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 .
Response to Amendment
That the amendment to the claim languages filed on or about 1/2/26 has been fully considered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are now pending in that 11-15 are unelected and requested to be canceled or taken an appropriate action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear as to what being referring to as “a specified rouqhness average (Ra) value” (claim 1, line 4) since, there is lacking of step predetermining such “roughness average value” prior to “roughening step”.
Further, it is also not clear as to how “the air venting” beyond the endplate (see claim 1, line 11) by what passage/gap associated with the Ra value which is created in the “roughening of the endplate”?
Claim 8 recites “a second portion of the surface having a second specified roughness Ra value” (see claim 8, line 2-3) which should be further define as to whether a second specified roughness Ra value is as same as the specific Ra ? for clarity of the claim.
Similar to claim 1 above applied to claim 16, lines 4, and lines 9-10, respectively. Appropriate correction is requested.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatematsu et al (WO2008096897) in view of Gangi et al (EP 3468005).
Tatematsu et al discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a rotor, the method comprising:
providing a stack of rotor cores 221, an end plate 223, and resin 225 (see discussion in the translation about page 7, ¶¶¶ [002-005] Figs. 2-5);
PNG
media_image1.png
263
283
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
259
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
roughening the end plate to a specified roughness average (Ra) value (see area 224);
attaching the end plate to the stack of rotor cores 223, the end plate having the specified Ra value as recess 223A on a surface engaging the stack of rotor cores 221 (see Figs 3, 5);
applying the resin 225 into the stack of rotor cores 221 (see Fig. 5);
bonding the end plate to the stack of rotor cores with the applied resin (see Fig. 5); and
venting air beyond the end plate 223 by recess 223b to prevent passage of resin beyond the end plate (see Fig. 5). Therefore, the above limitations is/are met by the applied prior art as formulated above.
Further, if argues that the applied prior art to Tatematsu et al does not teach the roughening the end plate to a specified roughness average. Then applicant refer to Gangi (see related embodiment of Fig. 6 which depicts the roughening the end plate to a specified roughness average (Ra) value in form of 22c of the end plate).
PNG
media_image3.png
523
785
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to employ the Gangi’s teaching as noted above onto the invention of Tatematsu et al in order to facilitate the fabrication process including reducing heat dissipation in an effectively manner.
Furthermore, regarding to “roughening the end plate to a specified roughness average “the skilled person would implement such roughness average configurations as taught by the Gangi in replace the 224 absorb roughness of the Tatematsu et al in order to improve its adhesion integrity between the endplate and the rotor core by resin fill without exercising any inventive skills.
As applied to claims 2, 4 regarding to the specific Ra value in term of size, resin viscosity, and/or lathing. it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make or form a particular roughness average of the endplate of a rotor, since such roughness configurations base on thickness of the end plate or by lathing would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As applied to claim 3, is directed to material properties. it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose any desired material and its properties includes viscosity, and the since applicant has not disclosed that these features are critical, patentably distinguishing features and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the same type of resin and its properties as disclosed by either references (see 225 of the Gangi).
Limitations of clams 5-7 refer to Figs. 4-7 of the Gangi or similar to thisis/are found in the Tatematsu et al (see Figs. 5-6), respectively.
As applied to claims 9-10 venting the air beyond the endplate is also met by the modified of Tatematsu et al/Gangi by pressing the resin into the inlet of the endplate would result in pushing air out into atmosphere beyond the endplate through an air vent 223B of the Tatematsu et al or vent 22b of the Gangi.
As applied to claim 16-20 applicant refers to discussion similar to that claim 1-4 as mentioned above.
As applied to claim 19-20 refer to similar discussion for claims 9-10 above.
Potential Allowable claim
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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 J 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt