DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2026,05/21/2025,02/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4,7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and USC 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada (WIPO WO 2020110383a1 hereinafter “Yamada”, will use equivalent US20220037943 as English translation equivalent).
Re-claim 1, Yamada discloses motor (title) comprising: a shaft (2); a rotor (3); and a stator (4), wherein the rotor includes a yoke (33), and a first magnet (32) and a second magnet (31) arranged in a circumferential direction (annotated fig.3), the first magnet and the second magnet are present inside the yoke (inside 33, see fig.3), and an end part (32g) of the first magnet (32) at an opposite side to the stator (annotated fig.3) is present at an opposite side to the stator with respect to an end part (31a) of the second magnet (31) at an opposite side to the stator, in a radial direction (annotated fig.3).
Re-claim 2, Yamada disclose the motor according to claim 1 comprising: a third magnet (annotated fig.3, another magnet 31) inside the yoke (33), wherein the first magnet (32) and the third magnet (other 31, see fig.3) are arranged adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction (see fig.3), and an end part of the first magnet (32h) at the stator side is present at an opposite side to the stator with respect to an end part (31d) of the second magnet (31) at the stator side, in a radial direction (annotated fig.3).
Re-claim 3, Yamada discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein the yoke (33) includes a hole (36, hole of 32 location) and a frame surrounding the hole (33c surround holes), the first magnet (32) is present inside the hole (36), and a space (36a,36c) is present between an inner surface of the hole and a side surface of the first magnet (see fig.3, holes or spaces 36b, 36a, , in the circumferential direction (see fig.3 annotation).
Re-claim 4, Yamada discloses the motor according to claim 3, wherein the side surface (annotated fig.3) of the first magnet (32) is inclined with respect to the inner surface of the hole (annotated fig.3).
Re-claim 7, as best understood, Yamada discloses motor according to claim 1, wherein S1/2 > S3 is true, where a surface area of a surface at the stator side of the first magnet (32) is S3, the surface extending in the circumferential direction (annotated fig.3).
Re-claim 8, Yamada discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein the yoke includes a hole (hole where 32 is located) and a frame (33) surrounding the hole, the first magnet (32) is present inside the hole, andW2>W1> W3 is true (see annotated fig.3), where a width of the first magnet in the circumferential direction is W1, a width of the second magnet in the circumferential direction is W2, and a width of the frame in the circumferential direction is W3 (33c width).
Re-claim 9, Yamada discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein the yoke (33) includes a surface opposing (33c) a surface at an opposite side to the stator of the second magnet (31), in the radial direction (annotated fig.3), the surface opposing the surface at an opposite side to the stator of the second magnet (31) is provided with a recess part (33c has recess, see fig.3), anda space (35) is present between the surface at an opposite side to the stator of the second magnet and the recess part (annotated fig.3).
Re-claim 10, Yamada discloses the motor according to claim 9, wherein the surface at an opposite side to the stator of the second magnet (31) is in contact with a part of the surface opposing (surface at 31a) the surface at an opposite side to the stator of the second magnet (31).
Re-claim 11, Yamada discloses the motor according to claim 9, wherein the yoke (33) includes a hole (see fig.6) and a frame surrounding the hole, and a part of the frame (33c-2) is present between the recess part and the first magnet (annotated fig.6), in the circumferential direction (see annotated fig.6).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WIPO WO2020110383a1 hereinafter “Yamada”, will use equivalent US20220037943 as English translation equivalent) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US Pg pub 20160301269 hereinafter “Yamaguchi”).
Re-claim 5, Yamada discloses the motor according to claim 1 above.
Yamada fails to explicitly teach wherein the first magnet includes an end part at the stator side and an end part at an opposite side to the stator, in the radial direction, the second magnet includes an end part at the stator side and an end part at an opposite side to the stator, in the radial direction, and L1/2> L2 is true, where a size of the first magnet in the radial direction is L1, and a length from a position of the end part at an opposite side to the stator of the first magnet to a position of the end part at an opposite side to the stator of the second magnet, in the radial direction, is L2.
However, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the first magnet (annotated fig.3) includes an end part at the stator side and an end part at an opposite side to the stator (annotated fig.3), in the radial direction, the second magnet (annotated fig.3) includes an end part at the stator side and an end part at an opposite side to the stator, in the radial direction, and L1/2 > L2 (annotated fig.3) is true, where a size of the first magnet in the radial direction is L1, and a length from a position of the end part at an opposite side to the stator of the first magnet (annotated fig.3) to a position of the end part at an opposite side to the stator of the second magnet, in the radial direction, is L2 (see annotated fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the dimensions of Yamada wherein the first magnet includes an end part at the stator side and an end part at an opposite side to the stator, in the radial direction, the second magnet includes an end part at the stator side and an end part at an opposite side to the stator, in the radial direction, and L1/2 > L2 is true, where a size of the first magnet in the radial direction is L1, and a length from a position of the end part at an opposite side to the stator of the first magnet to a position of the end part at an opposite side to the stator of the second magnet, in the radial direction, is L2 as shown by Yamaguchi as it is obvious to change dimensions of magnets and location of magnets in a rotor as taught by Yamaguchi and other structures or embodiments of Yamaguchi.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WIPO WO2020110383a1 hereinafter “Yamada”, will use equivalent US20220037943 as English translation equivalent) in view of obviousness of ranges see eMPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions
Re-claim 6, Yamada discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein Si> S2/P is true (see fig.3 annotation), where a surface area of a side surface of the second magnet extending in the radial direction is SI (see fig.3 annotation), a surface area of a surface at the stator side of the rotor is S2 (see fig.3 annotation), the surface extending in the circumferential direction, and the number of magnetic poles of the rotor is P(see fig.3 annotation), in view of obviousness of similar proportions, ranges as indicated where Changes in Size/Proportion: “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.” – Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. 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://pair-direct.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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights