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 responsive to the Applicant' s communication filed July 15, 2026. In view of this communication, claims 9-26 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, ¶ 2, filed July 15, 2026, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of April 22, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, ¶ 3-4, filed July 15, 2026, with respect to claim 9-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of April 22, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, ¶ 5 – Page 8, ¶ 4, filed July 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-21 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 another embodiment of Matsukawa et al. (JP 2021093820 A).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 first flux barrier having an outer projecting portion and an inner projecting portion at different positions in the extending direction from each other must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 24 is identical to claim 23, upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 25 is rejected due to dependence on claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsukawa et al. (JP 2021093820 A, hereafter referred to as Matsukawa).
Regarding Claim 9, Matsukawa discloses a rotor (30, Page 2, ¶ 10) rotatable about a central axis, the rotor (30, Page 2, ¶ 10) comprising:
a rotor core (531B, Page 7, ¶ 6); and
a plurality of flux barrier groups (Annotated Figure 9) provided in the rotor core (531B, Page 7, ¶ 6) and arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction,
wherein each of the plurality of flux barrier groups (Annotated Figure 9) includes a plurality of flux barriers (Annotated Figure 9) arranged side by side at intervals in a radial direction,
the rotor core (531B, Page 7, ¶ 6) has a projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) projecting from an edge portion (Annotated Figure 9) of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9) toward an inside of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9),
a first flux barrier (532B, Page 7, ¶ 6) is on an outermost side of the plurality of flux barriers (Annotated Figure 9) in the radial direction, wherein the first flux barrier (532B, Page 7, ¶ 6) is free of the projecting portion, and
in each of the plurality of flux barrier groups (Annotated Figure 9), a corresponding edge portion (Annotated Figure 9) of at least one of the flux barriers (Annotated Figure 9) is provided with two or more of the projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
589
511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figure 9 above) that the two or more of projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) include a pair of the projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) arranged at intervals in the circumferential direction, and the pair of projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) are arranged with an imaginary line (42, Page 6, ¶ 5) extending in the radial direction through a center in the circumferential direction of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9) interposed therebetween as viewed in an axial direction.
Regarding Claim 11/10/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figure 9 above) that the pair of projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) are arranged in a manner line-symmetric to each other with respect to the imaginary line (42, Page 6, ¶ 5) when viewed in the axial direction.
Regarding Claim 12/10/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figures 7 and 9 above) that in each of the plurality of flux barrier groups (Annotated Figure 9), the pair of projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) are provided at the corresponding edge edge portion of two or more of the flux barriers (Annotated Figure 9), and the pair of projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) provided at the corresponding edge portion (Annotated Figure 9) of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9) located further on an outer side in the radial direction has a smaller interval in the circumferential direction between the pair of projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6).
Regarding Claim 13/11/10/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figures 7 and 9 above) that in each of the plurality of flux barrier groups (Annotated Figure 9), the pair of projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) are provided at the corresponding edge portion (Annotated Figure 9) of two or more of the flux barriers (Annotated Figure 9), and the pair of projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) provided at the corresponding edge portion of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9) located further on an outer side in the radial direction has a smaller interval in the circumferential direction between the pair of projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6).
Regarding Claim 14/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figures 7 and 9 above) that the projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) includes a projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) provided on a first edge portion (Annotated Figure 9) on an outer side in the radial direction of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 15/13/11/10/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figures 7 and 9 above) that the projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) includes a projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) provided on a first edge portion (Annotated Figure 9) on an outer side in the radial direction of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 16/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figures 7 and 9 above) that the projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) includes a projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) provided on a second edge portion (Annotated Figure 9) on an inner side in the radial direction of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 17/15/13/11/10/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figures 7 and 9 above) that the projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) includes a projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) provided on a second edge portion (Annotated Figure 9) on an inner side in the radial direction of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 18/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figure 7 above) that when viewed in the axial direction, dimensions of the projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) projects are uniform or smaller as the projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) are more away from the corresponding edge portion of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 19/17/15/13/11/10/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figure 7 above) that when viewed in the axial direction, dimensions of the projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the projecting portion (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) projects are uniform or smaller as the projecting portions (35, Page 7, ¶ 6) are more away from the corresponding edge portion of the flux barrier (Annotated Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 20/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figure 1 above) a rotary electric machine (100, Page 2, ¶ 3) comprising: the rotor (30, Page 2, ¶ 10) according to claim 9; and a stator (20, Page 2, ¶ 4) located outside in a radial direction of the rotor (30, Page 2, ¶ 10).
Regarding Claim 21/19/17/15/13/11/10/9, Matsukawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Matsukawa discloses (see Figure 1 above) a rotary electric (100, Page 2, ¶ 3) machine comprising: the rotor (30, Page 2, ¶ 10) according to claim 19; and a stator located outside in a radial direction of the rotor (30, Page 2, ¶ 10).
Claims 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimokawa et al. (JP 2021093820 A, hereafter referred to as Shimokawa).
Regarding Claim 22, Shimokawa discloses (see Figure 6) a rotor (20, Page 2, ¶ 2) rotatable about a central axis, comprising:
a rotor core (30, Page 2, ¶ 4); and
a plurality of flux barrier groups (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5) on the rotor core (30, Page 2, ¶ 4) arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction,
wherein each of the plurality of flux barrier groups (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5) includes a plurality of flux barriers (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5) arranged side by side at intervals in a radial direction,
the rotor core (30, Page 2, ¶ 4) includes a projecting portion (150, 190, Page 7, ¶ 3-4) projecting from an edge portion of a corresponding flux barrier (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5) of the plurality of flux barriers (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5) toward an inner side of the corresponding flux barrier (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5),
in each of the plurality of flux barrier groups (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5), a corresponding edge portion of at least one of the plurality of flux barriers (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5) includes two or more projecting portions (150, 190, Page 7, ¶ 3-4), and
in a first flux barrier (Annotated Figure 6) of the plurality of flux barriers (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5), an outer projecting portion (190, Page 7, ¶ 4) of the two or more projecting portions (150, 190, Page 7, ¶ 3-4) is on a first edge portion (Annotated Figure 6c) on a radially outer side and an inner projecting portion (150, Page 7, ¶ 3) is on a second edge portion (Annotated Figure 6c) on a radially inner side, and the outer projecting portion (190, Page 7, ¶ 4) is at a different position from the inner projecting portion (150, Page 7, ¶ 3) in an extending direction of the first flux barrier (Annotated Figure 6) (Page 7, ¶ 4: “ Further, as shown in FIG. 6C, the protrusion 190 on which the caulking portion 191 is formed is provided on the outer diameter side wall surfaces 33b, 34b, 35b, 36b among the inner walls of the flux barriers 33, 34, 35, 36, The outer diameter side wall surfaces 33b, 34b, 35b, and 36b may protrude toward the inner diameter side wall surfaces 33a, 34a, 35a, and 36a.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
676
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23/22, Shimokawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Shimokawa discloses (see Figure 6 above) that when viewed in the axial direction, dimensions of the projecting portions in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the projecting portion (150, 190, Page 7, ¶ 3-4) projects are uniform or smaller as the projecting portions (150, 190, Page 7, ¶ 3-4) are more away from the corresponding edge portion (Annotated Figure 6c) of the flux barrier (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5).
Regarding Claim 24/23/22, Shimokawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Shimokawa discloses (see Figure 6 above) that when viewed in the axial direction, dimensions of the projecting portions (150, 190, Page 7, ¶ 3-4) in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the projecting portion (150, 190, Page 7, ¶ 3-4) projects are uniform or smaller as the projecting portions (150, 190, Page 7, ¶ 3-4) are more away from the corresponding edge portion (Annotated Figure 6c) of the flux barrier (33-36, Page 2, ¶ 5).
Regarding Claim 25/24/23/22, Shimokawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Shimokawa discloses (see Figure 6 above) a rotary electric machine (10, Page 2, ¶ 2) comprising: the rotor (20, Page 2, ¶ 2) according to claim 24; and a stator (100, Page 2, ¶ 2) located outside in a radial direction of the rotor (20, Page 2, ¶ 2).
Regarding Claim 26/22, Shimokawa has been discussed above.
Additionally, Shimokawa discloses (see Figure 6 above) a rotary electric machine (10, Page 2, ¶ 2) comprising: the rotor (20, Page 2, ¶ 2) according to claim 22; and a stator (100, Page 2, ¶ 2) located outside in a radial direction of the rotor (20, Page 2, ¶ 2).
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 CHARLIE FRANK MANN whose telephone number is (703)756-1275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 4:30PM PST.
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, Oluseye 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/ALEXANDER A SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights