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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the content appears to be greater than 150 words. Also, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because throughout the abstract, the abstract recites the terms "comprising or comprises", which is improper language for the abstract. The applicant should replace the terms with the term --has or having--, to provide the abstract with proper language. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-12 as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter as represented in claim 1 (entirely) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
(Note that no process manufacturing diagram for method claims existed in the drawings at best Figs. 1-4 clearly directed to field magnet assembly. The following process diagram is suggested for at least claims 1-2.
PNG
media_image1.png
599
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
“A method for manufacturing a field magnet formed such that a cylindrical bonded magnet is fixed in an approximately bottomed tubular case, the bonded magnet being formed by binding magnet particles with a thermosetting resin, the method comprising:” (the preamble lines 1-4) is unclear and confusing in that it is unclear exactly what method applicant(s) is intended to pursue. Since the above appears to directed to the method for making a motor device (or generator) rather than the field magnet F (see Figs. 1-4 of the Drawings) therefore the above should be updated to reflect the motor device as suggested below for clarity of the claim scope:
--A method for manufacturing an outer stator core of a motor device, the outer stator core includes a cylindrical bonded magnet, a tubular case, the bonded magnet and magnet particles with a thermosetting resin, the method comprising steps of:”--
--“providing the tubular case, the bonded magnet and the magnet particles with the thermosetting resin;”--
--“inserting and bonding the bonded magnet to the tubular case by binding the magnet particles with the thermosetting resin;”--
“a softening step for”(claim 1, line 5); and “a press-fitting step for” (claim 1, line 12) should be deleted to reflect changes as suggested in line 3 of claim 1 above.
“the case having a cylindrical portion and a lid portion coupled to another side of the cylindrical portion, the cylindrical portion having a fixing portion for the bonded magnet, at least the fixing portion being formed of a magnetic material, “(claim 1, lines 9-11) should be updated to:
--“wherein the tubular case further comprises a cylindrical portion and a lid portion, said lid portion coupled to a top end of the cylindrical portion, the cylindrical portion having a fixing portion configured to bind the bonded magnet, the fixing portion is made of the magnetic material;”--
“is fixed in an approximately bottomed” (claim 1, line 2) is not understood and should be removed.
“after thermal curing treatment” (claim 1, line 5-6) is vague and indefinite because no thermal curing process occurrence prior to “softening step” at this stage of the process.
“from an outside of the case” (claim 1, line 8) is unclear and confusing in that it is not known exactly what position is considered to be an outside of the case.
“the case” (claim 1, lines 8, 14) lack proper antecedent basis for this. Further, whether this directed to “a tubular case” as previous cited in line 2 of claim 1. Please be consistent.
“the press fitting step including” (claim 1, line 12) should be updated to: -- “wherein the press-fitting the softened bonded magnet further comprises” --, to reflect changes as suggested above for clarity of the method claim formats.
“magnet relatively into the cylindrical portion while allowing a relative posture variation between the bonded magnet and the case” (claim 1, line 12-14) should be more specific since it is not know exactly what is being referring to as “allowing a relative posture variation between the bonded magnet and the case”. For clarity purpose, it is suggested the use of “defining the center line of the tubular case in term of up/down and left or right similar to that as indicated in Fig. 2B or X-Y coordinate system “, for clarity of the claimed matter.
“posture variation”(claim 1, line 13) should be further define in terms of “moving as a whole” instead, for clarity of the claim
“wherein the press-fitting step includes” (claim 2, line 1) should be updated to: -- “the press fitting the softened of the bonded comprises” --, as so to reflect changes as suggested above to clarity of method limitation.
“supporting an end portion of the case on the other side and restricting movement of the case to the other side” (claim 2, lines 2-3) is vague and indefinite and should be updated to reflect the changes as suggested above (see lines 9-11 of claim 1 as suggested above).
“the case” (claim 2, lines 2-3) should be :--“the tubular case”--, to reflect such as previously cited in claim 1, line 2.
“the case” (claim 3, line 1) should be :--“the tubular case”--, to reflect such as previously cited in claim 1, line 2.
“wherein the end portion of the case on the other side is an end portion of the lid portion on the other side” (claim 3, line 1-2) is vague and indefinite and should be further defined as upper portion and lower portion end of the tubular case, respectively.
Similar to the above claim 3 occurrence in claims 4-6 where the phrase such as: “the other end” should be updated to an upper end which is opposite to an opening on ”a lower end of the tubular case”, for clarity of the claims.
“the press-fitting step”(claim 5, line 2, and claim 9, line 1) should be updated to:--" the press fitting the softened of the bonded “--.
“wherein the softening step” (claim 7, line 2) should be updated to:--“the heating and softening”--, to reflect changes as noted in claim 1 above.
The phrase: “the other end” (see claim 9, lines 4 and 7) similar to that in claim 3 above” should be updated to an upper end which is opposite to an opening on the lower end of the tubular case, for clarity of the claims.
“the case”(claim 9, lines 4-5, 7) should be updated to:--“the tubular case”--.
“wherein the feeding jig feeds the bonded magnet into the case while the end portion of the case on the other side is kept in contact with the protruding portion”(claim 10, lines 1-3) is awkwardly worded should be updated to:--"further comprises feeding the bonded magnet into the case while the end portion of the case on the other side is kept in contact with the protruding portion by the feeding jig”--, for clarity of the method claim formats.
Claim 11 directed to an outside element (structure of the jig) made scope of claim 11 unclear, since no inventive method feature existed in above claim.
“wherein the feeding jig feeds the bonded magnet in a state in which a central axis of the bonded magnet intersects a region formed by connecting between adjacent protruding portions with straight lines” (claim 12, lines 1-3) should be updated to: --“further comprises feeding the bonded magnet by the feeding jig in a state in which a central axis of the bonded magnet intersects a region formed by connecting between adjacent protruding portions with straight lines”--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Honkura et al (20080124235).
Honkura et al discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a field magnet as (motor housing) formed such that a cylindrical bonded magnet is fixed in an approximately bottomed tubular case, the bonded magnet being formed by binding magnet particles with a thermosetting resin, the method comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
401
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a softening step for reheating and softening the bonded magnet after thermal curing treatment; and (see discussed in ¶ [0093] for the curing treatment includes heated at glass transition temperature or less).
PNG
media_image3.png
420
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a press-fitting step for press-fitting the softened bonded magnet into the case from an opening on one side of the case (see Figs. 3-4 and ¶ [0093]),
the case having a cylindrical portion and a lid portion coupled to another side of the cylindrical portion, the cylindrical portion having a fixing portion for the bonded magnet, at least the fixing portion being formed of a magnetic material (see Fig. 1),
the press-fitting step including feeding the bonded magnet relatively into the cylindrical portion while allowing a relative posture variation between the bonded magnet and the case (see Fig. 4 and discussed in ¶ [0094]). Therefore, the above limitation is satisfied by the Honkura et al reference.
As applied to claim 2, refer to Fis. 3-4 where housing 12 is implicitly fixed.
Limitations of claims 3-5 are also met by the above (see Figs. 1, 3, 4 and discussed in ¶¶ [0085-0087, 0093-0094, 0098]).
As applied to claim 7 (refer discussed in ¶ [0098]).
As applied to claim 8 as best understood is also met by the above reference (see Figs. 1a-b and discussed in ¶ [0058]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honkura et al in view of Takeuchi (2000037054).
Honkura et al as applied above does not teach the method where “the cylindrical portion has a tapered introduction portion on the one side of the fixing portion, the introduction portion having an inner surface whose diameter increases toward the one side” of claim above. The Takeuchi discloses such (see Figs. 1, 3 and discussion in light of ¶ [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Takeuchi’s teaching as mentioned above onto invention of Honkura et al for various known benefit includes for facilitate the insertion process facilitate operation would result.
Claim(s) 4, 9-12 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honkura et al in view of Itout et al (US 6199265).
If argues that the Honkura et al as applied above does not teach the method of claims 4 and 9-10 above regarding to wherein “the lid portion is coupled to the other end side of the cylindrical portion by swage or welding”. Then Applicant refers to Itout et al (see Figs. 3b-5b and discussed in col. 3, lines 47-49) for claim 4 and Figs. 3b and 5b for claims 9-10 in which the broadly claimed protrusion portions is readable as shoulder part of the closure or housing 12, respectively). Therefore, one of an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the teaching as taught by Itout onto the invention of Honkura in order to facilitate the fabrication process.
Limitation of claims 11-12 are also met by the combination of the above (see Figs. 3b-5b).
Conclusion
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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