DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 of U.S. Application No. 18/710,078 filed on 05/14/2024 are presented for examination. Claims 3, and 7 have been cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections: claims 5-8 stands rejected in the Non-Final Office Action of 01/22/2026 for reciting “A rotating electrical machine” in the preamble. Rotating electrical machine was previously defined in claim 1, thus was not clear if the newly introduced “A rotating electrical machine” is new element, or the same electrical machine in claim 1.
The Applicant amended claims 5-6, and 8 to delete the recitation “the rotating electrical machine”, but left the same recitation “A rotating electrical machine” in the preamble. That being said. The amendments of 06/18/2026 does not fully address the applied 112(b) rejection, and therefore, the 112(b) rejections are maintained.
Regarding the 102 rejections: The Applicant argues that Kobayashi does not disclose the claimed “a predetermined gap” in claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kobayashi clearly does disclose such gap as seen in the annotated fig. 6 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
821
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant’s argument that the gap is element 258 is irrelevant because the gap 258 was not relied on in the Office Action as the claimed “a predetermined gap”.
Regarding the 103 rejections: The Applicant amended claim 1 with the limitations of claim 3. The Applicant did not provide any argument regarding the limitations of the original limitations of claim 3. The Applicant merely argue that Kido does not disclose the “predetermined gap”, which is disclosed by Kobayashi, thus no argument was introduced for Kobayashi in view of Kido combination.
Similarly, The Applicant argue that Kubota does not claim the “predetermined gap”, however, the limitation is disclosed by Kobayashi as previously discussed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 2/1 recites, “…the protrusion faces the main surface of the magnet with a predetermined gap interposed therebetween. While amended claim 1 recites, “…a predetermined gap is formed between the protrusion and the magnet…”
It is not clear if it is the same “predetermined gap” or a different gap.
Claims 5-6, and 8 recites, “…A rotating electric machine …”, it is not clear if the rotating electrical machine is the same, or a new rotating electrical machine is being introduced. “a rotating electric machine “ was previously introduced in claim 1.
For example, the preamble of claim 5 should read:
“5. (Currently amended) [[A]] The rotating electric machine comprising: the rotor according to claim 1;…”
Same applies to claims 6, and 8.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi Yugi et al. (WO 2019087747; Hereinafter, “Kobayashi”) in view of Kido Osao et al. (JP 2018011466; Hereinafter, “Kido”).
Regarding claim 1: Kobayashi discloses a rotor (250) of a rotating electric machine (200) comprising:
a pair of magnets (254a, or 254b) arranged in a V shape (fig. 4); and
a rotor core (252) provided with magnet holes (253) into which the magnets (154) are inserted, wherein the rotor core (252) has, on an outside in a radial direction,
PNG
media_image2.png
777
1213
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a magnetic gap (257, 258) between the rotor core (252) and an outermost diameter corner (annotated figure 6 above) located on an outermost side in the radial direction among corners of the magnet (254a as in fig. 6), and has a protrusion (260) formed so as to protrude toward the magnet (254a) between a first outermost diameter portion (annotated figure 6 above) closer to a magnetic pole center (annotated figure 6 above) of the rotor than the outermost diameter corner (annotated figure 6 above) in an outer diameter of the magnetic gap (257, 258) and a second outermost diameter portion (annotated figure 6 above) closer to a magnetic pole boundary (annotated figure 6 above) of the rotor than the outermost diameter corner in an outermost diameter of the magnetic gap (257, 258), and
the protrusion (260) faces a main surface (262) of the magnet (254a), and a predetermined gap (see annotated fig. 6 below) if formed between the protrusion (260) and the magnet (254a, or 254b).
PNG
media_image3.png
738
973
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi does not disclose a distance between an outer peripheral surface of the rotor and the first outermost diameter portion is longer than a distance between an outer peripheral surface of the rotor and the second outermost diameter portion.
Kido discloses a distance (A; annotated figure 2 below) between an outer peripheral surface of the rotor and the first outermost diameter portion is longer than a distance (B) between an outer peripheral surface of the rotor and the second outermost diameter portion (annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
656
737
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the rotor of Kobayashi with the distance between the outer peripheral surface of the rotor and the first outermost diameter portion to be longer than the distance between an outer peripheral surface of the rotor and the second outermost diameter portion as taught by Kido for improved torque and improved resistance to demagnetization (para [0006]).
Regarding claim 2/1: Kobayashi in view of Kido disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Kobayashi further discloses that the protrusion (260) faces the main surface (262) of the magnet (254a) with a predetermined gap (the annotated fig. 6 above) interposed therebetween.
Regarding claim 5/1, 6/2/1: Kobayashi in view of Kido discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2 and Kobayashi further discloses a rotating electric machine (200) comprising: the rotor (250) of the rotating electric machine (200) according to the rotor of the rotating electric machine according to claim 1, 2; and a stator (230) facing the rotor (250) with a predetermined air gap (222) interposed therebetween (fig. 3).
Claims 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Kido and in further view of Kubota Yoshinaga et al. (JP 2020120444; Hereinafter, “Kubota”).
Regarding claim 4/1: Kobayashi in view of Kido discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not clearly show that among corners of the magnet, a corner closest to the magnetic pole boundary is in contact with the rotor core.
Kubota discloses among corners of the magnet, a corner (annotated figure 3 below) closest to the magnetic pole boundary (Lq) is in contact with the rotor core.
PNG
media_image5.png
517
983
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the rotor of Kobayashi in view of Kido with among corners of the magnet, a corner closest to the magnetic pole boundary is in contact with the rotor core as taught by Kubota to provide mechanical support to the magnet improving the robustness of the rotor.
Regarding claim 8/4/1: Kobayashi in view of Kido and Kubota discloses the limitations of claim 4 and Kobayashi further discloses a rotating electric machine (200) comprising: the rotor (250); and a stator (230) facing the rotor (250) with a predetermined air gap (222) interposed therebetween (fig. 3).
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 AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights