PNG
media_image2.png
252
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
magnetic bodies [6] located at positions corresponding to the magnetic poles [5] on an outer peripheral surface of the polar anisotropic magnet [12] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0019-0021),
wherein the outer peripheral surface of the polar anisotropic magnet [12] has recesses at positions corresponding to the magnetic poles [5] (fig. 1; ¶ 0019),
the magnetic bodies [6] are located in the recesses (fig. 1; ¶ 0019; “magnetic portions 6 fill the columnar space… between two circumferentially adjacent circumferential magnetized portions 5”),
a width of each of the recesses in the circumferential direction decreases from an opening of the recess toward an inner side in a radial direction centered on the rotation axis (fig. 1; the sides of each body/recess converge towards the axis of rotation),
a first recess [r1] that is one of the recesses adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction has a first side surface [s1] that is a side surface toward a second recess [r2], the second recess [r2] being the other one of the recesses adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction (fig. 1),
the second recess [r2] has a second side surface [s2] that is a side surface toward the first recess [r1] (fig. 1; each recess has one side adjacent to another recess),
the first side surface [s1] and the second side surface [s2] are parallel to each other (fig. 1; the facing side surfaces of adjacent recesses, i.e. the sides of each magnetic pole, are shown being aligned substantially parallel to one another; this alignment is at least impliedly disclosed, as it is contrasted with the embodiment of figure 3, ¶ 0031, where the sides of the magnetic poles are both shown and disclosed as tapering toward the radially outer side),
each magnetic body [6] is located at positions corresponding to a d-axis (fig. 1; the positions of the bodies correspond to the radially-aligned flux lines), and
PNG
media_image1.png
401
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a cross-sectional shape of each magnetic body [6] includes line symmetry about an axis extending radially and coincident with the d-axis (fig. 1; each magnetic body is centered on and identically shaped on either side of the d-axes).
Makita does not disclose a width of the outer surface of each magnetic body [6] is smaller than a width of a portion of the outer peripheral surface of the polar anisotropic magnet [12] between the recesses adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction.
Komuro discloses an inner rotor comprising a polar anisotropic magnet [1] having recesses in which magnet bodies [3] are located (fig. 2; ¶ 0021-0024), wherein a width of the outer surface of each magnetic body [3] is smaller than a width of a portion of the outer peripheral surface of the polar anisotropic magnet [1] between the recesses adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction (fig. 2; ¶ 0032; “soft magnetic material 3… with a circumferential width of ½ or less of the angle of one pole”).
PNG
media_image3.png
273
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the magnetic bodies of Makita having smaller circumferential widths than the outer peripheral surfaces of the polar anisotropic magnet as taught by Komuro, in order to reduce the waveform distortion of the surface magnetic flux density, thereby preventing a reduction in the peak value of the surface magnetic flux density (¶ 0032 of Komuro).
Regarding claim 6, Makita, in view of Komuro, discloses a motor [3] comprising:
the inner rotor [1] according to claim 1, as stated above; and a stator [2] that drives the inner rotor [1] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0015).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makita and Komuro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kusase (US 2003/0076000 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kusase”.
Regarding claim 5, Makita, in view of Komuro, discloses the inner rotor [1] according to claim 2, as stated above. Makita does not disclose that the polar anisotropic magnet [12] includes stoppers each of which projects toward an inner side of a corresponding one of the recesses in the circumferential direction and restricts outward movement of a corresponding one of the magnetic bodies [6] in a radial direction centered on the rotation axis (fig. 1; Makita discloses each of the magnetic poles [5] having straight, parallel sides).
Kusase discloses an inner rotor [101] comprising an annular magnet [113] with magnetic poles [N,S] and magnetic bodies [105] located in recesses [104a] on the outer surface of the annular magnet [113] (fig. 9-10; ¶ 0047-0050),
wherein the annular magnet [113] includes stoppers [holding parts] each of which projects toward an inner side of a corresponding one of the recesses [104a] in the circumferential direction and restricts outward movement of a corresponding one of the magnetic bodies [105] in a radial direction centered on the rotation axis (fig. 10; ¶ 0050; “slots 104a are formed with holding parts at the sides along the radial direction” where the slots “are narrowest at the most outer periphery and get wider toward radially inside” in order to prevent the magnetic bodies from “being moved radially outward by centrifugal force”).
PNG
media_image4.png
250
274
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the recesses of Makita having stoppers on either side thereof as taught by Kusase, in order to prevent the magnetic bodies from moving due to centrifugal forces, thereby improving performance of the electrical machine (¶ 0056 of Kusase).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Takahashi (US 2022/0006339 A1) discloses an inner rotor comprising a polar anisotropic magnet located at an outer surface of a soft magnetic core, and further mounted on a rotation shaft (fig. 84; ¶ 0676-0677).
Masuzawa et al. (US 2008/0218007 A1) discloses an inner rotor comprising a polar anisotropic magnet located at an outer surface of a rotor body located at an outer surface of a rotation shaft (fig. 17a).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights