DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 14, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The objections to the specification in the previous office action1 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 37 through 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,536,985 to Ward et al (hereinafter “Ward”).
Claim 37: Ward discloses a tooling arrangement2 comprising:
a first portion;
a second portion, wherein the first and second portions define an inner diameter (e.g. of 12); and
a variable member (e.g. 18 or 20), wherein the first portion, the second portion, and the variable member define a forming cavity (e.g. 12), wherein the variable member is movable with respect to the first portion and the second portion such that a volume of the forming cavity is adjustable to define a variable length (in Figs. 1A to 1C) of the forming cavity having a length dimension L2 that corresponds to a position of the variable member within the first portion and second portion (e.g. Figs. 1B to 1C, col. 5, lines 23-65), and
wherein the forming cavity with the variable member maintained in the position (e.g. Fig. 1C) is configured to receive a magnetic material (e.g. iron powder, Figs. 1A to 1C, col. 3, lines 28-63).
PNG
media_image1.png
373
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 38: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 37, wherein the forming cavity receives a polymeric material (e.g. polyethermide resin, col. 3, lines 55-63).
Claim 39: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 38, wherein the polymeric material defines at least a portion of a body of a motor assembly (e.g. Fig. 1F).
Claim 40: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 37, wherein the volume of the forming cavity is adjusted to define the volume by altering the position of the variable member with respect to the first and second portions (e.g. Figs. 1B to 1C).
Claim 41: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 40, wherein the position of the variable member correlates to the length dimension of the body of the motor assembly (e.g. Fig. 1F).
Claim 42: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 37, wherein the inner diameter of the first and second portions are maintained as a constant dimension as the position of the variable member is adjusted (e.g. Figs. 1A to 1D).
Claim 43: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 38, wherein the polymeric material comprises magnetic particles (e.g. col. 3, line 28 to col. 4, line 49).
Claim 44: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 39, further comprising a coil (e.g. 30, 28, Fig. 1F) that is configured to orient magnetic poles of the body of the motor assembly.
Claim 45: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 38, further comprising:
pocket-forming inserts (e.g. 8, 16, Fig. 1A) that are utilized to form recesses in the body (e.g. in Fig. 1D).
Claim 46: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 45, wherein the recesses each receive a magnetic portion (e.g. 19) after removal of the pocket-forming inserts (e.g. Fig. 1D).
Claim 47: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 37, wherein the first portion, the second portion and the variable member define the forming cavity as an injection molding cavity (e.g. injection through 14, Fig. 1A) that receives the magnetic material.
Claim 48: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 37, wherein the first portion and the second portion define a seam (e.g. 13, Fig. 1A), and wherein the variable member operates in a direction parallel with the seam to define the forming cavity.
Claim 49: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 37, wherein an injection port (e.g. top of 14 in Fig. 1A) is defined within at least one of the first portion and the second portion for delivering the magnetic material into the forming cavity.
Claim 50: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 37, wherein the first portion and the second portion define a top wall (e.g. 8, Fig. 1B), and wherein the top wall opposes the variable member to define the forming cavity.
Claim 51: Ward discloses the tooling arrangement of claim 37, wherein the magnetic material includes magnetic particles that are encased in a polymeric material (e.g. col. 3, lines 27-63).
Ward discloses that the claimed tooling arrangement relied upon above, is within the embodiment of Example 1. In Example 1, Ward states that the variable length is for a core (19). However, Ward does not appear to state in Example 1 that the variable length of the core is “configured to form a rotor assembly”, or that the forming cavity with the variable member maintained in the position is “configured to form the rotor assembly” (as required in Claim 37). Also, it appears that Ward does not specifically state that the body is part of a rotor assembly (as required in Claims 39, 41 and 44).
However, it is clear that the core in Example 1 can be used as a core (47, Fig. 4G) of a rotor, or rotor assembly in other examples, e.g. Example 3. In the embodiment of Example 3, Ward teaches that the core (Fig. 4G) has a “length dimension” that defines a body that is part of a rotor assembly (e.g. col. 8, lines 37-57). In other words, the core is capable of being used in other applications that can include a rotor assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the variable length of the forming cavity for the core is “configured to form a rotor assembly”, or that the forming cavity with the variable member maintained in the position is “configured to form the rotor assembly”, because both these form a core that can be utilized in other applications that include a rotor assembly.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the core in one embodiment of Ward (Example 1) can be part of a body of a rotor assembly, as taught in another embodiment (Example 3) of Ward, to produce an art-recognized equivalent motor assemblies having the same purpose (e.g. col. 1, lines 15-26).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward in view of U.S. Publication 2015/0229189 to Tsuiki et al (hereinafter “Tsuiki”).
Ward discloses the claimed tooling arrangement as relied upon above in Claim 37, further including that the first and second portions include a conductor (e.g. 28, Fig. 1F), as part of the motor assembly, that is selectively energized to define a magnetic polar arrangement of magnetic material (e.g. col. 6, lines 1-20).
Ward does not state that these conductors are specifically at least one “coil”.
Tsuiki discloses an arrangement (in Fig. 2) of an art-recognized equivalent motor assembly that includes a rotor (e.g. 5, 7) and conductors (e.g. 20) that form part of a coil to energize [electrical current] and define a magnetic polar arrangement of magnetic material (e.g. 5 or 7, ¶¶ [0065] to [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the conductors of Ward each form part of a “coil”, as taught by Tsuiki, to form an art-recognized equivalent motor assembly that includes a rotor in operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed as part of their submission have been fully considered, but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
In regards to the merits of Ward, applicants first assert that Ward does not teach a dimensional variability of the core [page 7 of submission]. The examiner disagrees at least for the following reasons. From a claim construction standpoint, the claims are directed to the structure of the tooling arrangement and how the structural elements of the arrangement function to form a core. The structure of the core itself, or the magnetic material that makes up the core, does not further limit the structure of the tooling arrangement. MPEP
§
2115.
The examiner does agree with the applicants [page 8 of submission] that the variable member (e.g. 18, 20) of Ward operates in such a manner that in sequence, the magnetic material is first loaded into the cavity (in Fig. 1A), then the variable member moves to compress the magnetic material (e.g. Figs. 1B, 1C). However, this sequence is not excluded by the claim because Claim 37 states “…a variable length of the forming cavity is configured to form a rotor assembly having a length dimension that corresponds to a position of the variable member within the first portion and the second portion…” (emphasis added). It is this very sequence that explains how Ward defines the variable length of the forming cavity and how Ward defines the length dimension relative to the any position of the variable member. As explained in the foregoing rejections, the structure of Ward is certainly capable and configured to carry out functions of forming a core in one embodiment, or a rotor assembly in another embodiment.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies upon (i.e., no indication that the predetermined amount of compaction powder is every varied or modified) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to Claim 52, [pages 8 to 9 of submission] stand or fall together with Claim 37.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
1 Final action, mailed on November 7, 2025.
2 Elements emphasized in italics are illustrated in the annotated Figures of Ward.