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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are examined.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn without traverse.
Claim 9 is cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims (US 367408) in view of Ahn (WO 2017135576 A1 used in rejection, English equivalent US 2019/0040248 A1 used for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Sims discloses a method (c. 3, L 1-9 – manufacture of a laminated article) for producing a resin-filled object (c. 3, L 1-9 – in the form of a stator core 10) comprising:
introducing a resin composition (c. 3, L 59-62 – integral insulation, such as powdered resin) including a resin and magnetic powder (c. 3, L 59-62 – powdered resin containing magnetic particles) into one or more slots (c. 3, L 1-9 – 10 includes angularly spaced apart tooth sections 16, define slots 18; c. 5, L6-16 – fusible insulating powder is sprayed through the slots) of a tubular object (core 10), wherein the tubular object includes a penetration space (c. 3, L 10-20 – axial bore 22 to receive a rotor) and an edge region having the one or more slots formed therein (c. 3, L 1-9 – 10 includes angularly spaced apart tooth sections 16, define slots 18), and
PNG
media_image1.png
558
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
562
693
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Sims FIG. 1 and 4
wherein the penetration space and the one or more slots are formed in a longitudinal direction of the tubular object (FIG. 1 and 4 depict 22 and 18 formed in a longitudinal direction of 10),
generating a magnetic field with the solenoid coil to cure the resin present in the one or more slots of the tubular object (c. 7, L 24-31 – electromagnet 115 used to inductively heat the core after the magnetic drawing operation; c. 7, L. 73 – c. 8, L 11 – core is heated to cure or set the magnetic oxide-containing resin, thereby bonding the magnetic oxide resin to the core to form an integral insulation on the core),
generate a magnetic field with the solenoid coil to preheat the tubular object (c. 7, L 24-31 – inductively heat the core prior to the powder-praying operation; c. 7, L 53-67 – magnetic field which inductively heats 10 to place it in preheated condition)
Sims does not disclose in this embodiment inserting a solenoid coil into the penetration space of the tubular object.
However, in another embodiment, Sims discloses in another embodiment inserting a solenoid coil into the penetration space of the tubular object (c. 8, L. 41-60; FIG. 8-10 – electromagnetic device 144 is inserted in 22 of 10; consists of an annular coil 146; magnetic field 152 generated by 146).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the coil into the bore of the core to reduce the magnetic force in a direction that tends to flare the tips of the teeth along the bore and produce a resultant clamping force which is more uniformly distributed over the lamination surface while eliminating faring at the yok and tooth tips (c. 8, L. 41-60).
Sims discloses inductively heat the core prior to the powder-spraying operation and after the magnetic drawing operation (c. 7, L 24-31). The core is heated to cure or set the magnetic oxide-containing resin, thereby bonding the magnetic oxide resin to the core to form an integral insulation on the core (c. 7, L. 73 – c. 8, L 11),
Sims does not disclose vibration heat generated by the magnetic powder.
Analogous art Ahn discloses a composition comprising a thermosetting compound, an epoxy resin, and FeOFe2O3 particles as magnetic particles (¶ [0057]).
Ahn further discloses cure the resin present (¶ [0013] – thermosetting compound can be cured using generated heat) … with vibration heat generated by the magnetic powder (¶ [0013] – vibrational heat by magnetization reversal of magnetic particles through electromagnetic induction heating).
Sims and Ahn disclose a method with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the vibrational heating from the magnetic particles through electromagnetic induction heating in Ahn to the induction heating and the magnetic particles in modified Sims to realize uniform and stable curing (¶ [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 1. Sims further discloses the resin is an insulating resin (c. 3, L 59-62 – integral insulation, such as powdered resin containing magnetic particles).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Sims discloses the magnetic powder comprises one or more magnetic bodies (c. 3, L 59-62 – powdered resin containing magnetic particles), and each of the one or more magnetic bodies comprises magnetic particles (c. 3, L 59-62).
Sims does not disclose each of the one or more magnetic bodies comprises a surface treatment agent on the surface of the magnetic particles.
Ahn discloses each of the one or more magnetic bodies comprises a surface treatment agent on the surface of the magnetic particles (¶ [0042] – a dispersing agent, for example a surfactant). The 3D printing composition may comprise a dispersing agent so that the magnetic particles can be uniformly dispersed (¶ [0042]).
Sims and Ahn disclose a method with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the dispersing agent in Ahn to the magnetic particles in the insulating resin in modified Sims to so that the magnetic particles can be uniformly dispersed (¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 3.
Sims does not disclose wherein the magnetic particles have an average particle diameter in a range of 20 nm to 300 nm, and wherein the magnetic particles have a crystal size in a range of 10 nm to 40 nm.
Ahn discloses the magnetic particles have an average particle diameter in a range of 20 nm to 300 nm (¶ [0018] – magnetic particles may have an average particle size in a range of 20 nm to 300 nm), and wherein the magnetic particles have a crystal size in a range of 10 nm to 40 nm (¶ [0018] – the magnetic domains in the particles have an average size in range of 10 to 50 nm). The present application generates heat capable of uniformly curing the resin by controlling the number of magnetic domains and the magnitude of the coercive force of the magnetic particles to an appropriate range in the particles size range (¶ [0018]).
Sims and Ahn disclose a method with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the average particle size and average magnetic domain size in Ahn to the magnetic particles in the insulating resin in modified Sims to uniformly cure the resin (¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 3. Sims does not disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Ahn discloses the surface treatment agent is an acrylic copolymer containing an acidic functional group (¶ [0042] - dispersing agent contains an acidic group, a high molecular weight acrylic polymer type, and the like).
Sims and Ahn disclose a method with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the dispersing agent containing an acidic group, acrylic polymer type, and the like in Ahn to the magnetic particles in the insulating resin in modified Sims to so that the magnetic particles can be uniformly dispersed (¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 3.
Sims does not disclose the magnetic particles have a variation coefficient of a particle diameter in a range of 5% to 30%.
Ahn discloses magnetic particles may have an average particles size in a range of 20 nm to 300 nm, 30 nm to 250 nm, and other narrower ranges, where sufficient vibrational heat on curing is generated through controlling size of particles to 20 nm or more and realizing uniform and stable curing by controlling the particle size to 300 nm or less (¶ [0018]).
Modified Sims discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references do not explicitly disclose the magnetic particles have a variation coefficient of a particle diameter in a range of 5% to 30%. However, as the vibrational heat to achieve uniform and stable curing is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the range of average particle size, with said vibrational heat increasing as range of the average particle size is narrowed, the variation coefficient of a particle diameter would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed variation cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the variation coefficient in particle size resulting in an average in the method of modified Sims to obtain the desired vibrational heat to achieve uniform and stable curing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 1.
Modified Sims disclose wherein the temperature of the tubular object during the preheating of the tubular object (c. 7, L. 53 – c. 8, L. 11 – core is preheated to the temperature at which the insulating powder will fuse and adhere to the core laminations) is less than a curing onset temperature of the resin composition (c. 7, L. 53 – c. 8, L. 11 – the core is heated to a sufficiently high temperature for a sufficiently long time to cure or set the magnetic oxide-containing resin; therefore the preheat temperature to fuse and adhere is lower than the high temperature for curing).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 1.
Sims discloses the core is preheated to the temperature at which the insulating powder will fuse and adhere to the core laminations and the core is heated to a sufficiently high temperature for a sufficiently long time to cure or set the magnetic oxide-containing resin (c. 7, L. 53 – c. 8, L. 11).
Sims does not disclose wherein a viscosity of the resin composition at the temperature of the tubular object during the preheating is more than 1/100 relative to a viscosity of the resin composition at room temperature.
Ahn discloses controlling the surface energy before curing of the composition to control flowability upon application of the composition to realize shape stability of the three-dimensional shape (¶ [0010]).
Modified Sims discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the references do not explicitly disclose a viscosity of the resin composition at the temperature of the tubular object during the preheating is more than 1/100 relative to a viscosity of the resin composition at room temperature. However, as the shape stability is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting flowability (i.e. the opposite value of viscosity) through surface energy/temperature, with said shape stability increasing as flowability and surface energy is increased (decrease in viscosity due to increase in surface energy), the viscosity and surface energy would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed viscosity cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the flowability and surface energy during preheating in the method of modified Sims to obtain the desired shape stability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 1.
Modified Sims further discloses wherein the introduction of the resin composition is performed while generating a magnetic field with the solenoid coil (c. 7, L. 4-23 – the application of the magnetic field during the spraying of the powder).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 1.
Modified Sims discloses wherein the introduction of the resin composition is performed by a liquid dipping method or a trickling method (c. 5, L 6-27 – fusible insulating powder is sprayed through the slots 18).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 1.
Modified Sims further discloses the resin is cured by applying an alternating current to the solenoid coil using a magnetic field generator to generate a magnetic field (c. 7, L. 24-52 – coil connected to a suitable source, such as an AC power source 130 to establish a varying magnetic field for inductive heating purposes).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims (US 367408) in view of Ahn (WO 2017135576 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Iwaki (US 2019/0207460 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Sims does not disclose introducing an insulating paper into the one or more slots before introducing the resin composition into the one or more slots.
Analogous art Iwaki discloses a stator core 131 comprising of slots 132 provided with slots opening 135 (¶ [0036-0037]) and a mixture 17 of soft magnetic powder and a resin material is formed in the slot opening of 131 (¶ [0040]) and insulator such as a resin (¶ [0041]).
Iwaki further discloses introducing an insulating paper 14, 15 (¶ [0038] – slot liners 14, 15) into the one or more slots 132 (¶ [0038] – installed in 132) before introducing the resin composition into the one or more slots (¶ [0040] – 17 is formed in 135; step is recited after the installation of 14, 15). 15 has a function of securing insulation property between coil 133 and 131 (¶ [0091). 14, 15 are insulators and play a role of insulation and preventing 133 from projecting from the end portion of 135 toward the rotor core (¶ [0097]).
Sims and Iwaki disclose a method with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that insulation is used to retain heat, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the slot liners in Iwaki into the slots filled with magnetic insulating resin in modified Sims to prevent coil 133 from projecting from the end portion of 135 toward the rotor core (¶ [0097]) and to provide additional insulation to retain heat.
Regarding claim 8, modified Sims discloses the method according to claim 7. Sims does not disclose introducing a winding into the one or more slots before introducing the insulating paper into the one or more slots.
Iwaki discloses introducing a winding 133 into the one or more slots 132 (¶ [0036] – a coil 133 inserted into a slot 132) before introducing the insulating paper 14, 15 into the one or more slots 132 (¶ [0038] – 14, 15 installed in 132; 133 is housed in a space surrounded by 14, 15, therefore 133 is housed before 14, 15 are installed). 133 is formed by a metal wire with an insulating material (¶ [0039]).
Sims and Iwaki disclose a method with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that insulation is used to retain heat, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the housing of the coil before the installation of slot liners in Iwaki to the method in modified Sims to provide additional insulation to retain heat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Sims discloses inductively heating the metal core itself rather than the resin and teach or suggest generating a magnetic field with the solenoid coil to cure the resin present in the one or more slots of the tubular object with vibrational heat generated by the magnetic powder.
The argument is addressed in the updated 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Sims in view of Ahn.
Sims teaches inductively heat the core prior to the powder-spraying operation and after the magnetic drawing operation (c. 7, L 24-31). The core is heated to cure or set the magnetic oxide-containing resin, thereby bonding the magnetic oxide resin to the core to form an integral insulation on the core (c. 7, L. 73 – c. 8, L 11), therefore inductive heating is applied to the resin powder and meets the limitation “generating a magnetic field with the solenoid coil to cure the resin”. Furthermore, Ahn further discloses cure the resin present (¶ [0013] – thermosetting compound can be cured using generated heat) … with vibration heat generated by the magnetic powder (¶ [0013] – vibrational heat by magnetization reversal of magnetic particles through electromagnetic induction heating) and meeting the amended limitation.
Applicant argues Ahn teaches away from the conventional methods of generating heat by eddy currents occurring in metals.
“A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed”. MPEP § 2145 (D).
Although Ahn discloses “conventional technique to generate heat by electromagnetic induction, heat is generated by eddy current” and “the present application can generate heat due to vibrations between magnetic materials, other than eddy currents” in ¶ [0013], Ahn merely expresses an alternative technique of heating generated from vibrations in magnetic material, recites it as a potential improvement in the application over conventional techniques, and does not discredit or otherwise discourage investigation of the use of eddy currents.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights