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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/03/2026, with respect to the USC 103 rejection of claim s 7-8,10,12-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of those claims has been rejected, and those claims are indicated as either allowable or allowed. See below.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 9 and 11 filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that Re-claim 9, Oikawa discloses a permanent magnet rotor (Fig.3) comprising: a rotation axis (4);
an inner peripheral magnet (2c) that is a cylindrical bonded magnet (2c is cylindrical) including a plurality of recesses (annotated fig.4) on an outer peripheral side (annotated fig.4) and holding the rotation axis (4); and
an outer peripheral magnet (2b) that is a cylindrical bonded magnet (annotated fig.4) provided on an outer peripheral side of the inner peripheral magnet (see fig.4), wherein
the outer peripheral magnet (2b, see fig.4) includes
a plurality of projections (annotated fig.4) that projects toward an inner peripheral side (internally toward 2c) and is fitted into the plurality of recesses (annotated fig.4) of the inner peripheral magnet (2c), wherein the number of the plurality of projections (annotated fig.4, projections in only one magnet) is a half of the number of magnetic poles (magnetic pole so finer magnet 2b and 2c are double the projections of fig.4) formed in the inner peripheral magnet (2c) and the outer peripheral magnet (2b), and the plurality of projections are arranged at equal intervals (annotated fig.4).
Oikawa fails to explicitly teach that the plurality of projections is arranged at equal intervals in the middle of adjacent magnetic pole centers.
However, Jeung shows and the plurality of projections is arranged at equal intervals in the middle of adjacent magnetic pole centers (annotated fig.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the rotor of Oikawa wherein the plurality of projections is arranged at equal intervals in the middle of adjacent magnetic pole centers as shown by Jeung to provide high strength member and transfer torque of shaft to magnet assembly (P[0015]).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa et al. (US PG Pub 20180109167 hereinafter “Oikawa”) in view of Jeung (US PG Pub 20090108686 hereinafter “Jeung”).
Re-claim 9, Oikawa discloses a permanent magnet rotor (Fig.3) comprising: a rotation axis (4);
an inner peripheral magnet (2c) that is a cylindrical bonded magnet (2c is cylindrical) including a plurality of recesses (annotated fig.4) on an outer peripheral side (annotated fig.4) and holding the rotation axis (4); and
an outer peripheral magnet (2b) that is a cylindrical bonded magnet (annotated fig.4) provided on an outer peripheral side of the inner peripheral magnet (see fig.4), wherein
the outer peripheral magnet (2b, see fig.4) includes
a plurality of projections (annotated fig.4) that projects toward an inner peripheral side (internally toward 2c) and is fitted into the plurality of recesses (annotated fig.4) of the inner peripheral magnet (2c), wherein the number of the plurality of projections (annotated fig.4, projections in only one magnet) is a half of the number of magnetic poles (magnetic pole so finer magnet 2b and 2c are double the projections of fig.4) formed in the inner peripheral magnet (2c) and the outer peripheral magnet (2b), and the plurality of projections are arranged at equal intervals (annotated fig.4).
Oikawa fails to explicitly teach that the plurality of projections is arranged at equal intervals in the middle of adjacent magnetic pole centers.
However, Jeung shows and the plurality of projections is arranged at equal intervals in the middle of adjacent magnetic pole centers (annotated fig.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the rotor of Oikawa wherein the plurality of projections is arranged at equal intervals in the middle of adjacent magnetic pole centers as shown by Jeung to provide high strength member and tranfer torque of shaft to magnet assembly (P[0015]).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
576
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
498
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 11, Oikawa as modified discloses the permanent magnet rotor according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of recesses (annotated fig.4) and the plurality of projections (annotated fig.4) have a semicircular shape (shape is semicircular in fig.4 of projections and recesses).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7,8,13,14, and 19 are allowed.
Re-claim 7, applicants arguments and amendment are persuasive and make claim 7 allowable.
Claims 8,13,14 are allowed as being dependent from claim 7.
Claim 19 has been amended to contain already indicated subject matter of claim 13, therefor is allowed.
Claims 10,12-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re-claim 10, has been amended if combined with claim 9 will be allowed same as claim 1.
Claim 12,16,18 depend from claim 10 and are objected to as such.
Re-claim 13, recites “ 13. The permanent magnet rotor according to claim 7, wherein the outer peripheral magnet includes a gate connection portion recessed from an end surface of one end portion of the outer peripheral magnet, at a position in a circumferential direction where the plurality of projections is provided.”
PNG
media_image4.png
310
435
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
522
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is found to be unique and will be allowable if merged with claim 7. The prior art of record, ip.com search, AI search, Global Dossier search fail to teach the combination of claims 7 and 13 above.
Claims 15, 17 are same as claim 13 and are allowable if merged with claim 9 and or 10 resectivley.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
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 MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights