DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 08 January 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and currently being examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Re Claim 1, the limitation “a rotor core” in the first part of Line 6 appears to be a second positive recitation of the same limitation in the second part of Line 6 and therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the phrase “a rotor core” in the second part of Line 6 will be replaced with the phrase --the rotor core--.
In Re Claim 9, the limitation “a side surface of the magnet” in Line 4 is a second positive recitation of the same limitation in Lines 1 – 2, and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the phrase “a side surface of the magnet” in Line 4 will be replaced with the phrase --the side surface of the magnet--.
In Re Claim 14, the claim recites that there is a gap between the protrusion portion and the magnet, which contradicts the specification which states that the protrusion portion contacts the magnet (paragraph [0094] states that the gap is between the flange and the magnet). For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that the phrase “the gap (G) between the protrusion portion and the magnet” will be replaced with the phrase --the gap (G) between the flange portion and the magnet--.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 – 10, 12 – 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WIPO document WO 2021101064 A1; Translation of which is provided in PG Pub US 20230003219 A1) in view of Sato (PG Pub US 20230155431 A1).
In Re Claim 1, Kim discloses a motor comprising: a housing (100); a stator (120) disposed inside the housing (100); and a rotor (140) disposed inside the stator (120), wherein the rotor (140) comprises: a rotor core (141, 1026) including a body portion (141), the rotor core (141, 1026) including a flange portion (1026) extending radially from a lower end (see paragraph [0104]) of the body portion (141); and a magnet (144) disposed on an outer surface of the body portion (141); (paragraphs [0051],[0063],[0072],[0075],[0103],[0104]; Figures 6 – 10).
Kim does not disclose a protrusion portion.
However, either the Figures 4/6 embodiment or the Figure 10 embodiment of Sato discloses a protrusion portion (42;Figure 4 or 142;Figure 10) protruded from an upper surface of the flange portion (41 or 141), and wherein the protrusion portion (42 or 142) is disposed between the flange portion (41 or 141) and the magnet (23b or 123a); (paragraphs [0050],[0057],[0077]; Figures 4, 6, 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the flange portion of Kim to include a protrusion portion between the flange portion and the magnet as taught by Sato for the purpose of reducing the contact area between the flange and the magnet which improves the dimensional accuracy (paragraph [0057] of Sato).
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Sato discloses that the magnet (23b or 123a) is spaced apart from the flange portion (41 or 141).
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Sato discloses that the protrusion portion (42 or 142) contacts the magnet (23b or 123a).
In Re Claim 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Kim discloses that the upper surface of the magnet (144) is exposed upwardly from the body portion (141), because the flange portion (1026) is only at one end of the rotor (140).
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Kim discloses that a guide portion (1005, 1006, 114a) protruded from an outer surface of the body portion (141) and facing a side surface (1003) of the magnet.
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 7, and Kim discloses that the guide portion (1005, 1006, 114a) has a pentagonal cross-sectional shape (1005 is on both sides of a relative 141 segment in the circumferential direction and 1006 is also on both sides of a relative 141 segment in the circumferential direction).
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 7, and Kim discloses that the guide portion (1005, 1006, 114a) includes a first side surface (1005) in contact with a side surface (1003) of the magnet (144), a second side surface (1006) disposed on an outer side of the first side surface (1005) and spaced apart from the side surface (1003) of the magnet (144), and an outer surface (114a) disposed on an outer side of the second side surface (1006).
In Re Claim 10, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and Sato discloses that a radial length from a center of the body portion (i.e. center “J” of the rotor 20B shown in Figure 6) to an outer surface of the guide portion (48) is equal to a radial length from the center (“J”) of the body portion to an outer surface of the flange portion (41).
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and Kim discloses that based on a radial direction of the body portion (141), the first side surface (1005) is an inclined surface having a shape in which a circumferential length to the first side surface of an adjacent guide portion (1005) becomes smaller as it goes outward (see adjacent guide portions in Figure 10).
In Re Claim 13, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 7, since the flange portion (41 or 141) and protrusion portion (42 or 142) of Sato are a one piece construction; and the flange portion (1026), guide portion (1005, 1006, 114a) and body portion (141) of Kim are a one piece construction, it follows that in the modified apparatus, the body portion, the flange portion, the protrusion portion and the guide portion are one body / one piece construction.
In Re Claim 14, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Sato discloses that an axial length of the body portion (i.e. the rotor 20B in Figure 1) is a sum of an axial length of the magnet (23b or 123a), an axial length of the flange portion (length of 41, or length of 141), and the axial length of the gap (between 41b and 23k or between 141b and lower surface of 123a) between the flange portion (41 or 141) and the magnet (23b or 123a).
In Re Claim 15, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 7, and Figure 6 of Sato discloses that the curvature of the outer surface of the guide portion (48) has the same curvature as the outer surface of the flange portion (41).
In Re Claim 16, Kim discloses a pump comprising a housing (100); a stator (120) being inside the housing (100), an outer gear (140) disposed inside the stator (120); and an inner gear (130) disposed inside the outer gear (140); wherein the outer gear (140) comprises: a body portion (body of 140 excluding the teeth), a core (141, 1026) including a flange portion (1026) extended radially from a lower end of the body portion (see paragraph [0104]); and a magnet (144) disposed on an outer surface of the body portion (paragraphs [0051],[0063],[0072],[0075],[0103],[0104]; Figures 6 – 10).
Kim does not disclose a protrusion portion.
However, either the Figures 4/6 embodiment or the Figure 10 embodiment of Sato discloses a protrusion portion (42;Figure 4 or 142;Figure 10) protruded from an upper surface of the flange portion (41 or 141), and wherein the protrusion portion (42 or 142) is disposed between the flange portion (41 or 141) and the magnet (23b or 123a); (paragraphs [0050],[0057],[0077]; Figures 4, 6, 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the flange portion of Kim to include a protrusion portion between the flange portion and the magnet as taught by Sato for the purpose of reducing the contact area between the flange and the magnet which improves the dimensional accuracy (paragraph [0057] of Sato).
In Re Claim 17, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 16, and Sato discloses that the magnet (23b or 123a) is spaced apart from the flange portion (41 or 141).
In Re Claim 19, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 16, and Sato discloses that the protrusion portion (42 or 142) contacts the magnet (23b or 123a).
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WIPO document WO 2021101064 A1; Translation of which is provided in PG Pub US 20230003219 A1) in view of Sato (PG Pub US 20230155431 A1) and further in view of Frank (PG Pub US 20120171061 A1).
In Re Claim 3 and 18, Kim and Sato disclose all the limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 16 respectively, the examiner first contends that the axial length of the flange portion (1026) of Kim is in the claimed range, alternatively, if it is not clear to applicant that the axial length is in the claimed range:
PNG
media_image1.png
624
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt of Figure 3 of Frank
However, bringing the axial length into the claimed range is only a matter of extending the length of the body portion of the rotor (2, 3) relative to the magnet (11) as taught by Frank, i.e. essentially extending the axial length of the entire the rotor (2, 3) relative to the magnet (11) as illustrated in the annotated figure 3 above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to extend the axial length of the body portion / flange portion of Kim / Sato such that the axial length of the flange portion is in the claimed range as taught by Frank because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WIPO document WO 2021101064 A1; Translation of which is provided in PG Pub US 20230003219 A1) in view of Sato (PG Pub US 20230155431 A1) and further in view of Yoshino (PG Pub US 20100117477 A1).
In Re Claims 5 and 20, Kim and Sato disclose all the limitations of Claims 1 and 16 respectively, but they do not disclose that the stator and rotor are spaced apart by 0.08 mm to 0.16 mm.
However, Yoshino discloses that the stator and rotor are spaced apart by 0.1 mm to 2.0 mm (paragraph [0026]), which overlaps the portion 0.1 mm to 0.16 mm of the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the spacing between the rotor and stator of Kim / Sato such that it is in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.16 mm as taught by Yoshino because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WIPO document WO 2021101064 A1; Translation of which is provided in PG Pub US 20230003219 A1) in view of Sato (PG Pub US 20230155431 A1) and further in view of Mizutani (US Patent 7,969,056 B2).
In Re Claim 11, Kim and Sato disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, but they do not explicitly disclose equal radial length.
PNG
media_image2.png
536
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, with reference to annotated Figure 4 above, Mizutani discloses a body portion (portion of 43 in Figure 2 which is a label given to the entire rotor including 45 and 44A), a radial length from a center of the body portion to an outer surface of the guide portion (45) is equal to a radial length from the center of the body to an outer surface of the magnet (44A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the radial length of the outer surface of the guide portion of the guide portion and the radial length of the outer surface of the magnet of Kim / Sato such that they are equal as taught by Mizutani because it ensures that a uniform gap exists between the stator and rotor, a uniform gap ensures that the magnetic reluctance of the air path is constant across the machine; This allows the stator’s magnetic field to link with the rotor uniformly, producing a stable and predictable torque output without variations due to local air gap differences; Non-uniform gaps can cause uneven flux distribution, leading to higher harmonic magnetic fields, stray losses, and audible noise. A uniform gap helps suppress these harmonics, improving smooth operation and reducing electromagnetic noise.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is not being relied upon, it is being made of record because it is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Wade (WIPO document WO 2009126853 A2) discloses a protrusion portion (32; Figure 2B).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights