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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“an end portion projecting out from the plate connected to the support body” in claim 7
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 5-7 appeared to contain reference of paragraph number from specification contained limitation in parenthesis. It is noted that only reference number can be used in the parenthesis in the claim. However, the use of reference characters is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims, see MPEP 608.01(m). For the purpose of examination, the recitation inside the parenthesis in claims 5-7 have not been considered.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibbs et al. (US 2018/0331590 A1) in view of Seguchi (US 6590312 B1).
RE claim 1, Hibbs teaches an electromagnetic device (Figs.1-4) comprising:
a moving body including a first magnet array 535 and a second magnet array 555 each in which a plurality of permanent magnets 535a-535h, 555a-555h are arrayed along a one direction while progressively changing respective magnetization directions in sequence by an angle (45°) resulting from dividing one cycle of electric angle by a division number n (π/4), wherein the division number n is any number equal to or greater than 3 , the first magnet array 535 and the second magnet array 555 are disposed separated by a specific gap length 549 (Fig.4) and facing at orientations such that magnetic fields of the first magnet array and the second magnet array reinforce each other (¶ 34);
a fixed body 540 including a support body 540 formed with constant thickness dimension, the support body 540 disposed between the first permanent magnet array 535 and the second permanent magnet array 555 such that a gap length to the first magnet array 535 is similar to a gap length to the second magnet array 555, the moving body (535, 555) being moved relative to the fixed body 540; and
a three-phase armature configured from respective air-core coils (ironless winding, see ¶ 31).
Hibbs does not teach:
the support made of ferromagnetic material and the three-phase armature disposed on the support body divided respectively between the first magnet array side and the second magnet array side of the support body.
a cooling structure connected to the support body.
RE (i) above, Seguchi teaches a support body 215 formed using a ferromagnetic material (laminated iron sheets, see col.3 25-30) a three-phase armature 212 disposed on the support body 215 divided respectively between the first magnet side and the second magnet side of the support body 215 (Fig.3, 4). This way of winding shortens the length of one-turn coil to be wound on stator core 211. Therefore, the wire length of coil-ends can be shortened (col.10: 15-20). Furthermore, it is well-known that ferromagnetic material can be utilized to increase magnetic conduction of the stator and the three-phase winding can be used to achieve higher power when compared to single phase. Therefore, it is easy to wind the coils, and the coil ends become smaller so that a small and high powered rotary electric machine can be provided (col.5: 40-42).
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 Hibbs by having the support made of ferromagnetic material and the three-phase armature disposed on the support body divided respectively between the first magnet array side and the second magnet array side of the support body, as taught by Seguchi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Seguchi teaches a cooling structure 216 (Fig.2) connected to the support body 215 to effectively transfer heat (col.21: 5-15).
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 Hibbs by having a cooling structure connected to the support body, as taught by Seguchi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Hibbs in view of Seguchi has been discussed above. Hibbs further teaches the division number n is any number (n=8, see Fig.4) resulting from adding 2 to a multiple of 3 (2+2x3=8).
RE claim 3/1, Hibbs in view of Seguchi has been discussed above. Hibbs further teaches the moving body 30, 50 is configured by a rotor in which the permanent magnets 535 are arrayed in each of the first magnet array 535 and the second magnet array 555 (¶ 34 and Fig.4) along a circumferential direction centered on a single center point (of shaft 22); and the fixed body (stator 40) is a circular cylinder shaped stator 40 centered on the center point of the support body (Figs.1, 4).
RE claim 4/2, Hibbs in view of Seguchi has been discussed above. Hibbs further teaches the moving body (30, 50) is configured by a rotor in which the permanent magnets are arrayed in each of the first magnet array 535 and the second magnet array 555 along a circumferential direction centered on a single center point (of shaft 22); and the fixed body (stator 40) is a circular cylinder shaped stator 40 centered on the center point of the support body (Figs.1, 4).
RE claim 6/1, as discussed above, Seguchi teaches the cooling structure comprises a plate 217 connected to the support body 215 (Fig.2).
RE claim 7/6, as discussed above, Seguchi teaches an end portion 216 projecting out from the plate 217 connected to the support body 215 (Fig.2).
RE claim 8/1, Hibbs in view of Seguchi has been discussed above. Hibbs does not teach the fixed body 540 with a support body 540 and air-core coils (ironless core) 545 is a stator (¶ 31, 35).
RE claim 9/1, Hibbs in view of Seguchi has been discussed above. Hibbs further teaches the moving body (535, 555) is a rotor (¶ 24, 34).
RE claim 10/1, Hibbs in view of Seguchi has been discussed above. Hibbs further teaches the electromagnetic device is an electric motor (¶ 31).
RE claim 11, Hibbs teaches an electromagnetic motor (Figs.1-4) comprising:
a moving rotor including a first magnet array 535 and a second magnet array 555 each in which a plurality of permanent magnets 535a-535h, 555a-555h are arrayed along a one direction while progressively changing respective magnetization directions in sequence by an angle (45°) resulting from dividing one cycle of electric angle by a division number n (π/4), wherein the division number n is any number equal to or greater than 3, the first magnet array 535 and the second magnet array 555 are disposed separated by a specific gap length 549 (Fig.4) and facing at orientations such that magnetic fields of the first magnet array and the second magnet array reinforce each other (¶ 34); and
a fixed stator 540 including
a support body 540 formed with constant thickness dimension, the support body 540 disposed between the first permanent magnet array 535 and the second permanent magnet array 555 such that a gap length to the first magnet array 535 is similar to a gap length to the second magnet array 555, the moving body being moved relative to the fixed body, and
a three-phase armature configured from respective air-core coils (ironless winding, see ¶ 31).
Hibbs does not teach:
the support made of ferromagnetic material and the three-phase armature disposed on the support body divided respectively between the first magnet array side and the second magnet array side of the support body.
a cooling structure connected to the support body.
RE (i) above, Seguchi teaches a support body 215 formed using a ferromagnetic material (laminated iron sheets, see col.3 25-30) a three-phase armature 212 disposed on the support body 215 divided respectively between the first magnet side and the second magnet side of the support body 215 (Fig.3, 4). This way of winding shortens the length of one-turn coil to be wound on stator core 211. Therefore, the wire length of coil-ends can be shortened (col.10: 15-20). Furthermore, it is well-known that ferromagnetic material can be utilized to increase magnetic conduction of the stator and the three-phase winding can be used to achieve higher power when compared to single phase. Therefore, it is easy to wind the coils, and the coil ends become smaller so that a small and high powered rotary electric machine can be provided (col.5: 40-42).
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 Hibbs by having the support made of ferromagnetic material and the three-phase armature disposed on the support body divided respectively between the first magnet array side and the second magnet array side of the support body, as taught by Seguchi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Seguchi teaches a cooling structure 216 (Fig.2) connected to the support body 215 to effectively transfer heat (col.21: 5-15).
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 Hibbs by having a cooling structure connected to the support body, as taught by Seguchi, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibbs in view of Seguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2014/0097719 A1).
RE claim 5/1, Hibbs in view of Seguchi has been discussed above. Hibbs does not teach the support body is an electromagnetic steel sheet.
It is noted that Hibbs in view of Seguchi teaches the support body is electromagnetic iron sheet (laminated iron sheets, see col.3 25-30)
Seo suggests that material such as electromagnetic steel can be utilize to reduce hysteresis loss (iron loss) (¶ 5).
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 Hibbs in view of Seguchi by having the support body to be made of an electromagnetic steel sheet, as suggested by Seo, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, one ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6 and 7 of the Remark, Applicant argued:
(i) Higgs does not show the newly added “cooling structure” in claim 1.
(ii) it is not obvious to combine Higgs and Seguchi because Seguchi does not direct to an air-core coils.
Applicant’s argument was not found persuasive:
(i) Seguchi teaches a cooling structure 216 connected to the support body 215 to effectively transfer heat (col.21: 5-15 and Fig.2) as discussed above.
(ii) Applicant’s argument was not persuasive because the rejection relied on Seguchi for the teaching of ferromagnetic being the material for support body and not modifying the winding type of Higgs.
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 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
Prosecution Insights