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 filed 03/05/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the NPL document no. 1 (English abstract for JP-2006115595) does not have date and place of publication. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-4 and 14-20) in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of subject matter of one group would encompass a search for the subject matter of another group. Therefore, the search can be made without serious burden. Further, Applicant argued that the international examiner agreed there was unity of invention and the finding of the international stage should apply in the present application
This is not found persuasive:
(i) burdensome search is a one of two criteria for making a proper restriction under US applications filed under 35 USC 111(a), it is not a criteria for making proper restriction in this 35 USC 371 national stage applications.
(i) MPEP 1893.03(d):
37 C.F.R. 1.499 Unity of invention during the national stage
If the examiner finds that a national stage application lacks unity of invention under § 1.475, the examiner may in an Office action require the applicant in the response to that action to elect the invention to which the claims shall be restricted. Such requirement may be made before any action on the merits but may be made at any time before the final action at the discretion of the examiner. Review of any such requirement is provided under §§ 1.143 and 1.144.
…
When making a lack of unity requirement, the examiner must (1) list the different groups of claims and (2) explain why each group lacks unity with each other group (i.e., why there is no single general inventive concept) specifically describing the unique special technical feature in each group. The examiner may make a lack of unity requirement in a national stage application even if no such requirement was made by the ISA or IPEA.
In other words, MPEP 1893.03 clearly indicated that Examiner may independently make a lack of unity requirement even if no such requirement was made by the ISA or IPEA
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 14-20 remained pending and claims 5-13 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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.
Claims 1-3, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perigo et al. (US 2019/0190358 A1) in view of Asahi (US 2017/0331338 A1).
RE claim 1, Perigo teaches a rotor 40 for an electric motor 10 (Figs.1, 2, 18), comprising: a shaft 26 and a rotor core 46 (44), the rotor core 46 including an adjacent front surface, at least one of a plurality of apertures 120 and a plurality of cavities 66 protruding along a rotor core body 42 (Fig.18), a plurality of magnets 68, and a resin fixing the plurality of magnets within the rotor core; a manifold 72 of resin formed on the front surface of the rotor core 46 (44) (Fig.25), the manifold 72 at least partially overlapping with at least one of at least one aperture 120 of the plurality of apertures 120 and at least one cavity of the plurality of cavities 66 (where magnet 68 inserted, see Figs 18, 23, 24); wherein the manifold 72 is attached to the front surface of the rotor core.
Perigo does not teach a resin fixing the plurality of magnets within the rotor core and wherein the manifold is at least one of bonded and restrained via the resin to the rotor core.
Asahi teaches Asahi teaches a resin fixing the plurality of magnets within the rotor core (¶ 57, 59, 93) and it is well-known to bond the plate (manifold) 72 to the front surface of the rotor core 61 via said resin (Fig.4, and ¶ 57, 59, 93). Since the rotor magnet is integrated with the end plate, the rotor magnet can be connected to the end plate at an end in the axial direction in the slot. Accordingly, it is possible to prevent a state in which the rotor magnet is not disposed at an end in the axial direction in the slot. Accordingly, it is possible to prevent a decrease in efficiency of the rotary electric machine (¶ 13).
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 Perigo by having the plurality of magnets within the rotor core and wherein the manifold is at least one of bonded and restrained via the resin to the rotor core, as taught by Asahi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Perigo in view of Asahi has been discussed above. Perigo further teaches the manifold 72 at least partially overlapping with at least one of the plurality of apertures 120 and the plurality of cavities 66 (Fig.23).
RE claim 3/1, Perigo in view of Asahi has been discussed above. Perigo further teaches the manifold 72 includes a plurality of blades disposed spaced apart from each other and that together form an impeller of the rotor (Fig.23).
RE claim 14/1, Perigo in view of Asahi has been discussed above. Perigo further teaches the rotor core 40 includes a plurality of laminated sheets 42 (Fig.2 and ¶ 25), and at least a subset of the plurality of laminated sheets are arranged to define a stack 44 (Fig.18 and ¶ 24, 25).
RE claim 15/14, Perigo in view of Asahi has been discussed above. Perigo further teaches the plurality of laminated sheets 42 include a plurality of cutouts 66, 120 (Fig.18) at least a subset of which define a plurality of magnet slots 66 (Fig.21) via which the plurality of magnets 68 are positionable within the stack 44 (Fig.21 and ¶ 27).
RE claim 16/15, Perigo in view of Asahi has been discussed above. Perigo further teaches at least a subset of the plurality of cutouts 66, 120 define a plurality of fixation slots 66 (Fig.18).
RE claim 18/1, Perigo in view of Asahi has been discussed above. Perigo further teaches a first impeller 72 and a second impeller 72 disposed on opposite sides of the rotor core 40 (Fig.18, 23).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perigo in view of Asahi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radl et al. (US 2021/0242746 A1).
RE claim 4/1, Perigo in view of Asahi has been discussed above. Perigo further teaches the manifold includes a plurality of blades (Fig.23) protruding away from the front surface of the rotor core 44; the plurality of blades (72) are disposed spaced apart from each other (Fig.23).
Perigo does not teach the back wall of the manifold has a concave shape forming at least one of an impeller and a fan.
Radl teaches back wall of the manifold 110 has a concave shape (Figs.2, 6 and ¶ 35) forming at least one of an impeller and a fan (Fig.6) to to sling coolant released from the rotor to the end windings or end turns at different axial locations (¶ 35).
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 Perigo in view of Asahi by having the back wall of the manifold has a concave shape forming at least one of an impeller and a fan, as taught by Radl, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perigo in view of Asahi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dlala (US 2020/0412190 A1).
RE claim 17/1, Perigo in view of Asahi has been discussed above. Perigo further teaches the rotor core includes a plurality of laminated sheets 42; a first subset of the plurality of laminated sheets 42 are arranged to define a first stack 44 (Fig.18); a second subset of the plurality of laminated sheets 42 are arranged to define a second stack 44; and the first stack 44 and the second stack 44 are disposed coaxially along a central axis 45 of the shaft 26.
Perigo does not teach the stacks are skewed around the central axis relative to one another.
Dlala teaches stacks are skewed around the central axis relative to one another (Fig.2 and ¶ 19) which structure can be utilized to reduce cogging torque, and thus undesirable noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) characteristics (¶ 19).
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 Perigo in view of Asahi by having the stacks to be skewed around the central axis relative to one another, as taught by Dlala, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perigo in view of Asahi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeda et al. (US 5828152 A).
RE claim 19/18, Perigo in view of Asahi has been discussed above. Perigo further teaches the first impeller 72 is defined by a first portion of the manifold 72; the second impeller 72 is defined by a second portion of the manifold 72;
Perigo does not teach a third portion of the manifold extends through the rotor core and connects the first impeller and the second impeller together.
Takeda teaches a third portion 24 of the manifold extends 2 through the rotor core 21 and connects the first impeller 13 and the second impeller 13 together (Fig.10), such engagement allows the rotor core to be fixedly put between the end plates and permanent magnet to be securely fixed, such that leakage magnetic flux between magnets can be as minimum as possible. Thus, the power generating efficiency is improved (col.10: 1-30).
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 Perigo in view of Asahi by having a third portion of the manifold extends through the rotor core and connects the first impeller and the second impeller together, as taught by Takeda, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 20/19, as discussed above, Takeda teaches the third portion 24 of the manifold extending through the rotor core 6 is disposed within at least some of the at least one of the plurality of apertures and the plurality of cavities (see Fig.10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Seye 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 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