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 .
This Office Action is in response to papers filed on 5/13/2026. Amendments made to the claims and the Applicant's remarks have been entered and considered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/13/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
The Applicant's remaining arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that The Office admits that Ulrich does not show that "a ratio of a circumferential dimension of the magnetic body portion with respect to a circumferential dimension of the winding range is less than 1, and ... a ratio of a radial dimension of the magnetic body portion with respect to a radial dimension of the winding range is 1/2 or more." Id. However, the Office asserts that Figure 2 of Ulrich "suggests" these features and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use these ratios. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The above Figure 2 is "a partial radial cross-sectional view of the stator" according to Ulrich's invention. With reference to FIG. 2, Ulrich specifies that "the lateral surfaces of the pole pieces facing the winding are provided with insulating wall parts 33." FIG. 1 of Ulrich "is an axial cross-sectional view of the stator" according to Ulrich's invention. With reference to FIG. 1, Ulrich specifies that the stator includes "a pole piece star which is formed by individual pole pieces 3," with "slot spaces formed between the side walls of the pole pieces 3" in which "a winding 4 is placed." However, Ulrich does not define or describe a "circumferential dimension" or "radial dimension" of the pole pieces relative to the winding space. Nor does Ulrich disclose any quantitative or qualitative ratio between a pole piece dimension and a-5-winding range dimension. Ulrich is silent as to whether the circumferential width of a pole piece is less than the circumferential extent of the winding range, and it likewise does not describe any minimum proportion between a pole piece's radial dimension and a winding range's radial dimension. In the absence of any disclosure or suggestion addressing these relative dimensions, Ulrich does not teach or suggest the ratios recited in claim 1. In the Office Action, the Office appears to rely on the dimensions of pole pieces 3 and the winding space shown in FIG. 2 of Ulrich as a teaching of the claimed dimensional ratios. This reliance, however, is misplaced. The Applicant cited M.P.E.P. § 2125(1). Here, because Ulrich does not disclose that its Drawings are to scale and is silent as to any relevant dimensions, the proportions shown in Ulrich's Figure 2 are not evidence and cannot be relied upon to teach the ratios recited in claim 1. Moreover, the portion of Ulrich cited in the Office Action merely discloses that: The "welded seams" are indicated in FIG.2 by the reference symbols S1, S2 and S3. In this manner, a mechanically firm attachment and a low resistance magnetic flux transition between the pole pieces 3 and the ring housing 2, serving as the magnetic return, are obtained even if the plastic hollow cylinder 1 should shrink. Nothing in Ulrich suggests that the ratio of a circumferential dimension of the magnetic body portion with respect to a circumferential dimension of the winding range or the ratio of a radial dimension of the magnetic body portion with respect to a radial dimension of the winding range is a "result-effective" variable, let alone that these ratios provide some "advantageous benefit of ... a magnetic return for the stators" as alleged in the Office Action. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify these ratios in Ulrich. Consequently, Ulrich fails to teach or even suggest, at least, wherein a ratio of a circumferential dimension of the magnetic body portion with respect to a circumferential dimension of the winding range is less than 1, and wherein a ratio of a radial dimension of the magnetic body portion with respect to a radial dimension of the winding range is 1/2 or more, as recited in independent claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive because, while the drawings of Ulrich (4,602,423 A) do not teach the claimed ratios because the drawings are not disclosed as being to scale, the drawings of Ulrich are prior art and “must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art”. “The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.” See M.P.E.P. § 2125. Ulrich describes the pole pieces 3 as being mechanically strong and magnetically low resistance (col. 2:19-28) which suggests the proportions shown in FIG. 2 and the ratios recited in the claims to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich et al. (US 4,602,423 A, hereinafter Ulrich).
As to claim 1, Ulrich shows (FIG. 1, 2):
PNG
media_image1.png
393
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A rotating electric machine comprising:
a rotor R which is rotatable around a center axis J;
a stator S which is disposed on one radial side of the rotor R,
wherein the stator S comprises:
an annular back yoke 2 centered on the center axis J;
a coil unit 4 disposed on the other radial side of the back yoke 2; and
a partition unit 3 partitioning a winding range in which the coil unit 4 is disposed in a circumferential direction,
wherein the partition unit 3 includes a magnetic body portion 3 of a magnetic material (pole pieces 3 have a low resistance to magnetic flux col.3:47-53).
Ulrich does not show:
wherein a ratio of a circumferential dimension of the magnetic body portion with respect to a circumferential dimension of the winding range is less than 1, and
wherein a ratio of a radial dimension of the magnetic body portion with respect to a radial dimension of the winding range is 1/2 or more.
Ulrich suggests (FIG. 2):
wherein a ratio of a circumferential dimension of the magnetic body portion 3 with respect to a circumferential dimension of the winding range W is less than 1, and
wherein a ratio of a radial dimension of the magnetic body portion 3 with respect to a radial dimension of the winding range is 1/2 or more (more).
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 stator S of Ulrich to have
wherein a ratio of a circumferential dimension of the magnetic body portion 3 with respect to a circumferential dimension of the winding range W is less than 1, and
wherein a ratio of a radial dimension of the magnetic body portion 3 with respect to a radial dimension of the winding range is 1/2 or more
as suggested by Ulrich, for the advantageous benefit of providing a magnetic return for the stator S as taught by Ulrich (col.3:47-53).
As to claim 2/1, Ulrich was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for wherein the ratio of the circumferential dimension of the magnetic body portion with respect to the circumferential dimension of the winding range is less than 1/2.
Ulrich suggests (FIG. 2) wherein the ratio of the circumferential dimension of the magnetic body portion 3 with respect to the circumferential dimension of the winding range W is less than 1/2.
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 stator S of Ulrich to have wherein the ratio of the circumferential dimension of the magnetic body portion 3 with respect to the circumferential dimension of the winding range W is less than ½ as suggested by Ulrich, for the advantageous benefit of providing a magnetic return for the stator S as taught by Ulrich (col.3:47-53).
As to claim 4/1, Ulrich was discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Ulrich shows (FIG. 2) wherein the circumferential dimension of the winding range W is equal to or less than the radial dimension of the winding range W.
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulrich et al. (US 4,602,423 A, hereinafter Ulrich) in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 2019/0006898 A1, hereinafter Yokoyama).
As to claim 6/1, Ulrich was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for the rotor is of a surface magnet type.
Yokoyama shows (FIG. 1) the rotor 21 is of a surface magnet type.
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 R of Ulrich to have the rotor 21 is of a surface magnet type as taught by Yokoyama, for the advantageous benefit of having the rotor R rotate at a higher speed as taught by Yokoyama (para [0108]).
As to claim 7/1, Ulrich was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for the rotor comprises a plurality of magnets of which magnetization directions alternate in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of magnets are a plurality of divided magnets.
Yokoyama shows (FIG. 1) the rotor 21 comprises a plurality of magnets M of which magnetization directions alternate in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of magnets are a plurality of divided magnets.
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 R of Ulrich to have the rotor 21 comprises a plurality of magnets M of which magnetization directions alternate in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of magnets are a plurality of divided magnets as taught by Yokoyama, for the advantageous benefit of having the rotor R rotate at a higher speed as taught by Yokoyama (para [0108]).
As to claim 8/1, Ulrich was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for the rotor comprises a plurality of magnets of which magnetization directions alternate in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of magnets are a plurality of samarium cobalt magnets.
Yokoyama shows (FIG. 1) the rotor comprises a plurality of magnets of which magnetization directions alternate in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of magnets are a plurality of samarium cobalt magnets (para [0053]).
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 R of Ulrich to have the rotor R comprises a plurality of magnets of which magnetization directions alternate in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of magnets are a plurality of samarium cobalt magnets as taught by Yokoyama, for the advantageous benefit of having the rotor R rotate at a higher speed as taught by Yokoyama (para [0108]).
As to claim 9/1, Ulrich was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for the rotor comprises a plurality of magnets of which magnetization directions alternate in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of magnets are a plurality of bonded magnets.
Yokoyama shows (FIG. 1) the rotor comprises a plurality of magnets M of which magnetization directions alternate in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of magnets are a plurality of bonded magnets (para [0237]).
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 R of Ulrich to have the rotor comprises a plurality of magnets M of which magnetization directions alternate in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of magnets are a plurality of bonded magnets as taught by Yokoyama, for the advantageous benefit of having the rotor R rotate at a higher speed as taught by Yokoyama (para [0108]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 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.
The prior art does not show or suggest the recited dimensions of claim 3 or the wire bundle of claim 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights