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 statements (IDS) submitted on 01 April 2024, 10 December 2024, 01 April 2025 and 08 December 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 11-13 & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Recitation “a gap is provided between the plurality of first magnets and the plurality of second magnets” (claim 6) does not further distinguish from the “interval between the plurality of first magnets and the plurality of second magnets in the axial direction…” of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 & 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pat.Pub.2020/0136447) in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-2020-0036616).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a rotor 20, comprising:
a shaft 70; a first rotor core 220 and a second rotor core 250 that are fixed to the shaft, and that are disposed so as to align in an axial direction along a center axis of the shaft; a plurality of first magnets 230 that are disposed so as to align in a circumferential direction which revolves around the center axis on an outer circumferential surface of the first rotor core 220, and
a plurality of second magnets 260 that are disposed so as to align in the circumferential direction on the outer circumferential surface of the second rotor core 250 (¶[0053]; ¶[0057]; Fig.3b),
wherein locations of the plurality of first magnets 230 and the plurality of second magnets 260 are offset in the circumferential direction (¶[0059]),
a first protrusion 213…, a second protrusion 243…, the first protrusion 213 is located between two of the first magnets 230 adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction (¶[0059]; Figs.3a-3b&8), the second protrusion 243 is located between two of the second magnets 260 adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction, locations of the first protrusion 213 and the second protrusion 243 are offset from one another in the circumferential direction, and
an interval (gap) 23 between the plurality of first magnets and the plurality of second magnets in the axial direction is within a range of 0.5 to 3.0 mm (¶[0065]; Figs.2&4).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
395
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee differs in that the first protrusion 213 is not formed on the first rotor core 220 & the second protrusion 243 is not formed on the second rotor core 250.
But, Kim teaches a motor including a rotor 300 with first and second cores 310a & 310b with respective magnets 320 adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction, and first protrusions 312a formed on the first rotor core located between two of the first magnets 320 and second protrusions 312b formed on the second rotor core 310b located between two of the first magnets 320 (English machine translation ¶[0042]-¶[0053]; Figs.3-7). The protrusions comprise guide projections that align the magnets 320 (¶[0053]).
PNG
media_image3.png
301
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to form the first and second protrusions of Lee on the first and second rotor cores, respectively, between the magnets, since Kim teaches this would have been desirable to align the magnets.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches a gap 23 provided between the plurality of first magnets and the plurality of second magnets.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches a stator 31 that surrounds the rotor (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, as seen in Kim Fig.1, an extension that extends from an end surface of the stator 31 in the axial direction is formed in…the plurality of second magnets (i.e., second rotor 22 extends axially beyond stator 31).
Regarding claim 9, given that Lee teaches the interval (gap) 23 between the plurality of first magnets and the plurality of second magnets in the axial direction is within a range of 0.5 to 3.0 mm, it can be inferred from Fig.1 that the dimension of the extension of the second magnets in the axial direction is within a corresponding range of 0.5 to 3.0 mm.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the motor is for an electric power steering device (¶[0050]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a stator 31 that surrounds the rotor (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 12, as seen in Kim Fig.1, an extension that extends from an end surface of the stator 31 in the axial direction is formed in…the plurality of second magnets (i.e., second rotor 22 extends axially beyond stator 31).
Regarding claim 13, given that Lee teaches the interval (gap) 23 between the plurality of first magnets and the plurality of second magnets in the axial direction is within a range of 0.5 to 3.0 mm, it can be inferred from Fig.1 that the dimension of the extension of the second magnets in the axial direction is within a corresponding range of 0.5 to 3.0 mm.
Regarding claims 14-18, Lee teaches the motor is for an electric power steering device (¶[0050]).
Claims 1 & 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pat.Pub.2019/0386528) in view of Kim et al. (US Pat.Pub.2019/0356179).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a rotor 1200, comprising:
a shaft 1100; a first rotor core 1210 and a second rotor core 1150 that are fixed to the shaft, and that are disposed so as to align in an axial direction along a center axis of the shaft (Fig.5);
a plurality of first magnets 1230 that are disposed so as to align in a circumferential direction which revolves around the center axis on an outer circumferential surface of the first rotor core 1250, and a plurality of second magnets 1230 that are disposed so as to align in the circumferential direction on the outer circumferential surface of the second rotor core,
wherein locations of the plurality of first magnets 1230 and the plurality of second magnets 1230 are offset in the circumferential direction (i.e., plural rotor cores form a skew angle; ¶[0068]; ¶[0076]),
a first protrusion (not numbered; Fig.5) is formed on the first rotor core 1210, a second protrusion (not numbered; Fig.5) is formed on the second rotor core 1210, the first protrusion is located between two of the first magnets 1230 adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction, the second protrusion is located between two of the second magnets 1230 adjacent to one another in the circumferential direction, locations of the first protrusion and the second protrusion are offset from one another in the circumferential direction (Fig.5),
and an interval (gap) between the plurality of first magnets 1230 and the plurality of second magnets 1230 in the axial direction (¶[0012]).
PNG
media_image4.png
390
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches the sum of the gaps ranges from 0.04 to 0.07 times an axial length of the stator (¶[0012]). Thus, for a rotor comprising a single gap between two cores such as in Fig.5, the gap would range from 0.04 to 0.07 times an axial length of the stator. Since Lee does not explicitly teach a value for the axial length of the stator, Lee’s gap is not specifically “within a range of 0.5 to 3.0 mm.”
But, Kim teaches a stator for a permanent-magnet rotor power steering motor comprising a 30 mm thick stator (¶[0134]-¶[0135]; ¶[0145]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Lee with a stator 30 mm thick since Kim teaches this was a common stator thickness for power steering motors. Further, according to Lee, this corresponds to a gap of between 1.2 and 2.1 mm. Per MPEP 2131.03(I), a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches a gap provided between the plurality of first magnets and the plurality of second magnets (Fig.5).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches a stator 1300 that surrounds the rotor (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, as seen in Lee Fig.6, an extension that extends a height h1 and h2 from an end surface of the stator 1300 in the axial direction is formed in at least one of the plurality of first (lower) and the plurality of second (upper) magnets 1230.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the dimension of the extension of the second magnets in the axial direction is within a corresponding range of 0.5 to 3.0 mm since Lee teaches the height of the stator is the sum of the heights of the magnets (¶[0093]) and the gap in view of Lee’s stator length corresponds to between 1.2 and 2.1 mm.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the motor is for an electric power steering device (¶[0106]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a stator 1300 that surrounds the rotor (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 12, as seen in Lee Fig.6, an extension that extends a height h1 and h2 from an end surface of the stator 1300 in the axial direction is formed in at least one of the plurality of first (lower) and the plurality of second (upper) magnets 1230.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the dimension of the extension of the second magnets in the axial direction is within a corresponding range of 0.5 to 3.0 mm since Lee teaches the height of the stator is the sum of the heights of the magnets (¶[0093]) and the gap in view of Lee’s stator length corresponds to between 1.2 and 2.1 mm.
Regarding claims 14-18, Lee teaches the motor is for an electric power steering device (¶[0106]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. 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, Tulsidas 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834