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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claims 1-7 and 10-15 were rejected as being anticipated by Chaithongsuk. Claims 8 and 16 were rejected as being obvious over Chaithongsuk in view of Storath. Claims 9 and 17 were rejected as being obvious over Chaithongsuk in view of Surong. The Applicant amended claims 1, 4, and 13 and canceled claims 2, 9, 11, and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 5/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Japanese Patent No. 2007-053351 to Miyata et al. (hereinafter Miyata; provided by Applicant on 4/9/2026).
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, 3-7, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “On the Use of Pulse Width Modulation Method for the Elimination of Flux Density Harmonics in the Air-Gap of Surface PM Motors” to Chaithongsuk et al. (hereinafter Chaithongsuk; provided by Applicant on 11/26/2025) in view of Japanese Patent No. 2007-053351 to Miyata et al. (hereinafter Miyata; provided by Applicant on 4/9/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Chaithongsuk teaches a method for forming a rotor structure (FIG. 3), comprising:
providing a plurality of magnet units (Page 1738 Column 1 Paragraph 3), each magnet component having a plurality of tooth portions (FIG. 1, magnets); and
dividing an ideal sinusoidal air-gap magnetic field wave into N segments (FIG. 6; N=5), wherein when a center line of a tooth portion of the plurality of tooth portions is in a corresponding segment of the ideal sinusoidal air-gap magnetic field wave, an area of the tooth portion is equal to an area of the corresponding segment of the ideal sinusoidal air gap magnetic field wave (Abstract);
wherein each magnet component further comprises a plurality of grooves (FIG. 2, between magnets) respectively arranged between two adjacent tooth portions, and the plurality of grooves of the magnet components are symmetrically arranged relative to an axis d of the rotor structure (FIG. 2, π/2, center of pole).
Chaithongsuk does not teach each of the plurality of magnet units comprising two magnet components distributed in a V-shaped arrangement, the plurality of grooves of the two magnet components being symmetrically arranged relative to an axis d of the rotor structure.
However, Miyata teaches a plurality of magnet units comprising two magnet components distributed in a V-shaped arrangement (FIG. 2, 12) with a plurality of grooves (FIG. 1, 2) being symmetrically arranged relative to an axis d of the rotor structure (FIG. 2, between two adjacent magnets 12).
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 the method of Chaithongsuk with the V-shaped magnet unit of Miyata to better control the flux distribution of the magnets.
Regarding claim 3, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein Chaithongsuk further teaches a width of the tooth portion decreasing as a distance between the tooth portion and an axis d of a rotor increases in a circumferential direction of the rotor (FIG. 2(b)).
Regarding claim 4, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein Chaithongsuk further teaches the magnet component further comprising a yoke portion (FIG. 1, ROTOR), and one end of each of the plurality of tooth portions is connected with the yoke portion.
Regarding claim 5, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein Chaithongsuk further teaches when a center line of a groove of the plurality of grooves is in a corresponding segment of the ideal sinusoidal air-gap magnetic field wave, a sum of the area of the tooth portion and an area of a corresponding portion of the yoke portion is equal to the area of the corresponding segment of the ideal sinusoidal air gap magnetic field wave (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein Chaithongsuk further teaches N being equal to a number of the plurality of tooth portions (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches a rotor structure (Chaithongsuk Page 1738 Column 1 Paragraph 3), wherein the rotor structure is formed by the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches a motor structure (Chaithongsuk Page 1738 Column 1 Paragraph 3), comprising the rotor structure according to claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the rotor structure according to claim 7, wherein Chaithongsuk further teaches a width of the tooth portion decreasing as a distance between the tooth portion and an axis d of a rotor increases in a circumferential direction of the rotor (FIG. 2(b)).
Regarding claim 13, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the rotor structure according to claim 7, wherein Chaithongsuk further teaches the magnet component further comprises a yoke portion (FIG. 1, ROTOR), and one end of each of the plurality of tooth portions is connected with the yoke portion.
Regarding claim 14, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the rotor structure according to claim 13, wherein Chaithongsuk further teaches when a center line of a groove of the plurality of grooves is in a corresponding segment of the ideal sinusoidal air-gap magnetic field wave, a sum of the area of the tooth portion and an area of a corresponding portion of the yoke portion is equal to the area of the corresponding segment of the ideal sinusoidal air gap magnetic field wave (Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the rotor structure according to claim 7, wherein Chaithongsuk further teaches N being equal to a number of the plurality of tooth portions (FIG. 6).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata and in further view of European Patent No. 2 479 872 to Storath (provided by Applicant on 11/26/2025).
Regarding claim 8, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the rotor structure according to claim 7.
Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata does not teach a rotor punching sheet, wherein the plurality of magnet units are arranged on the rotor punching sheet.
However, Storath teaches a rotor punching sheet comprising a laminated rotor core (FIG. 2, 1; Paragraph [0002]), wherein a plurality of magnet units (FIG. 2, 4) are arranged on the rotor punching sheet.
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 the rotor structure of Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata with the laminated rotor core of Storath to reduce eddy current losses in the rotor.
Regarding claim 16, Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata teaches the motor structure according to claim 10.
Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata does not teach a rotor punching sheet, wherein the plurality of magnet units are arranged on the rotor punching sheet.
However, Storath teaches a rotor punching sheet comprising a laminated rotor core (FIG. 2, 1; Paragraph [0002]), wherein a plurality of magnet units (FIG. 2, 4) are arranged on the rotor punching sheet.
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 the motor structure of Chaithongsuk in view of Miyata with the laminated rotor core of Storath to reduce eddy current losses in the rotor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chinese Patent No. 102157998 to Surong et al.
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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights