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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9 January, 2026, was filed before the mailing date of this Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Okumatsu (US 2021/0119507 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Okumatsu.
With respect to claim 1, Okumatsu teaches a rotating electric machine comprising a stator [10] and a rotor [20] disposed inside the stator [10] (see ¶ 0034-0035 and fig. 2 excerpt, below),
wherein the stator [10] includes a stator core [12a] and an electromagnetic coil [12c] provided in a plurality of slots [12d] (still referring to ¶ 0034 and fig. 2 – the Examiner notes that he cropped out the top and bottom of fig. 2 to make the excerpt easier to fit onto the page), and the stator core [12a] includes: a yoke portion (labeled and shaded gray by the Examiner in the fig. 2 excerpt) having an annular shape;
PNG
media_image1.png
393
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of teeth portions [12b] provided at intervals in a circumferential direction of the stator, and each including a base portion (labeled black by the Examiner in the fig. 2 excerpt) protruding from an inner circumferential surface of the yoke portion and extending in a diametrical direction of the yoke portion as an extending direction; and the plurality of slots [12d] each being formed between adjacent ones of the plurality of teeth portions [12b] in the circumferential direction (still referring to ¶ 0034),
the rotor includes a plurality of permanent magnets [main magnets 22/22a/22b and auxiliary magnets 21] facing the plurality of teeth portions [12b] inside the stator [10] (see ¶ 0041 and 0051, as well as the annotated excerpt of fig. 8 attached below),
PNG
media_image2.png
552
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the plurality of permanent magnets include two or more combinations of a first magnet [M1] (M1-M4 labels and leader-lines drawn by the Examiner), a second magnet [M2] adjacent to the first magnet [M1], a third magnet [M3] adjacent to the first magnet [M1], and a fourth magnet [M4] adjacent to the third magnet, a direction of a magnetic field [S-N vector for each of the shown magnets] of the first magnet [M1] facing diametrically inward of the yoke portion, a direction of a magnetic field of the second magnet [M2] being a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, a direction of a magnetic field of the third magnet [M3] being the counterclockwise or clockwise direction opposite to the direction of the second magnet, and a direction of a magnetic field of the fourth magnet [M4] facing diametrically outward of the yoke portion (see ¶ 0013, 0042, and 0051-0052),
a position of an inner circumferential side end surface [EC-ICSES] (ends/surfaces labeled with these acronyms by the Examiner in the new fig. 8 excerpt attached below) of the electromagnetic coil [12c] is shifted (“shift” drawn and labeled by the Examiner) from an inner circumferential side end [BP-ICSE] of the base portion toward the yoke portion, and when a direction that is perpendicular to the extending direction is defined as a widthwise direction (drawn and labeled by the Examiner in the enlarged snapshot of fig. 8 attached below),
PNG
media_image3.png
519
1030
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in each of the plurality of the slots [12d], a dimension (the Examiner has added and labeled the respective dimensions in the enlarged snapshot of fig. 8 above) of each of the slots [12d] in the widthwise direction at a position of the inner circumferential side end surface [EC-ICSES] of the electromagnetic coil is defined as a first distance [D1], and a separation distance between inner circumferential side end surfaces [BP-ICSES] of the teeth portions adjacent to each other in the widthwise direction is defined as a second distance [D2], the second distance [D2] is 0.5 times or more the first distance [D1] {the Examiner has added an arrow/dimension representing approximately half of D1 and labeled it “(D1)/2” to show how much smaller it is than D2}.
In the reference itself, the drawings are not described as being drawn to scale, and there is no explicit discussion of the EC-ICSES being radially outward of the BP-ICSE. In the event that one could allege that the EC-ICSES’s are not really “shifted”, even though they are shown as slightly shifted in figs. 2 and 8, or, to the other extreme, that since they are not shown to-scale it is possible that the reference alone does not firmly establish that D2 > D1 * 0.5, the Examiner asserts both:
a) that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would, in attempting to make the machine of Okumatsu using the available drawings and written description, make the machine with the EC-ICSES’s slightly shifted, more or less as shown in figs. 2 and 8, which appears to be about 5% of the depth of the slot, because winding the coils all the way to the end of the teeth would risk them being disloged, after repeated use, inwardly and into the air gap, which would impair performance irreparably and probably completely ruin the machine. Although this type of tooth, usually called a “straight tooth”, is unusual in the motor arts, where it is used, the windings are almost always radially recessed. For example, of the straight-toothed references cited in attached PTO Form 892 that show the windings – US 2022/0271579 A1 (figs. 2 and 8), US 2023/0124308 A1 (fig. 16), US 20220060073 A1 (fig. 2), CN 111864954 A (fig. 2), CN 107959361 A (fig. 1), and CN 110943557 A (fig. 3) – all of them show the windings recessed from the tooth tips (the Examiner did not discard references that teach otherwise – some of the figures listed above are appended in the Conclusion section of this Office Action); and
b) that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would, in attempting to make the machine of Okumatsu using the available drawings and written description, make the machine with the EC-ICSES’s shifted enough to satisfy the claimed ratio (which they do inherently at the slightest amount of shift), and not shifted enough to break the claimed D1:D2 distance ratio. After all, with the geometry shown in Okumatsu (or any of the references cited above having straight teeth), D1 must necessarily be larger than D2, while to make D2 < D1*0.5 would require shifting the coils an extreme amount, importantly, an amount that anyone of ordinary skill in the art would realize as yielding very little torque, squandering the potential of the machine. The claimed range does not need to be mathematically fulfilled numerically – it is so wide that the only stators that would not fall within it are ones with shoes on the teeth. Most stators have shoes on the teeth and the Examiner believes that the claimed range is an attempt to claim unshod (straight) teeth, and he believes this reference by disclosing straight (unshod) teeth establishes that the claimed invention is anticipated and also that provided the drawings and description of Okumatsu, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to make the claimed invention in attempting to create the machine put forth in Okumatsu.
With respect to claim 2/1, Okumatsu teaches the machine of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second distance [D2] is smaller than the first distance [D1] (the Examiner has attached a snapshot of the relevant portion of fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
422
357
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumatsu.
With respect to claim 6/1, Okumatsu teaches the machine of claim 1, but omits teaching wherein when a number of poles is defined as twice a number of combinations of the first magnet to the fourth magnet, the number of poles is an even number of 8 or more and 12 or less (Okumatsu teaches 4 poles), and a number of the teeth portions is a multiple of three and is 24 or more and 48 or less (Okumatsu teaches 9 poles).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to triple the amount of poles and teeth of Okumatsu to make a machine with approximately three times the torque. It is well known that increasing the quantity of poles and teeth is a less-costly, lighter manner of increasing the torque versus using progressively heavier and heavier magnets. The resulting quantity of poles would be 12 and the resulting quantity of teeth portions would be 27, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation “the number of poles is an even number of 8 or more and 12 or less, and a number of the teeth portions is a multiple of three and is 24 or more and 48 or less”. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that meeting the needs of a consumer requiring 3 times the torque would be fulfilled by tripling the number of magnets (a result effective variable), and enlarging the rotor and stator accordingly, in order to meet said needs and optimize for the result effective variable, and doing so would have predictable results.
With respect to claim 7/6/1, Okumatsu teaches the machine of claim 6, but omits teaching wherein an outer diameter of the stator core is 100 mm to 200 mm.
Okumatsu does not discuss its intended use environment. However, the outer diameter of a motor is typically optimized for and representative of the amount of torque required of its consumer, in a predictable way. Larger motors like a vehicle drive would require larger than 200 mm, while smaller motors like those found in power tools or vehicle window drives would be less than 100 mm. The claimed range basically covers the intermediate space between power tools and vehicle drives, and encompasses a wide variety of uses such as alternators, hoists, etc. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Okumatsu, with a stator outer diameter between 100 mm and 200 mm, in order to drive medium-load consumers, as is well known in the art. The stator OD (a result effective variable) would be optimized for the consumer torque, and available space, {see MPEP 2144.05(II)}, and performing this optimization only involves routine skill in the art, such that the results are predictable during said optimization. A larger OD’d stator has more power.
Applicant should note that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 8/7/6/1, Okumatsu teaches the machine of claim 7, but omits teaching wherein a total length of each of the teeth portions is 40 mm to 45 mm.
Okumatsu does not discuss its intended use environment. However, the total length of a stator tooth is typically optimized for and representative of the amount of torque required of the consumer, and how much breadth is available to house the motor. Larger motors like a vehicle drive would require tooth lengths longer than 45 mm, while smaller motors like those found in power tools or vehicle window drives would be less than 25 mm. The claimed range covers a portion of the intermediate space between power tools and vehicle drives, and encompasses a variety of uses. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Okumatsu, with a stator tooth portion having a total length between 40 mm and 45 mm in order to drive medium-load consumers, as is well known in the art. The total tooth length, a result effective variable, would be optimized for the drive torque requirements of the consumer, and size (available volume/breadth in the intended environment) requirements {see MPEP 2144.05(II)}, and performing such optimization only involves routine skill in the art, such that the results are predictable during said optimization.
Applicant should note that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the applicant should note that it has been held that where the general working conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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.
With respect to claim 3, and claims 4-5 which depend therefrom, the prior art of record does not teach a rotating electric machine comprising a stator and a rotor disposed inside the stator,
wherein the stator includes a stator core and an electromagnetic coil provided in a plurality of slots, and the stator core includes: a yoke portion having an annular shape; a plurality of teeth portions provided at intervals in a circumferential direction of the stator, and each including a base portion protruding from an inner circumferential surface of the yoke portion and extending in a diametrical direction of the yoke portion as an extending direction; and the plurality of slots each being formed between adjacent ones of the plurality of teeth portions in the circumferential direction,
the rotor includes a plurality of permanent magnets facing the plurality of teeth portions inside the stator,
the plurality of permanent magnets include two or more combinations of a first magnet, a second magnet adjacent to the first magnet, a third magnet adjacent to the first magnet, and a fourth magnet adjacent to the third magnet, a direction of a magnetic field of the first magnet facing diametrically inward of the yoke portion, a direction of a magnetic field of the second magnet being a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, a direction of a magnetic field of the third magnet being the counterclockwise or clockwise direction opposite to the direction of the second magnet, and a direction of a magnetic field of the fourth magnet facing diametrically outward of the yoke portion,
a position of an inner circumferential side end surface of the electromagnetic coil is shifted from an inner circumferential side end of the base portion toward the yoke portion, and
when a direction that is perpendicular to the extending direction is defined as a widthwise direction, in each of the plurality of the slots, a dimension of each of the slots in the widthwise direction at a position of the inner circumferential side end surface of the electromagnetic coil is defined as a first distance, and a separation distance between inner circumferential side end surfaces of the teeth portions adjacent to each other in the widthwise direction is defined as a second distance, the second distance is 0.5 times or more the first distance;
further wherein each of the teeth portions includes a flange portion which is located further on an inner circumferential side of the stator core than the inner circumferential side end of the base portion, and which has a dimension in the widthwise direction larger than a dimension in the widthwise direction of the base portion, and
the electromagnetic coil is shifted from an inner circumferential side end surface of the flange portion by a shift amount of 5 % to 11 % of a total length of each of the teeth portions.
If a reference showed flanges at the tips of the teeth, and the flanges were shoes or the size of shoes, the D1:D1 distance range claimed in claim 1 would likely not hold. Therefore the Examiner is excluding normal shoes from consideration as flanges. He further believes that the breadth/realm of “analogous art”, provided the specificity of claim 1, should only include stators that drive Halbach-arrayed rotors. Thus he has not extensively extended the prior art search to find random other references that teach something similar to these flanges.
As Okumatsu does not teach the flanges on the teeth, with the coil shifted from the flange by 5-11% the teeth’s lengths, the Examiner has reviewed a few references that potentially remedy this deficiency, as follows.
Fig. 6 of Tanaka (US 2022/0181954 A1, see conclusion below) teaches “flanges” in the area required by claim 3, and seem to still satisfy the D1:D2 distance requirement of claim 1, but the coils touch the flanges, and therefore are not “shifted” from them, as required by claim 3.
Zhao (CN 108390533 A – see conclusion below) teaches “flanges” on straight stator teeth, and the windings are “shifted” from them an amount that appears it could be roughly 10% the tooth length. However, the flanges do not have a dimension in the widthwise direction larger than a dimension in the widthwise direction of the base portion, which is required by claim 3.
Liu (CN 110943557 A, see below) shows flanges on straight stator teeth in fig. 3, and fig. 4 shows rotor magnets in a Halbach array. Although the windings appear to be shifted from the flanges, the flanges are not labeled or described in the provided translation, and therefore the Examiner has no way of knowing if they would be obvious for combination with Okumatsu. There is insufficient evidence in the overall reference, with translation, to make a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 4, claim 1 inclusive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figs. 1b and 2 of CN 203617868 U (provided with machine translation) teach straight teeth (no shoes) and the Halbach array of claim 1.
PNG
media_image5.png
422
346
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
507
446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of CN 111864954 A (provided with machine translation) is an example of a straight-toothed stator that shows the windings wherein the inner circumferential side end surface [EC-ICSES] of the electromagnetic coil is shifted from an inner circumferential side end [BP-ICSE] of the base portion toward the yoke portion.
PNG
media_image7.png
360
372
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 could be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over CN 203617868 U (previous reference) in view of CN 111864954 A. The Examiner has opted not to make the rejection in order to keep this Office Action shorter than it otherwise would be.
Fig. 1 of CN 107959361 A discloses a straight-toothed stator and further teaches the windings wherein the inner circumferential side end surface [EC-ICSES] of the electromagnetic coil is shifted from an inner circumferential side end [BP-ICSE] of the base portion toward the yoke port. Further, the rotor magnets are in the Halbach array (see fig. 4) claimed in claim 1. Rejections under this reference would be very similar to those already put forth under Okumatsu.
PNG
media_image8.png
305
302
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
118
293
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of CN 108390533 A (to Zhao – provided with machine translation) teaches a straight-toothed stator that has the windings configured such that the inner circumferential side end surface [EC-ICSES] of the electromagnetic coil is shifted from an inner circumferential side end [BP-ICSE] of the base portion toward the yoke port. Further, the rotor magnets are in a Halbach array which is a known alternative to the right-angle array that is claimed, and which is shown in many of the references cited in PTO Form 892.
PNG
media_image10.png
479
447
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This reference teaches “flanges” (see reasons for indication of allowability of claim 3 above) and the windings are “shifted” from them an amount that appears could be 10% the tooth length.
Fig. 3 of CN 110943557 A (to Liu – provided with machine translation) shows flanges on straight stator teeth, and fig. 5 shows rotor magnets in a Halbach array. The flanges are not labeled or described in the provided translation.
PNG
media_image11.png
393
391
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
328
492
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of US 2022/0271579 A1 shows straight teeth wherein the inner circumferential side end surface [EC-ICSES] of the electromagnetic coil is shifted from an inner circumferential side end [BP-ICSE] of the base portion toward the yoke port.
PNG
media_image13.png
269
393
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of US 2022/0181954 A1 teaches teeth with flange portions, and the rotor having Halbach arrayed magnets. The windings are shifted from the tips of the teeth, and contact the flange portions, such that the windings are not shifted from the flange portions.
Fig. 6
PNG
media_image14.png
490
384
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm EST.
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, Seye 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights