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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement sent 8/25/25 is withdrawn, due to applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites “A hoop material for providing the plurality of core thin strips for the magnetic core according to Claim 1, the hoop material comprising: at least one core thin strip segment corresponding the core thin strip; a ribbon base provided along the core thin strip segment in a same plane; and at least one tie stick by which the core thin strip segment and the ribbon base are connected”.
The claim limitation fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed-specifically no further structural limitations of the laminated core of claim 1 are provided.
Specifically the claim limitation deal with structure of the hoop material that the laminated core is made from, but not the structure of the laminated core after it is formed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 13-14 are rejected since they depend on claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 5, 11-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (EP3229344, “Kawasaki”, from IDS) in view of Yamada et al. (EP0871282, “Yamada”).
Re claim 1, Kawasaki discloses a magnetic core comprising:
a laminated core including a plurality of core thin strips which are laminated in a lamination direction (figs 1-3, [0014] & [0021], one core thin strip includes 1a-f & 2a-f which form one lamination of core; lamination direction into page of figs),
wherein the laminated core has cutting marks formed on a surface thereof other than an outermost side surface of the laminated core (figs 1-4, [0025-0026], cutting marks from cutting 2g), the cutting marks being formed by separating the core thin strips from tie sticks 2g connected thereto, by cutting the tie sticks 2g in the lamination direction (figs 2-4, [0026]),
wherein each of the plurality of core thin strips comprises a body portion 1a-f and a plurality of teeth 2a-f extending radially from a surface of the body portion 1a-f (figs 1-3 & fig 16, [0014]), each of the plurality of teeth 2a-f comprises a distal end portion 2a4-2f4 (figs 3-7, [0021]).
Kawasaki discloses claim 1 except for:
the teeth extending radially and outwardly from an outer side surface of the body portion; and
the outermost side surface of the laminated core is constituted by outermost side surfaces of the distal end portions of the plurality of teeth.
Specifically Kawasaki discloses a core for an outer stator (figs 1 & 16, [0013]), as opposed for an inner stator.
Yamada discloses the teeth 55 extending radially and outwardly from an outer side surface of the body portion 54 (figs 49-52 & below, col 13, lns 38-52);
the outermost side surface of the laminated core 52 is constituted by outermost side surfaces of the distal end portions of the plurality of teeth 55 (fig 49 & below); and
employing a similar method for an inner stator as an outer stator (figs 1-2 & 49-52, col 6, lns 43-56; col 13, lns 38-52; & col 14, lns 3-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the teeth and body portions of Yamada as an inner stator having the teeth extending radially and outwardly from an outer side surface of the body portion; and the outermost side surface of the laminated core is constituted by outermost side surfaces of the distal end portions of the plurality of teeth, as disclosed by Yamada, in order to employ a similar method for an inner stator as an outer stator, as demonstrated by Yamada (col 14, lns 3-7).
Re claim 5, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Kawasaki further discloses the laminated core includes: at least one thin strip block in which the plurality of core thin strips are joined to each other in the lamination direction at fixing portions (fig 15, [0034], stator core forms one thin strip block; welds fixes body portions 1a-f in lamination direction).
Re claim 11, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Kawasaki further discloses an impregnated coating covering the laminated core ([0035]).
Re claim 12, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Kawasaki further discloses hoop material 50 for providing the plurality of core thin strips for the magnetic core according to Claim 1 (fig 2, [0013]), the hoop material 50 comprising:
at least one core thin strip segment corresponding the core thin strip (fig 2, portion of 50 w/ 1a-f & 2a-g);
a ribbon base provided along the core thin strip segment in a same plane (fig 2, portion of 50 that is not 1a-f & 2a-g); and
at least one tie stick 2g by which the core thin strip segment and the ribbon base are connected (fig 2).
Re claim 13, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 12 as discussed above. Kawasaki further discloses a plurality of core thin strip segments (fig 2, [0013], inherent more segments on 50 in order to form laminated core), each of which is connected to the ribbon base via the at least one tie stick 2g (fig 2, [0013], since strip segments have same shape as fig 2).
Re claim 14, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 12 as discussed above. Kawasaki further discloses the ribbon base is provided with a positioning portion associated with the core thin strip segment (fig 2, portion of ribbon base that 1a-f & 2a-f are cut out of).
Re claim 15, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Kawasaki further discloses a magnetic component comprising the magnetic core according to Claim 1 ([0012], stator).
Re claim 16, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 15 as discussed above. Kawasaki further discloses the magnetic component is a motor stator ([0012]).
Re claim 18, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Kawasaki further discloses the cutting marks are formed in each core thin strip at a location inside of an outer periphery of the core thin strip (figs 2-4).
Re claim 19, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 12 as discussed above. Kawasaki further discloses the at least one tie stick 2g is connected to the core thin strip segment at a location inside of an outer periphery of the core thin strip segment (figs 2-4).
Claims 2, 3 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Yamada and in further view of Takanezawa et al. (US20200251279, “Takanezawa”).
Re claim 2, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 1 as discussed above, but is silent with respect to each core thin strip includes a portion made of a nanocrystal-containing alloy material that is obtained by nano-crystallizing an amorphous alloy material with a heat treatment.
Takanezawa discloses each core thin strip includes a portion made of a nanocrystal-containing alloy material that is obtained by nano-crystallizing an amorphous alloy material with a heat treatment ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure each core thin strip of Kawasaki in view of Yamada to include a portion made of a nanocrystal-containing alloy material that is obtained by nano-crystallizing an amorphous alloy material with a heat treatment, as disclosed by Takanezawa, in order to form a laminated core with high saturation magnet flux density and a low coercivity, as taught by Takanezawa ([0003]).
Re claim 3, Kawasaki in view of Yamada and Takanezawa disclose claim 2 as discussed above and further discloses a portion of the core thin strip in which the cutting marks are formed is made of the amorphous alloy material (Takanezawa, [0003], entire core thin strip made of amorphous alloy material that has been heated to cause nano-crystallization including cutting mark).
Re claim 4, Kawasaki in view of Yamada and Takanezawa disclose claim 2 as discussed above and further discloses a portion of the core thin strip in which the cutting marks are formed is made of the nanocrystal-containing alloy material (Takanezawa, [0003], entire core thin strip made of nanocrystal-containing alloy material including cutting mark).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Yamada and in further view of Azeyanagi et al. (JP2005086929, “Azeyanagi”, using machine translation).
Re claim 6, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 5 as discussed above. Kawasaki is silent with respect to at least part of the fixing portions includes a portion of the core thin strips in which the cutting marks are formed.
Azeyanagi discloses at least part of the fixing portions 31 includes a portion of the core thin strips 33 in which the cutting marks are formed (fig 2, [0007], [0017] & [0026], 31 weld point & is location of cut).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the fixing portions of Kawasaki in view of Yamada so at least part of the fixing portions includes a portion of the core thin strips in which the cutting marks are formed, as disclosed by Azeyanagi, in order to provide uniformity of the outer surface of the laminated core by employing the cutting mark for the fixing position, as opposed to forming the fixing portions at a location other than the cutting mark, as taught by Azeyanagi [0026]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Yamada and Azeyanagi in further view of Nakano (US20080129157, “Nakano”).
Re claims 7 and 8, Kawasaki in view of Yamada and Azeyanagi disclose claim 6 as discussed above and further disclose the cutting marks in the fixing portions are welded (Azeyanagi, [0007]), but are silent with respect to:
the cutting marks in the fixing portions are fusion bonded; and
the fixing portions are fusion bonded by laser cutting.
Nakano discloses welding is equivalent to fusion bonding by laser cutting ([0076], laser fusion welding capable of cutting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known element (welding disclosed by Azeyanagi) for another known equivalent element (fusion bonding by laser cutting, disclosed by Nakano) resulting in the predictable result of fixing core thin strips together.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Yamada and in further view of Stretz et al. (US20130057107, “Stretz”).
Re claims 9 and 10, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 5 as discussed above, but fail to disclose:
the laminated core includes a plurality of thin strip blocks which are assembled into a core assembly; and
the plurality of thin strip blocks are arranged along a first direction in such a manner that the fixing portions of the plurality of thin strip blocks are not aligned in the first direction.
Stretz discloses the laminated core 400 includes a plurality of thin strip blocks which are assembled into a core assembly (figs 7 & below, [0041] & [0044], [0044] states skew shown in fig 7 be individual laminations 410 can be formed by groups of laminations in the same circumferential position).
PNG
media_image2.png
228
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the laminated core of Kawasaki in view of Yamada to include a plurality of thin strip blocks which are assembled into a core assembly, as disclosed by Stretz, in order to reduce cogging torque and motor noise, as taught by Stretz ([0048]).
It is pointed out that Kawasaki in view of Yamada and Stretz disclose the plurality of thin strip blocks are arranged along a first direction in such a manner that the fixing portions of the plurality of thin strip blocks are not aligned in the first direction, since: Kawasaki discloses the fixing portion is located at the midpoint in the circumferential direction between two teeth (location of black dots in fig 15 & below); and Stretz discloses skewing groups of thin strips in the circumferential direction (figs 7 & above), resulting in a shift in the circumferential direction between fixing portions of two groups of thin strip blocks.
PNG
media_image3.png
338
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Yamada and in further view of Fahrenbach (US20170229929, “Fahrenbach”).
Re claim 17, Kawasaki in view of Yamada disclose claim 15 as discussed above, but fail to disclose the magnetic component is a motor rotor.
Fahrenbach discloses the magnetic component 14 with a similar structure as Kawasaki in view of Yamada is a motor rotor or a motor stator (figs 3-5, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the stator of Kawasaki in view of Yamada to be employed as a motor rotor, as disclosed by Fahrenbach, in order to make the magnetic component more versatile by using it for either a rotor or stator, as opposed to just a stator, as demonstrated by Fahrenbach.
Conclusion
Manabe (US20210130917) discloses heating the central part of an alloy ribbon piece and leaving the edges that are to be cut as amorphous alloy (fig 1, [0026-0027]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834