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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munekatsu et al. (JP 2005-039963 A).
Regarding claim 1, Munekatsu discloses a method for manufacturing a rotor for a rotary electric machine having a magnet hole (fig. 1: any of the openings in sheet, 1) (Title; Abstract; fig. 1), the method comprising: a step of preparing a plurality of steel sheets (1) punched out of a material by pressing (fig. 1; pars. 0017, 0051 and 0054); a stacking step for stacking the plurality of steel sheets to form a rotor core (100) (fig. 8; pars. 0031 and 0038); a step of causing plastic strain before or after the stacking step by applying mechanical energy or high-density energy radially from an outer peripheral side of the rotor core to at least one steel sheet out of the plurality of steel sheets (pars. 0018-0020, 0022-0025, 0032-0033 and 0057-0058); and a step of applying heat to the steel sheet in which the plastic strain has been caused (0028-0030, 0061, 0064 and 0066-0067), wherein: the step of causing the plastic strain is a step [intended] for increasing a density of grains in the steel sheet (par. 0027 and 0057-0058), and the step of applying the heat is a step [intended] for making the grains finer by recrystallization (pars. 0029 and 0065-0067).
NOTE: the limitations that have been newly added to the final five lines of claim 1 are directed to the purported benefits of the method steps claimed. They do not further define the method, as they do not present additional steps nor do they further define how the previously presented steps of the method are intended to be performed. The cited steps of the method of Munekatsu are identical to those of not only the claim but also the disclosed method in the instant specification. Moreover, there is no evidence in any of the original disclosure that any surprising results were achieved from using the method of Munekatsu in the exact manner it was disclosed. It is well understood that causing plastic strain, and specifically that doing so using the laser peening (explicitly disclosed in Munekatsu as being for the purpose of material hardening) of the old method of Munekatsu and the instant application would naturally result in increasing density of grains in the sheet. In the same manner, there is no evidence of surprising results from using heat treatment with the well-established result of making grains finer by recrystallization. The method of Munekatsu is identical to that which is claimed and the results would therefore naturally be identical as well.
Regarding claim 2, Munekatsu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the step of causing the plastic strain includes causing the plastic strain in a bridge portion (15, 16) of the steel sheet around the magnet hole in the rotor core (fig. 8; pars. 0018-0019, 0022-0025, 0032-0033 and 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 3, Munekatsu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the step of applying the mechanical energy includes a step of performing at least one of shot blasting, shot peening, laser peening, and rolling (par. 0032).
Regarding claim 10, Munekatsu discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 2, wherein the step of applying the mechanical energy includes a step of performing at least one of shot blasting, shot peening, laser peening, and rolling (par. 0032).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please refer to the updated prior art rejection of claim 1, above, therein it is clear that Munekatsu does in fact disclose all of the steps and limitations of the claimed method. Further, please also refer to the “NOTE” associated with the rejection of claim 1, as it answers the Applicant’s arguments.
The Applicant has asserted that Munekatsu “does not disclose causing plastic strain by applying mechanical energy or high-density energy radially from an outer peripheral side of the rotor core, as recited in claim 1.” Respectfully, this is not compelling, in par. [0020] Munekatsu discloses that the hardening does not reach the center of the sheet, which would only occur if the hardening and the energy applied to cause the hardening, is done from a periphery inward. More directly, in par. [0023] Munekatsu expressly discloses “providing the outer peripheral side hardened portion 11 and the hardened portion 12 between the openings that are harder than the other portions…” Munekatsu continues (in par. 0024) that “first, the parts corresponding to the outer peripheral side hardening part 11 and the opening-to-opening hardening part 12 are work hardened”. Finally, in par. [0078] Munekatsu discloses that the hardening can be done only on the outer bridge portion if desired. Accordingly it is quite clear that the energy is provided radially from an outer peripheral side as claimed.
The Applicant has asserted that: “Munekatsu also fails to disclose that the step of causing the plastic strain is a step for increasing a density of grains in the steel sheet, and that the step of applying the heat is a step for making the grains finer by recrystallization, as recited in claim 1”. As noted above, nothing in these claim limitations actually defines the claimed method in any discernable manner. The limitations are directed to the purported benefits or outcome of performing the well understood method of Munekatsu. In fact, the method of Munekatsu is identical to that which is claimed. The plastic strain of the claims is induced by laser peening, which is exactly the method used by Munekatsu, as such, it is entirely reasonable to expect that the identical method of Munekatsu would product the identical benefits of the claim. The same is true with respect to the desired outcome of making the grains finer by recrystallization. The Applicant has disclosed no indication that surprising results were derived from the old and well-known technique of heating. IN fact, the heating in the original disclosure is entirely generic and amounts to nothing more than “radiating high-density energy as in heating by laser radiation… [or] furnace heating, high-frequency heating, or the like” (instant specification, par. 0047). Further, the fact that the claim discloses that the causing plastic strain and the heating are steps “for” causing the intended benefit supports the Examiner’s interpretation. These newly added limitations in claim 1 do not provide additional steps, and do not provide additional detail or definition of the existing steps. Instead they simply disclose what benefits are desired from the already disclosed steps of the claimed method.
According to the updated prior art rejections above, and the response herein, all currently presented claim limitations are held to be anticipated by the prior art and all arguments on the merits have been answered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Decristofare et al. (CN 1435003) is held to disclose most if not all of the limitations of at least claim 1. In fact, Decristofare demonstrates that it is well established that the plastic strain induction would increase grain density and that heat treatment would make grains finer by recrystallization (pg. 2, “Description” section, par. 3; pg. 7, par. 2). The Decristofare reference is not currently applied as an anticipation rejection due to the completeness of the above applied art, and in order to avoid an overly long Office Action or duplicative rejections.
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 Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571)272-0993. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights