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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 4/2/26 is acknowledged. Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-5 as following:
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“A manufacturing method of a rotor to be used in a motor along with a stator, the rotor having insertion holes arranged in a circumferential direction around an axis of the rotor, and comprising a magnet and resin that are placed in each of the insertion holes, the manufacturing method of the rotor comprising: “ (claim 1, lines 1-6) should be update to reflect method claim formats and to in line with Fig. 7, the use of:
-- A manufacturing method of a rotor to be used in a motor along with a stator, the manufacturing method comprising steps of:” --.
The phrase “, the rotor having insertion holes arranged in a circumferential direction around an axis of the rotor, and comprising a magnet and resin that are placed in each of the insertion holes,” (see preamble lines 2-5) should be rewritten into method limitation (see below) as following the preamble as following:
--forming and arranging plurality insertion holes in a circumferential direction around an axis of the rotor, and prior to placing a magnet and resin that are each of the insertion holes;
The phrase: “a first step of” (claim 1, line 7); “a second step of” (claim 1, line 11); “a third step of” (claim 1, line 17) should be deleted to reflect the new method claim format as suggested in lines 1-2 of the preamble also to readable on the process as shown in details in Fig. 7.
“the first step further comprises a step of “(claim 4, line 3) should also be changed to reflect changes as indicated in claim 1 above: the use of: -- “the placing the magnet and the resin in each of first insertion holes” --, as so to clarity of the method inventive feature.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
The first occurrence of transitional terms or phrase: ”, and comprising” (see claim 1, line4) is confusing in that it is not known if this directed to the process of making “the rotor” or not. If it is then lines 2-5 of the preamble should be rewritten to positive method step (see further suggested under section of claim objection to above) for clarity of method claim formats.
“are set” (claim 2, line 2) is not positive active method limitation.
“are determined” (claim 4, line 6, claim 5, line 4) is/are not positive method limitations.
Claim 3 is also rejected bas on their dependent on indefinite base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (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.
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) 1-5 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticpated by Nagai et al (20160013709), or in an alternatively, Claim(s) 1-5 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al (20160013709) in view of JP6182841 hereinafter the’841.
Nagai et al discloses the claimed a manufacturing method of a rotor to be used in a motor along with a stator, the rotor having insertion holes arranged in a circumferential direction around an axis of the rotor, and comprising a magnet and resin that are placed in each of the insertion holes, the manufacturing method of the rotor comprising:
a first step of placing the magnet 14 and the resin 13 in each of first insertion holes among the insertion holes (see Fig. 1b, left side hole), and identifying an unbalance position of the rotor by rotating the rotor at a first rotation speed (see in light of discussion in ¶ [0019] about lines 15-20 to ¶ [0020])for balancing process associated with the process;
PNG
media_image1.png
712
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second step of placing the magnet and the resin in each of second insertion holes among the insertion holes in which the magnet is not placed in the first step, and rotating the rotor at a second rotation speed, the second insertion holes being relatively far from the unbalance position (see Fig. 1b, right side of rotor 10); and
a third step of placing the magnet and the resin in each of third insertion holes among the insertion holes in which the magnet is not placed in the first step (see Fig. 1A , third insertion hole adjacent to 2nd insert hole as seen), and rotating the rotor at a third rotation speed smaller than the second rotation speed, the third insertion holes being relatively close to the unbalance position (see balancing process discussed by the Nagai et al about ¶¶ [0020-0022]).
If it is argued that the Nagai et al does not teach the rotating the rotor at difference rotation speed configuration for each step set forth above to close to the unbalance position. Then Applicant refer to similarity concept to adjust unbalance of a rotor by rotation to correct the unbalance issues as discloses by the ‘841 (see abstract and solution section, entirely). 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 teaching of the ‘841 as mentioned above onto the Nagai invention in order to eliminate the vibration and/or unbalance issues by using the known and available techniques.
The Nagai as modified above also discloses regarding.
Claim 2 regarding, wherein the first insertion holes are set at equal intervals in the circumferential direction (see Fig. 1a, which depict the above insertion hole configuration interval).
Claim 3, wherein the second rotation speed is equal to or smaller than the first rotation speed. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate limitation above by modify the rotation speed as taught by the ‘841 onto the invention of Nagai in order to facilitate the rotor balancing process without exercising any inventive skills.
Claim 4, regarding, wherein the first step further comprises a step of measuring a distance from the axis to the unbalance position, and one or both of the second rotation speed and the third rotation speed are determined according to the distance (refer to the ‘841 in light of discussed under solution, where the position includes distance base on centrifugal force during rotation, respectively).
Claim 5, regarding to wherein one or more of the first rotation speed, the second rotation speed, and the third rotation speed are determined according to one or both of mass of the magnet and viscosity of the resin. This does not seem to further limit the making of the rotor since determine the speed without knowing the mass of the magnet and viscosity of the resin can be fulfilled by the adjust unbalance rotor as taught by the ‘841. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose any desired rotor balancing process, since applicant has not disclosed that recited in claim above would solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the adjust unbalancing rotor process as taught by either the ‘841 (see under heading solution) or Nagai et al (see abstract).
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, 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
4/28/26
Prosecution Insights