DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-15 of U.S. Application 18/729739 filed on July 17, 2024 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 17, 2024, March 14, 2025 and January 6, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanagida (JP 2004328956, see English Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Yanagida teaches (see figs. 1 and 4 below) a rotating electric machine (title, Abstract) comprising: a rotor (10) in which permanent magnets (30) forming one magnetic pole are plurally disposed in a circumferential direction in a cylindrical core (20) (Abstract; ¶ 19; ¶ 23);
a stator (100) in which windings (110U, 110V, 110W) are provided in multiple slots (102) facing the rotor (10) (Abstract; ¶ 19 to ¶ 22); and
multiple groove portions (14a, 14b) being formed on an outer circumferential surface of one or both of regions of the rotor (10), the regions being obtained by dividing the one magnetic pole of the rotor (10) into two by a magnetic pole center line (11), the multiple groove portions (14a, 14b) being separated from each other by a core having a diameter equivalent to a circumscribed circle of the rotor (10), wherein each of the multiple groove portions (14a, 14b) has a shape protruding toward a rotation center of the rotor (10) (fig. 4; Abstract; ¶ 24; ¶ 28), and
the multiple groove portions (14a, 14b) are spaced such that a distance between deepest portions of the groove portions (14a, 14b) has a phase relationship by which torque ripple of a predetermined order caused by formation of the groove portions (14a, 14b) weaken each other (Abstract; ¶ 14; ¶ 30; ¶ 35 to ¶ 42).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
359
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2/1, Yanagida teaches (see figs. 1 and 4 above) the multiple groove portions (14a, 14b) have two groove portions (14a, 14b), and the two groove portions (14a, 14b) are spaced such that a distance between deepest portions of the groove portions is larger than 6.5 degrees and less than 9.0 degrees in electrical angle (if angle Φ1 is 40 degrees and angle Φ2 is 48 degrees, then the distance between the deepest portions of the groove portions is 8 degrees, see ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 4/2/1, Yanagida teaches (see figs. 1 and 4 above) an intermediate position between deepest portions of the multiple groove portions (14b) is disposed at a position apart from the magnetic pole center line (11) by 49.2 degrees to 58.0 degrees in electrical angle (Abstract; ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 9/1, Yanagida teaches (see figs. 1 and 4 above) wherein width and depth of the multiple groove portions (14a, 14b) are determined in accordance with an index representing a total value of width and depth of all the groove portions (14a, 14b) per magnetic pole (these claim limitations are directed to a process of determining the width/depth of the groove portions and are not given patentable weight in this apparatus claim, see below) (fig. 4; Abstract; ¶ 24; ¶ 28).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “wherein width and depth of the multiple groove portions are determined in accordance with an index representing a total value of width and depth of all the groove portions per magnetic pole” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 10/9/1, Yanagida teaches (see figs. 1 and 4 above) wherein the index is calculated by summing, for all the groove portions (14a, 14b) formed per magnetic pole, a multiplication value obtained by multiplying a ratio of width of the groove portion to one cycle of electrical angle by a ratio of depth of the groove portion (14a, 14b) to a separation distance between the stator (100) and the circumscribed circle of the rotor (10), and the widths and the depths of the multiple groove portions are determined in a range that a value of the index is less than 0.18 (these claim limitations are directed to a process of determining the width/depth of the groove portions and are not given patentable weight in this apparatus claim, see below) (fig. 4; Abstract; ¶ 24; ¶ 28).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “wherein the index is calculated by summing, for all the groove portions formed per magnetic pole, a multiplication value obtained by multiplying a ratio of width of the groove portion to one cycle of electrical angle by a ratio of depth of the groove portion to a separation distance between the stator and the circumscribed circle of the rotor, and the widths and the depths of the multiple groove portions are determined in a range that a value of the index is less than 0.18” is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida in view of Zhu (US 20180278100).
Regarding claim 11/1, Yanagida teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein part of or all the groove portions are filled with a non-magnetic material.
However, Zhu teaches (see fig. 8 below) wherein part of or all the groove portions (624) are filled with a non-magnetic material (aluminum, see ¶ 3; ¶ 5; ¶ 39; claim 5; ¶ 65) in order to increase torque density while reducing torque ripple (Zhu, ¶ 25; ¶ 28; ¶ 65).
PNG
media_image3.png
582
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yanagida and provide part of or all the groove portions are filled with a non-magnetic material as taught by Zhu in order to increase torque density while reducing torque ripple (Zhu, ¶ 25; ¶ 28; ¶ 65).
Regarding claim 12/1, Yanagida teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach an outer circumference of the rotor is covered with a non-magnetic material.
However, Zhu teaches (see fig. 8 above) an outer circumference of the rotor (600) is covered with a non-magnetic material (aluminum, see ¶ 3; ¶ 5; ¶ 39; claim 5; ¶ 65) in order to increase torque density while reducing torque ripple (Zhu, ¶ 25; ¶ 28; ¶ 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yanagida and provide an outer circumference of the rotor is covered with a non-magnetic material as taught by Zhu in order to increase torque density while reducing torque ripple (Zhu, ¶ 25; ¶ 28; ¶ 65).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-0243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/ALEXANDER A SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights