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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the amendment filed August 28, 2026. Claims 2, 3, 7 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 6, 8, 11–14, 18 and 19 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1, 4–6, 8–19, 21 and 22 are pending. Claims 1, 4–6, 8–15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 16, 17, 21 and 22 are objected to. This action is non-final.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 28, 2026 has been entered. The amendments of paragraphs [0025] and [0026] of the specification overcome the objection to the specification, and the amendment of paragraph [0036] overcomes the objection to the drawings, set forth in the Office action mailed May 6, 2026. The objections are withdrawn. The amendment of claim 1 overcomes the rejection of claims 1–3, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Ashida, and the amendments of claims 1, 6, 8, 11–14, 18 and 19 overcome the rejections of claims 4–6, 8 and 11–19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ashida in view of Mergener, Ashida in view of Drexlmaier, and Hasegawa in view of Ashida. Those rejections are withdrawn. The rejections of cancelled claims 2, 3, 7 and 20 are moot. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2026 have been fully considered. To the extent the arguments are directed to the references as previously applied, they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, which rely on Kim, Ji, Ochiai, Bauch, Maruyama, Riddoch and Yamasaki for the amended claims and the claims depending from them. The following points are addressed so that the record is clear.
Applicant argues that the flat, screwed magnets of Ashida necessarily require four differently magnetized magnets, so that Ashida does not teach magnets that are identical in magnetic field relative to their shape and that have a square cross-section (Remarks, pp. 9–10, 18). The examiner agrees that Ashida alone does not teach these limitations, and Ashida is no longer relied upon for them. Kim teaches a Halbach array for a motor/generator built from a single type of square-cross-section bar that is transversely polarized, the differing field directions of the array being obtained by the angular position in which each identical bar is set, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 below. Because the bars of Kim are retained in pockets of a plastic holder rather than by screws passed through the magnets, the screw-hole difficulty applicant identifies in Ashida does not arise in the combination. Consistent with applicant's own explanation (Remarks, p. 10), and with paragraphs [0046] and [0048] of the specification, in which all magnets are stacked in the same magnetic orientation in the cartridge and the Halbach array is produced by rotating the magnets in ninety-degree steps, the limitation "identical … in magnetic field relative to its shape" is interpreted as requiring that each magnet have the same direction of magnetization relative to its own body.
Applicant argues that Drexlmaier does not teach a snap lock, and that its magnets are clamped by the return ring rather than being retained solely by interaction between the magnets and the rotor (Remarks, pp. 15–17); that Hasegawa does not teach a friction fit because the outlet of guiding jig 43 is the same size as or smaller than slot 22 and the friction described at paragraph [0046] of the publication occurs only during insertion (Remarks, pp. 18–20); and that the openings 322 of Mergener are not fully circumscribed within the PCB (Remarks, p. 17). The rejections relying on Drexlmaier, Hasegawa and Mergener for those limitations have been withdrawn. The examiner agrees with applicant that a friction fit and a snap lock are different things (Remarks, p. 17), and the new grounds treat them separately. Consistent with paragraphs [0040] and [0041] and Fig. 3A of the specification, in which the cantilevered snap locks 304A are resilient tabs at the mouths of the magnet slots and the annular snap lock 304B is a slot entrance that deforms to admit the magnet and returns to its original size once the magnet has passed it, a "snap lock" is interpreted as a resilient element of the slot that is deflected by the magnet during insertion and springs back to engage the magnet and hold it in the slot. Claim 14 is now rejected over Bauch, whose plastic holding element has snap-in hooks, integral with the holding element, that engage behind the end faces of the inserted magnets. The friction-fit limitations of claims 8 and 19 are rejected over Ochiai, whose magnets are press-fitted into containing sections of a synthetic-resin magnet holder fixed to the rotor shaft, the spacing between the resilient holding pieces being made slightly smaller than the magnet so that the pieces are spread by the magnet and hold it by their elastic resiliency without any adhesive. Claim 12 is now rejected over Riddoch in view of Yamasaki, whose coil end portions pass through closed through holes 271 of circuit board 27 and are soldered to it. The advantage urged for fully circumscribed holes, that the wire ends may not need to be insulated (Remarks, p. 17), is not recited in claim 12 and has not been considered as a limitation.
Claims 16 and 17 were rejected in the previous action on the rationale that, because a Halbach array requires successive magnets to be oriented at 90° increments, rotating the guiding jig of Hasegawa relative to the push rods would have been an obvious way to achieve those orientations with a single inserter. On reconsideration, that rationale is not supported by a teaching in any reference of record, and no reference of record has been found that rotates a cartridge holding the magnets relative to the axis of motion of the inserter. The rejection of claims 16 and 17, which fell with the amendment of claim 14, is therefore not reapplied over Bauch or any other reference, and those claims are indicated as containing allowable subject matter below.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 11, 13, 21 and 22 (Remarks, pp. 15, 17, 21) are addressed by the new ground of rejection of claims 11 and 13 and by the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 21 and 22 below. Applicant's argument that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency (Remarks, pp. 10, 17) is not persuasive for the reasons set forth in the rejections below.
This action is made non-final. Although most of the new grounds of rejection are directed to limitations first presented in the amendment of August 28, 2026, the rejection of claims 14, 15, 18 and 19 applies Bauch to the limitation "wherein the magnets are secured into the slots using a plurality of snap locks," which was previously presented in claim 20 and was rejected in the Office action mailed May 6, 2026 over Drexlmaier. Because applicant's amendment incorporated that limitation into claim 14 without changing it, and the ground now applied to it relies on a reference not previously applied, the new ground is not one necessitated by the amendment, and the action is therefore not made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida (WO 2021/085647 A2) in view of Kim (US 2003/0094873 A1). Citations to Ashida are to the paragraph numbers of the publication, which correspond to those of the English translation of record.
Regarding claim 1, Ashida teaches A motor, comprising:(¶¶[0019], [0033]; coreless motor having permanent magnets in a dual Halbach arrangement)
a stator comprising electrical windings thereon;(¶¶[0014], [0043]; stator having coreless coil 41 wound of litz wire)
a stator housing at least partially housing the stator; and(¶¶[0016], [0027], [0065]; Fig. 6; case of the rotating machine, made of resin, within which the stator and rotor are housed, as applicant acknowledges at page 21 of the Remarks)
a rotor assembly rotatingly coupled with the stator housing, the rotor assembly comprising:(¶¶[0035]–[0037]; Figs. 1, 3; rotor of outer cylindrical member 11 and inner cylindrical member 13 joined by plate 15 and journalled by a bearing on the stationary shaft that carries the stator plate and coil 41, the stator plate, shaft and rotor all being received in the case that houses the machine)
a rotor formed of a polymer; and(¶¶[0017], [0036]; cylindrical members 11, 13 of resin)
a plurality of magnets coupled with the rotor;(¶¶[0038]–[0041]; Fig. 2; permanent magnets 21, 31 screwed to cylindrical members 11, 13)
wherein the magnets are arranged in a Halbach array;(¶[0042]; Fig. 2; magnets 21, 31 forming two Halbach-arrayed rows).
Ashida does not teach wherein each of the magnets is identical to each other magnet in size, shape and magnetic field relative to its shape; and wherein each of the magnets comprises a square cross-section. Ashida is silent on these features because its magnets 21, 31 are flat, plate-like magnets provided with through holes for the screws (¶[0067]; Fig. 8), arranged as segments of the two rows (Fig. 2), each magnet being magnetized radially or circumferentially as its position in the array requires (Fig. 2), so that magnets of differing magnetization relative to their shape and to their screw holes are used, as applicant explains at page 10 of the Remarks.
However, in the analogous art of Halbach-array permanent magnet rotors for motor/generators, Kim teaches a Halbach array in which each of the magnets is identical to each other magnet in size, shape and magnetic field relative to its shape(Kim ¶[0035]; Fig. 1B; 12-pole, 24-magnet Halbach array requiring only one type of bar, a transversely polarized bar of square cross section; ¶[0011]; stacked sets of segments identical in cross section), and wherein each of the magnets comprises a square cross-section(Kim ¶¶[0011], [0035]; Figs. 1B, 1C; square bar magnet segments; Kim claims 10, 24), the bars being seated in a holder of nylon, polycarbonate or other plastic that encapsulates them, holds them in place and keeps them from rotating, the square bars being located by flat facets of the rotor and the holder locating the bars during assembly without dedicated tooling(Kim ¶¶[0026], [0027], [0029], [0030], [0051], [0055]).
The limitation "identical to each other magnet in … magnetic field relative to its shape" is interpreted, consistent with paragraphs [0046] and [0048] of the specification (all magnets stacked in the cartridge in the same magnetic orientation, the Halbach array being formed by rotating the magnets in ninety-degree steps) and with applicant's explanation at page 10 of the Remarks, as requiring that each magnet be magnetized in the same direction relative to its own body. Kim meets this interpretation because, for the 24-magnet array of Fig. 1B, Kim states that only one type of bar is required, a square-section bar polarized transversely to its length (Kim ¶[0035]). A single type of transversely polarized bar is magnetized in the same direction relative to its body in every bar. Kim Fig. 1B nevertheless shows the magnetization of the twenty-four square segments alternating between the radial and circumferential directions from one segment to the next. The only way identical bars can present those differing directions is by being set at different angular positions about their own length when assembled, which is the construction Kim describes for its round-bar alternatives as well (Kim ¶[0039]; bars of the same design clocked differently to orient the field). The examiner relies on the ¶[0035]/Fig. 1B array; Kim's 16-magnet dipole array of Fig. 2, which uses bars of three polarizations (Kim ¶[0026]), is not relied upon.
In the proposed combination, each flat, screw-mounted magnet 21, 31 of Ashida is replaced by a bar of Kim's single type, seated in a recess formed in the resin cylindrical member 11 or 13 at the same position, in the manner of Kim's plastic holder and faceted rotor (Kim ¶¶[0026], [0029], [0030], [0051]), and set in the recess at the angular position about its own length that reproduces the sequence of radial and circumferential magnetization shown in Ashida's Fig. 2. The screws 25, 35 and the through holes in the magnets are dispensed with, since Kim's holder encapsulates the bars and holds them in position and against rotation without them (Kim ¶¶[0026], [0030]); this is why the screw-hole orientation difficulty that applicant identifies in Ashida (Remarks, p. 10) does not arise in the combination. The rotor remains a resin-carried two-row Halbach rotor driving the same coreless stator, and Ashida's stated purposes of assembling the magnets without waiting for an adhesive to cure and of automating their placement (Ashida ¶¶[0026], [0048]) are preserved, because Kim's holder likewise retains the magnets mechanically without adhesive and, like Ashida, Kim addresses the difficulty of placing strong magnets in close proximity during assembly(Kim ¶[0027]; Ashida ¶[0044]). The modification therefore does not change the principle of operation of Ashida or render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Ashida and Kim are both directed to permanent magnet rotors for motors and generators in which a plurality of magnets fixed to a non-magnetic carrier are arranged in a Halbach array (Ashida ¶¶[0033], [0042]; Kim ¶¶[0002]–[0004], [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form each Halbach row of Ashida from a single type of transversely polarized bar magnet of square cross section, the bars being clocked in successive orientations to produce the Halbach pattern, as taught by Kim, in order to minimize the number of unique magnet parts(Kim ¶[0028]) and thereby avoid the higher manufacturing cost that results when a magnet segment of a single design cannot be used(Kim ¶[0009]), an objective consistent with Ashida's own aim of simple, rapid assembly and of replacing the alignment and arrangement of the magnets with an automatic machine(Ashida ¶¶[0026], [0044], [0048]). The substitution of one known form of Halbach magnet segment for another yields the predictable result of a Halbach rotor and is the simple substitution of one known element for another. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 9/1, Ashida in view of Kim teaches the motor of claim 1.
Ashida further teaches wherein the rotor assembly does not include an adhesive(¶¶[0026], [0040]–[0041], [0044]; magnets 21, 31 fixed to members 11, 13 by screws 25, 35 so that the next step need not wait for an adhesive to cure).
The combination with Kim does not introduce an adhesive: in the combination the bars are retained in recesses of Ashida's resin members by the holder geometry alone, as in Kim, whose holder encapsulates and holds the magnets in place and whose faceted rotor locates them (Kim ¶¶[0026], [0030], [0051]); Kim describes no adhesive.
Regarding claim 10/1, Ashida in view of Kim teaches the motor of claim 1.
Ashida further teaches wherein the rotor assembly does not include a back-iron(¶¶[0035]–[0036], [0046]; rotor consisting of resin members 11, 13 carrying the magnets, the machine being made entirely of resin apart from the magnets and coil).
Because the resin members 11, 13 are non-magnetic and the Halbach arrangement concentrates the field on the side of the array facing the coil, no ferromagnetic back-iron is present behind the magnets. The combination with Kim does not add one: Kim's holder is plastic and its rotor is a fiber composite (Kim ¶¶[0026], [0029]).
Claims 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida (WO 2021/085647 A2) in view of Kim (US 2003/0094873 A1), and further in view of Ji (US 10,141,823 B2).
Regarding claim 4/1, Ashida in view of Kim teaches the motor of claim 1.
Ashida is silent wherein the motor further comprises one of a motor controller, a motor driver, and a rotational position sensor disposed within the motor, because Ashida describes only the rotor, the coreless coil and the resin case (¶¶[0016], [0027], [0035]–[0043]) and does not describe the drive electronics.
However, in the analogous art of brushless motors with integrated control, Ji teaches one of a motor controller, a motor driver, and a rotational position sensor disposed within the motor(Ji col. 5, ll. 57–60; col. 6, ll. 32–35, 47–48, 60–66; col. 7, ll. 4–17; Figs. 5–6; circuit board 13 sleeved on body 110 of the stator support, carrying detection circuit 132 with a Hall element sensing the rotor magnet, drive control chip 1362 and power circuit 1364).
The circuit board 13 of Ji is disposed within the motor because it is sleeved on body 110 of stator support 11 and lies between the support and rotor 20, so that the components on it are located inside the motor rather than in a separate external unit (Ji col. 5, ll. 57–60; col. 6, ll. 26–27; Fig. 3; permanent magnet 23 disposed between support plate base 242 and circuit board 13). In the combination, the board is likewise carried on the stator side of Ashida's machine inside the resin case.
Ashida and Ji are both directed to brushless permanent magnet motors (Ashida ¶[0033]; Ji col. 1, ll. 14–18; col. 6, ll. 30–31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a motor controller, a motor driver and a rotational position sensor within the motor of Ashida as modified by Kim, as taught by Ji, in order to give the motor its own detection and control functions so that no additional drive control circuit and detection circuit are required, reducing weight and volume(Ji col. 4, ll. 22–29). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 5/1, Ashida in view of Kim teaches the motor of claim 1.
Ashida is silent wherein the motor further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) disposed within the motor, because Ashida does not describe the drive electronics (¶¶[0035]–[0043]).
However, Ji teaches a printed circuit board (PCB) disposed within the motor(Ji col. 5, ll. 57–60; col. 6, ll. 32–35; Figs. 5–6; circuit board 13 having substrate 130, sleeved on body 110 of the stator support).
One would be motivated to dispose a printed circuit board within the motor, as taught by Ji, so that the control and detection circuitry is integrated into the motor and no additional circuits are required, reducing weight and volume(Ji col. 4, ll. 22–29).
Regarding claim 6/5, Ashida in view of Kim and Ji teaches the motor of claim 5.
Ji further teaches wherein the PCB comprises a motor controller, a motor driver, and a rotational position sensor disposed thereon(Ji col. 2, ll. 1–12; col. 6, ll. 47–48, 60–66; col. 7, ll. 4–18; Figs. 5–6; drive control chip 1362, power circuit 1364 that transmits current to the coils, and detection circuit 132 with a Hall element all disposed on substrate 130 of circuit board 13).
One would be motivated to dispose the motor controller, motor driver and rotational position sensor on the PCB, as taught by Ji, because integrating the drive control chip, power circuit and detection circuit into the circuit board gives the motor detection and control functions without additional circuits, further reducing weight and volume(Ji col. 4, ll. 22–29).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida (WO 2021/085647 A2) in view of Kim (US 2003/0094873 A1), and further in view of Ochiai (US 7,687,957 B2).
Regarding claim 8/1, Ashida in view of Kim teaches the motor of claim 1.
Ashida is silent wherein the rotor includes slots and wherein the magnets are secured within the slots using one of a friction fit, provided solely by interaction between the magnets and the rotor, and a snap lock integral to the rotor, because Ashida secures magnets 21, 31 to cylindrical members 11, 13 with screws 25, 35 passed through holes in the magnets (¶¶[0038]–[0041], [0067]).
However, in the analogous art of permanent magnet rotors with adhesive-free magnet retention, Ochiai teaches wherein the rotor includes slots and wherein the magnets are secured within the slots using one of a friction fit, provided solely by interaction between the magnets and the rotor,(Ochiai col. 6, ll. 57–58; col. 7, ll. 8–19; Figs. 3–6; magnet holder 19 of synthetic resin fitted to rotor shaft 2, its holder arms 32 defining magnet containing sections 43 into which rotor magnets 17 are axially put by press-fitting; col. 7, l. 63 – col. 8, l. 7; spacing between the holding pieces 42 made slightly smaller than the magnet so that the magnet forces the pieces open as it is press-fitted; col. 8, ll. 9–18; magnet held by the elastic resiliency of the holder without any adhesive; col. 9, ll. 40–49; magnet cover 21 spaced from the magnets by gap 49 and not contacting them, the magnets being anchored to the magnet holder 19 without the cover).
Three points make explicit why Ochiai meets the claim language. First, the magnet containing sections 43 are slots: each is an axially extending space bounded on two sides by the holding pieces 42 and on the inside by the core surface, into which a magnet is slid axially (Ochiai col. 7, ll. 13–19). Second, the magnets are secured by a friction fit: the containing section is dimensioned slightly smaller than the magnet, the magnet is press-fitted so that it spreads the holding pieces, and the pieces then bear against the magnet by their elastic resiliency and hold it in place (col. 7, l. 63 – col. 8, l. 18). Third, the fit is provided solely by interaction between the magnets and the rotor: the holder 19 is a rotor component, being fitted to rotor shaft 2 and anchored in grooves of rotor core 16 so that it rotates with the core (col. 6, ll. 57–58; col. 7, ll. 20–38), the only surfaces that hold the magnet are the holding pieces of that holder and the core surface, no adhesive is used (col. 8, ll. 17–18), and the magnets are anchored to the holder without the magnet cover 21, which is spaced from the magnets by gap 49 (col. 9, ll. 40–49). Ochiai adds that when the cover is fitted it presses the holding pieces further against the magnets (col. 9, ll. 52–56); the cover thereby bears on the holder, not on the magnets, so the magnets still interact only with the rotor, and in any event the cover is a reliability expedient that is not carried into the combination below. Claim 8 recites the friction fit and the snap lock as alternatives, and the friction-fit alternative is relied upon.
In the proposed combination, the resilient holding pieces of Ochiai are formed as part of Ashida's resin cylindrical members 11, 13, so that each square bar of Kim is press-fitted into a slot of the resin member itself and held by the member's own resilience, with no screw, ring or adhesive. The rotor, which consists of the resin members, remains the only structure interacting with the magnets.
Ashida and Ochiai are both directed to permanent magnet rotors in which the magnets are fixed to a resin carrier without adhesive (Ashida ¶¶[0026], [0036], [0044]; Ochiai col. 6, ll. 57–58; col. 8, ll. 17–18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form slots in the resin cylindrical members of Ashida as modified by Kim and to secure the square bar magnets in the slots by press-fitting them between resilient holding pieces of the resin members, as taught by Ochiai, in place of the screws of Ashida, because magnets so secured are accurately aligned and rigidly anchored by an assembling operation consisting only of press-fitting, which reduces the number of manufacturing facilities, the man-hours and the manufacturing cost(Ochiai col. 2, ll. 34–36; col. 4, ll. 40–47), while dispensing with the screws and the through holes that Ashida must form in each magnet(Ashida ¶[0067]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida (WO 2021/085647 A2) in view of Kim (US 2003/0094873 A1), and further in view of Maruyama (US 7,462,967 B2).
Regarding claim 11/1, Ashida in view of Kim teaches the motor of claim 1.
Ashida is silent wherein the motor further comprises an axle rotatingly coupled with the stator housing, wherein the axle comprises a through-hole configured for coupling detachable inserts therein, because Ashida states only that the rotor is supported by bearings (¶[0037]), shows a stationary shaft fixed to the stator plate (Fig. 3), and does not describe an axle that rotates with the rotor.
However, in the analogous art of brushless motors, Maruyama teaches an axle rotatingly coupled with the stator housing(Maruyama col. 3, ll. 10–23; Fig. 1; hollow rotor shaft 41 rotatably supported by motor housing 2 through ball bearings 47, 48),
wherein the axle comprises a through-hole configured for coupling detachable inserts therein(Maruyama col. 3, ll. 14–16, 24–27; col. 4, ll. 11–12; Maruyama claim 8; tool-mounting hole 43 formed completely through the center of rotor shaft 41, having a portion 43b of hexagonal cross section, tools being directly mountable in the hole). A tool mounted in and removable from the hexagonal hole is a detachable insert coupled in the through-hole: the claim requires only that the through-hole be configured for coupling detachable inserts, i.e., that it be capable of receiving an insert that can be removed, and a hexagonal bore that receives a tool shank by insertion and releases it by withdrawal is so configured. The hexagonal cross section also couples the insert to the axle for rotation, which is the purpose stated by Maruyama (col. 1, ll. 25–29).
Ashida and Maruyama are both directed to brushless motors whose rotor is supported for rotation relative to the housing by bearings (Ashida ¶[0037]; Maruyama col. 3, ll. 20–23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotor of Ashida as modified by Kim with an axle fixed to rotor plate 15, journalled in the case, and having a through-hole in which inserts are detachably coupled, as taught by Maruyama, in order to mount a tool directly on the rotational shaft of the motor(Maruyama col. 1, ll. 25–29) with the tool-mounting portion not protruding axially from the motor, so that the motor remains flat(Maruyama col. 2, ll. 18–25). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riddoch (WO 01/28076 A1) in view of Yamasaki (US 10,523,078 B2). Citations to Riddoch are to page and line numbers of the publication.
Regarding claim 12, Riddoch teaches A motor, comprising:(p. 1, ll. 1–2; Fig. 2; external rotor brushless DC motor 1)
a stator comprising electrical windings thereon;(p. 7, ll. 16–18; p. 8, ll. 24–25; Fig. 2; stator winding assembly 7 affixed to column 4)
a stator housing at least partially housing the stator; and(p. 7, l. 24 – p. 8, l. 3; Fig. 2; stator assembly base 20 comprising column 4 upstanding from circular base plate 21 and cylindrical side wall 22, the winding assembly 7 being carried on column 4 and seated against base plate 21). The base 20 at least partially houses the stator because column 4 extends through the interior of winding assembly 7 and base plate 21 closes one axial end of it, so that the winding assembly is received on and bounded by the base; Riddoch itself calls the corresponding part of the conventional motor the housing base 2 (p. 7, l. 1). The claim does not require that the stator be enclosed, and this reading is consistent with applicant's own specification, in which the stator housing 106 retains the stator by a central keyed column 110 onto which the stator and PCB are stacked (specification ¶¶[0037], [0038]).
a rotor assembly rotatingly coupled with the stator housing, the rotor assembly comprising a rotor and a plurality of magnets coupled with the rotor; and(p. 6, ll. 8–11; p. 7, ll. 16–18; p. 9, ll. 17, 24; Fig. 2; rotor cup 8 carrying permanent magnets 9 around its internal periphery, journalled in column 4 by shaft 10 held in bearings 11)
a printed circuit board (PCB) assembly comprising one or more electrical components including one of a motor controller, a motor driver, and a rotational position sensor disposed thereon;(p. 6, ll. 16–19; p. 8, ll. 17–21; p. 9, ll. 13–15; Fig. 2; printed circuit board 5 carrying components 6 of the driving and control circuitry and Hall effect sensors 6a providing the rotor position signal).
Riddoch does not teach wherein at least a portion of the electrical windings pass through one or more through holes fully circumscribed within the PCB to electrically couple with the one or more electrical components. Riddoch is silent on this feature because it connects winding assembly 7 to printed circuit board 5 by wiring 7a led through a sealed opening in base plate 21 (p. 8, l. 24 – p. 9, l. 2) and does not describe how the wiring is terminated at the board.
However, in the analogous art of outer-rotor brushless motors having a circuit board mounted on the stator, Yamasaki teaches wherein at least a portion of the electrical windings pass through one or more through holes fully circumscribed within the PCB to electrically couple with the one or more electrical components(Yamasaki col. 4, ll. 43–44; col. 5, ll. 62–65; col. 7, ll. 11–23, 33–37; col. 10, ll. 9–11; Figs. 3, 5; coil end portions 255 of coils 254 wound on the stator teeth, twisted into wire portions Tw, passed upward through six second through holes 271 formed in circuit board 27 inward of its periphery and soldered to the terminal portions of the board, which carries the circuit applying the driving current to the coils and a Hall sensor). As shown in Fig. 5, each through hole 271 is a discrete opening bounded on all sides by the board, i.e., fully circumscribed within the PCB. This is confirmed by the fact that the only open-sided cutouts Yamasaki describes in the board, the first cutout portions 273 cut outward from the central third through hole 272, are separately identified and serve to receive projecting pieces 262 of the holding member, not the coil ends (col. 8, ll. 27–45). Yamasaki is relied upon only for the manner in which the winding ends are terminated at the board; the plurality of magnets of claim 12 is taught by Riddoch, and the fact that Yamasaki uses a single cylindrical magnet 282 (col. 5, ll. 4–6) is immaterial to the combination.
In the proposed combination, the wiring 7a of Riddoch, which already passes from winding assembly 7 through base plate 21 to printed circuit board 5 (Riddoch p. 8, l. 24 – p. 9, l. 2), is terminated in the manner taught by Yamasaki: the end portions of the winding wires themselves, as Yamasaki's coil end portions 255, are passed through holes formed within the area of printed circuit board 5 and soldered on its far side to the conductors leading to components 6. The windings thereby pass through the through holes fully circumscribed within the PCB to electrically couple with the electrical components on it.
Riddoch and Yamasaki are both directed to external rotor brushless motors in which the stator windings are electrically connected to a circuit board mounted on the stator side of the motor (Riddoch p. 8, ll. 17–25; Yamasaki col. 4, ll. 43–44; col. 5, ll. 4–6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to terminate the windings of Riddoch by passing the coil end portions through holes formed within the area of printed circuit board 5 and soldering them to the board, as taught by Yamasaki, because in a configuration in which the coil end portions are directly connected to the circuit board, the assembling efficiency can be improved(Yamasaki col. 7, ll. 57–59), the coil ends being extended through the board to its upper surface for connection(Yamasaki col. 7, ll. 11–15, 53–57). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 13/12, Riddoch in view of Yamasaki teaches the motor of claim 12.
Riddoch further teaches wherein the PCB is at least partially housed within the stator housing,(p. 8, ll. 10–21; Fig. 2; printed circuit board 5 attached to base plate 21 within enclosure 24, which is bounded by side wall 22 of base 20 and closed by cover plate 23)
and wherein the stator housing does not fully house the rotor(p. 6, ll. 8–11; p. 7, l. 24 – p. 8, l. 3; Fig. 2; rotor cup 8 mounted for rotation externally of winding assembly 7 on the side of base plate 21 opposite enclosure 24, outside base 20). The enclosure 24 in which the board sits is formed by the side wall 22 and base plate 21 of base 20 itself, so the board is housed within the stator housing; and because rotor cup 8 lies wholly on the other side of base plate 21, outside the base, the stator housing does not house the rotor at all, and therefore does not fully house it.
Claims 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 9,712,025 B2) in view of Kim (US 2003/0094873 A1) and Bauch (US 9,124,164 B2). Citations to Hasegawa are to the column and line numbers of the patent; the previous action cited the paragraph numbers of its publication, US 2016/0072370 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Hasegawa teaches A method of manufacture of a rotor for a motor, comprising:(col. 6, ll. 41–42, 51–60; col. 7, ll. 9–14; method of inserting magnet parts 31 into magnet insertion slots 22 of rotor core 21 of rotor 20 of an electric motor)
positioning a rotor and one or more magnet inserters of a machine at one or more alignment positions relative to one another so that one or more slots of the rotor are aligned with the one or more magnet inserters; and(col. 7, ll. 17–30; col. 7, l. 65 – col. 8, l. 2; col. 10, ll. 53–57; Figs. 3–5; rotor core 21 set on supporting plate 41, the position of slot 22 detected by position detecting apparatus 42, guiding jig 43 set on the core according to the detected position, and lower side push rod 44 inserted into slot 22)
using the one or more magnet inserters, automatically inserting a plurality of magnets into the one or more slots(col. 8, ll. 1–2, 17–34; Figs. 6–8; lower side push rod 44 and upper side push rod 45, each actuated by an actuator, sandwiching the stacked magnet parts 31 and lowering them into slot 22 without lateral misalignment). The insertion is automatic because the push rods are driven by actuators rather than by hand (col. 8, ll. 1–2, 25–26).
Hasegawa does not teach inserting the magnets in a manner such that the plurality of magnets, once inserted, are oriented relative to one another such that they form a Halbach array, nor wherein the magnets are secured into the slots using a plurality of snap locks. Hasegawa is silent on the first feature because it inserts the plate-shaped magnet parts of an interior permanent magnet rotor (col. 6, ll. 59–64) and does not describe the directions of magnetization of the magnets, and on the second because it fixes the inserted magnets in the slots by resin molding in a later step (col. 8, ll. 42–49).
However, in the analogous art of permanent magnet rotor construction, Kim teaches inserting the magnets in a manner such that the plurality of magnets, once inserted, are oriented relative to one another such that they form a Halbach array;(Kim ¶¶[0003], [0013], [0035]; Fig. 1B; 24 square bar magnets of a single type whose fields alternate between the radial and circumferential directions to form a multiple-pole Halbach array). Because only one type of bar is used, the differing field directions can come only from the angular position each bar is given when it is placed in the rotor; Kim thus teaches that the orientation each magnet is given when placed determines whether the assembled magnets form a Halbach array.
Hasegawa and Kim are both directed to placing a plurality of permanent magnets in a rotor of an electrical machine (Hasegawa col. 6, ll. 41–60; Kim ¶¶[0002]–[0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the automated insertion method of Hasegawa to insert the magnets in the orientations that form a Halbach array, as taught by Kim, in order to produce a rotor whose magnets working together create a field that excites the stator windings(Kim ¶[0003]) from bars of a single design, minimizing the number of unique magnet parts(Kim ¶¶[0028], [0035]). In the combination, each magnet is presented to the push rods of Hasegawa already turned to the angular position its slot requires, so that, once the push rods have inserted the magnets, they are oriented relative to one another to form the Halbach array. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Further, in the analogous art of securing permanent magnets in the rotor of an electric machine by resilient holding elements, Bauch teaches wherein the magnets are secured into the slots using a plurality of snap locks(Bauch col. 11, ll. 6–9, 19–21, 27–29; Fig. 23; one-piece holding element 60 molded of fiber-reinforced thermoplastic or thermosetting plastic and received in the rotor, in which the permanent magnets 66 are engaged behind on their end faces 162 by snap-in hooks 165 integrally connected to the holding element). Consistent with paragraphs [0040] and [0041] and Fig. 3A of the specification, in which the cantilevered snap locks 304A are resilient tabs at the mouths of the magnet slots and the annular snap lock 304B is a slot entrance that deforms to admit the magnet and returns to its original size once the magnet has passed it, a snap lock is a resilient element of the slot that is deflected by the magnet during insertion and springs back to engage the magnet and hold it in the slot. The snap-in hooks 165 of Bauch are such elements: being integral with a resilient molded holding element, they are deflected by the magnet as it enters and spring back to engage behind its end faces. They are a plurality because hooks engage each magnet and a holding element is provided for each magnet of the rotor (Bauch col. 11, ll. 27–29; col. 5, ll. 7–26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the slots of the rotor of Hasegawa as modified by Kim with a molded plastic holding element having integral snap-in hooks that engage behind the end faces of the magnets once the push rods have inserted them, as taught by Bauch, in place of the resin-molding step of Hasegawa, because the elasticity of the holding element allows exact positioning and fixing(Bauch col. 2, ll. 16–18), the magnets can be clipped in and immediately assume their installation position(Bauch col. 8, ll. 45–47), and the magnets are thereby given a reliable, mechanical, loss-proof fixing even at the highest rotational speeds(Bauch col. 5, ll. 46–50, 61–64), without a separate molding operation. In the combination, the hooks are positioned at the end of each slot through which the magnet enters, so that the magnet pushed into the slot by the push rods of Hasegawa deflects the hooks as it passes and is secured when they spring back behind its trailing end face, in the same way as the annular snap lock of applicant's paragraph [0041]. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 15/14, Hasegawa in view of Kim and Bauch teaches the method of claim 14.
Hasegawa further teaches wherein the one or more magnet inserters comprises one or more linear plungers(col. 8, ll. 1–2, 17–34; Figs. 6–8; lower side push rod 44 and upper side push rod 45, actuated by actuators and moved along the axis of slot 22 to push the magnet parts into the slot).
Regarding claim 18/14, Hasegawa in view of Kim and Bauch teaches the method of claim 14.
Hasegawa is silent wherein each of the magnets comprises a square cross section orthogonal to a direction of motion of the one or more magnet inserters; and wherein each of the magnets is identical to each other magnet in size, shape, and magnetic field relative to its shape, because the magnet parts 31 of Hasegawa are slices cut from a long plate-shaped magnet body (col. 6, ll. 59–64), and Hasegawa does not describe their magnetization.
However, Kim teaches wherein each of the magnets comprises a square cross section(Kim ¶¶[0011], [0035]; Figs. 1B, 1C; Kim claims 10, 24; bar magnets of square cross section).
As such bars are inserted lengthwise into the slots in the combination, the square cross section is orthogonal to a direction of motion of the one or more magnet inserters, because the push rods of Hasegawa move the magnets along the length of the slot (Hasegawa col. 8, ll. 28–34), which in the combination is the length of the bar, so that the square cross section of each bar lies orthogonal to the direction of motion. Stated plainly: the bar is pushed along its own length, and the square face seen when looking along that length is the cross section recited in the claim.
Kim further teaches and wherein each of the magnets is identical to each other magnet in size, shape, and magnetic field relative to its shape(Kim ¶[0035]; Fig. 1B; only one type of bar required, a transversely polarized bar of square cross section, the differing field directions of the array being obtained by the angular position in which each identical bar is set).
One would be motivated to use identical square-cross-section bars that are merely set at different angular positions, as taught by Kim, in order to minimize the number of unique magnet parts(Kim ¶[0028]) and avoid the higher manufacturing cost of magnet segments of differing designs(Kim ¶[0009]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 9,712,025 B2) in view of Kim (US 2003/0094873 A1) and Bauch (US 9,124,164 B2), and further in view of Ochiai (US 7,687,957 B2).
Regarding claim 19/14, Hasegawa in view of Kim and Bauch teaches the method of claim 14.
Hasegawa is silent wherein the magnets are secured into the slots using a friction fit provided solely by interaction between the magnets and the rotor, because Hasegawa fixes the inserted magnets by resin molding (col. 8, ll. 42–49), and Bauch holds its magnets by hooks engaging behind their end faces rather than by friction (Bauch col. 11, ll. 27–29).
However, in the analogous art of adhesive-free magnet retention in rotors, Ochiai teaches wherein the magnets are secured into the slots using a friction fit provided solely by interaction between the magnets and the rotor(Ochiai col. 6, ll. 57–58; col. 7, ll. 8–19; col. 7, l. 63 – col. 8, l. 18; col. 9, ll. 40–49; Figs. 4–6; rotor magnets 17 axially press-fitted into containing sections 43 of a synthetic-resin magnet holder 19 fixed to rotor shaft 2 and anchored to rotor core 16, the spacing between the resilient holding pieces 42 being made slightly smaller than the magnet so that the pieces are spread by the magnet and hold it by their elastic resiliency without any adhesive, the magnets being anchored to the holder without the magnet cover 21, which is spaced from them by gap 49).
The fit is provided solely by interaction between the magnets and the rotor because the holder 19 is a part of the rotor, being fitted to rotor shaft 2 and anchored in grooves of rotor core 16 so that it rotates with the core (Ochiai col. 6, ll. 57–58; col. 7, ll. 20–38); the only surfaces holding each magnet are the resilient holding pieces of that holder and the core surface; no adhesive is used (col. 8, ll. 17–18); and the magnets are anchored without the cover 21, which when fitted bears on the holder, not on the magnets (col. 9, ll. 47–56).
Hasegawa and Ochiai are both directed to fixing permanent magnets in the slots of a laminated rotor core without adhesive (Hasegawa col. 8, ll. 42–49; Ochiai col. 6, ll. 51–58; col. 8, ll. 17–18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the walls of the slots of the rotor of Hasegawa as modified by Kim and Bauch as resilient holding pieces of a resin holder anchored to the core, spaced slightly less than the width of the magnet, as taught by Ochiai, so that each magnet pushed into its slot by the push rods is press-fitted between them and held by their elastic resiliency along its length, because the magnets are then accurately aligned and rigidly anchored by an assembling operation consisting only of press-fitting, so that neither an adhesive applying operation nor an adhesive hardening time is required and the number of manufacturing facilities, the man-hours and the manufacturing cost are reduced(Ochiai col. 2, ll. 34–36; col. 4, ll. 40–47; col. 8, ll. 43–47). The holder of Ochiai is anchored in grooves of a laminated rotor core of the same kind as the rotor core 21 of Hasegawa (Ochiai col. 6, ll. 51–55; col. 7, ll. 20–38), so the resilient slot walls are provided in Hasegawa's rotor in the same way. The two retention structures do not conflict: Ochiai's holding pieces flank the sides of the magnet along its length, while the snap-in hooks of Bauch engage its end face at the slot entrance. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17, 21 and 22 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record for claims 16 and 17 is Hasegawa (US 9,712,025 B2), Kim (US 2003/0094873 A1), Bauch (US 9,124,164 B2) and Schmölz (US 11,456,651 B2). None of these references, alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests a method of manufacture of a rotor having all of the limitations of claim 14 and further "wherein the machine includes one or more rotators and further includes one or more cartridges for holding the plurality of magnets prior to insertion, and wherein the method further comprises, using the one or more rotators, rotating the one or more cartridges relative to one or more axes of motion of the one or more magnet inserters," as recited in claim 16, or "rotating the one or more cartridges ninety degrees relative to the one or more axes of motion of the one or more magnet inserters," as recited in claim 17. The guiding jig 43 of Hasegawa, which holds the stacked magnets before insertion, is set on the rotor core and is not rotated relative to the push rods; and although the magnet-aligning device of Schmölz may be rotatably supported about the axis of its mounting device, Schmölz allocates a plunger to each channel of that device, uses the rotation to bring the channels to a stationary feed, and sets the orientation of the magnets by twisting the channels themselves; it does not describe rotating the channels, with the magnets they hold, relative to the axes of motion of the plungers. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The closest prior art of record for claims 21 and 22 is Ashida (WO 2021/085647 A2), Kim (US 2003/0094873 A1) and Riddoch (WO 01/28076 A1). None of these references, alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests a motor having all of the limitations of claim 1, including a rotor formed of a polymer carrying identical square-cross-section magnets arranged in a Halbach array, and further "wherein the stator housing comprises an opening through which the rotor of the rotor assembly is exposed," as recited in claim 21, or "wherein the stator housing does not fully house the rotor," as recited in claim 22. The resin case of Ashida houses both the stator and the rotor, and while the external rotor of Riddoch lies outside its stator base, Riddoch lacks the polymer Halbach rotor of claim 1 and the record provides no reason to leave the resin-carried Halbach rotor of Ashida as modified by Kim outside, or exposed through an opening in, the case that Ashida provides for it. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ricci (US 10,141,822 B2) teaches an axial flux machine rotor of plastic polymer or fiber composite, which may be fabricated by fused deposition modeling, having pockets receiving a Halbach array of magnets whose magnetization varies by 90 degrees from magnet to magnet, with identical pocket depths and magnet dimensions.
Cleveland (US 8,009,001 B1) teaches Halbach arrays of identically cubic or identically elongated square-cross-section magnets, successively rotated 90 degrees, retained in a molded or extruded plastic retainer for use in motor/generators.
Schmölz (US 11,456,651 B2) teaches a mounting device for inserting magnets into the magnet accommodating portions of a rotor by plungers through twisted channels that rotate each magnet to the orientation required in the rotor.
Sugiyama (US 9,231,454 B2) teaches an outer-rotor motor in which the lead wires of the coils pass through the through-hole portions of a printed circuit board and are soldered to land portions of the board (Fig. 3).
Mergener (US 9,774,229 B1), previously applied, teaches a motor having a Hall-sensor and FET circuit board 302 and a separate control circuit board 304 stacked on the motor (Figs. 17A–17B).
Drexlmaier (US 7,545,067 B2), previously applied, teaches a plastic magnet cage with dovetailed retainers in which the magnets are clamped between the cage webs and a return ring (Abstract; Figs. 1a–1b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 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 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://pairdirect.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).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
