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 03/11/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in para [0033] on p. 17, line 4 the spec recites an “axial-direction holding body 311” whereas elsewhere these bodies are refnum 331 and the rotor core is 311.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-11, 14-17, 20-23, and 26-27 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the structure or material which describes the means of suppression of the claimed bending moment, which could be an inherent property of any solid material or structure.
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 10-13 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIMURA - JP 2003259576 (previously disclosed).
Regarding claim 10, YOSHIMURA discloses a rotary electric machine comprising:
a stator [0010]; and
a rotor 1 composed of
a rotor core 10 disposed with a magnetic gap between the rotor core 10 and the stator [0010] and formed of electromagnetic steel sheets arranged to be stacked [0022], and
a plurality of permanent magnets M arranged in the rotor core at regular intervals in a circumferential direction (Fig. 3), wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
376
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
axial-direction holding bodies 5, a rotation holding body 11, and suppression constituents 13,17 are provided,
the axial-direction holding bodies 5 are arranged on an inner side in a radial direction relative to the permanent magnets M, the number of the axial-direction holding bodies 5 being half the number of magnetic poles M of the rotor 1 (Fig. 3),
the rotation holding body 11 is formed in a cylindrical shape and has an outer cylinder portion on which the rotor core is disposed (Fig. 3).
However, YOSHIMURA does not specifically disclose each of the suppression constituents suppresses a bending moment for which the corresponding axial-direction holding body serves as a fulcrum.
It 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 to provide the rotor of YOSHIMURA with each of the suppression constituents suppresses a bending moment for which the corresponding axial-direction holding body serves as a fulcrum.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification as such a bending moment would occur as an inherent consequence of rotation of the rotor, and be suppressed, as broadly claimed, in order to transmit the centrifugal force of rotation of the rotor, as taught by YOSHIMURA [0007]
Regarding claim 11, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 10, wherein the axial-direction holding bodies 5 are arranged at regular intervals, the number of the axial-direction holding bodies 5 being half the number of the magnetic poles M of the rotor 1 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 10, wherein each of the suppression constituents 13 is implemented by a recess formed in an inner circumferential portion of the rotor core so as to be located at a position of the corresponding axial-direction holding body 5 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 12, wherein the recess has such a shape that an angle thereof in the circumferential direction is equal to or larger than a value expressed as 360°/(number of poles)(see Fig. 3, i.e. each recess 13 is on an arc of almost 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 13, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 10, wherein each of the suppression constituents 17 is implemented by a recess formed in the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body.
Regarding claim 29, YOSHIMURA in view of YAMANAKA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 13, wherein the recess 17 has such a shape that an angle thereof in the circumferential direction is equal to or larger than a value expressed as 360°/(number of poles) (Fig. 3, i.e. each recess 17 has an opening angle of 60 degrees).
Claims 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIMURA as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of YAMANAKA - US 20170201153.
Regarding claim 14, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 10.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach each of the axial-direction holding bodies has a shape of a V-swaged portion.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core 17 in which each of axial-direction holding bodies 46 has a shape of a V-swaged portion ([0033] and Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
422
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with the V-swaged portions similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the dimensional accuracy of the cylindrical shape of the rotor, as taught by YAMANAKA [0036].
Regarding claim 20, YOSHIMURA in view of YAMANAKA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 14, wherein YAMANAKA teaches a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
PNG
media_image3.png
329
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
371
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, YOSHIMURA in view of YAMANAKA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 14, wherein YAMANAKA teaches a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
Regarding claim 15, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 10.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach each of the axial-direction holding bodies has a shape of a round-swaged portion.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core 17 in which each of axial-direction holding bodies 46 has a shape of a round-swaged portion ([0033] and [0048] (“the swaged portion 46 may be in a circular shape”) and Fig. 8).
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with the V-swaged portions similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to improve the dimensional accuracy of the cylindrical shape of the rotor, as taught by YAMANAKA [0036].
Regarding claim 21, YOSHIMURA in view of YAMANAKA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 15, wherein YAMANAKA teaches a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
Regarding claim 27, YOSHIMURA in view of YAMANAKA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 15, wherein YAMANAKA teaches a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
Regarding claim 16, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 10.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core with a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with a thickness in the claimed range, similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to design a rotor core with high dimensional stability of the cylindrical shape of the rotor while still achieving the goals of low inertia and low material cost, as taught by YAMANAKA ([0030], [0036], [0038], and [0047])
Regarding claim 17, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 11.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core with a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with a thickness in the claimed range, similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to design a rotor core with high dimensional stability of the cylindrical shape of the rotor while still achieving the goals of low inertia and low material cost, as taught by YAMANAKA ([0030], [0036], [0038], and [0047])
Regarding claim 18, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 12.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core with a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with a thickness in the claimed range, similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to design a rotor core with high dimensional stability of the cylindrical shape of the rotor while still achieving the goals of low inertia and low material cost, as taught by YAMANAKA ([0030], [0036], [0038], and [0047])
Regarding claim 19, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 13.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core with a thickness in the radial direction of the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with a thickness in the claimed range, similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to design a rotor core with high dimensional stability of the cylindrical shape of the rotor while still achieving the goals of low inertia and low material cost, as taught by YAMANAKA ([0030], [0036], [0038], and [0047])
Regarding claim 22, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 10.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core with a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with a thickness in the claimed range, similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to design a rotor core with high dimensional stability of the cylindrical shape of the rotor while still achieving the goals of low inertia and low material cost, as taught by YAMANAKA ([0030], [0036], [0038], and [0047])
Regarding claim 23, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 11.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core with a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with a thickness in the claimed range, similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to design a rotor core with high dimensional stability of the cylindrical shape of the rotor while still achieving the goals of low inertia and low material cost, as taught by YAMANAKA ([0030], [0036], [0038], and [0047])
Regarding claim 24, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 12.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core with a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with a thickness in the claimed range, similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to design a rotor core with high dimensional stability of the cylindrical shape of the rotor while still achieving the goals of low inertia and low material cost, as taught by YAMANAKA ([0030], [0036], [0038], and [0047])
Regarding claim 25, YOSHIMURA teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 13.
However, YOSHIMURA does not teach a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core.
YAMANAKA teaches a rotor core with a thickness in the radial direction from the outer cylinder portion of the rotation holding body to the rotor core is equal to or smaller than 10% of an outermost circumferential diameter of the rotor core (Fig. 6A and 6B).
It 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 to provide the rotor core of YOSHIMURA with a thickness in the claimed range, similar to YAMANAKA.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to design a rotor core with high dimensional stability of the cylindrical shape of the rotor while still achieving the goals of low inertia and low material cost, as taught by YAMANAKA ([0030], [0036], [0038], and [0047])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20140062252-A1 NAGAHIRO discloses a rotor core with axial holding members 42 and stress relief recesses 52 on an outer edge; US-20150222151-A1 Semken discloses a radially-thin rotor core with axial holding members and stress relief recesses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN STEFANON whose telephone number is (703)756-4648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays 8AM - 5PM EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN STEFANON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
