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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are examined in this office action.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-218464 A (cited on IDS dated 8/7/23) and its English translation hereinafter Tsutsumi in view of JP H06-11014 B2 and its English translation hereinafter Okonogi.
As to claim 1, Tsutsumi relates to a polar anisotropic magnet mold having a cylindrical cavity for filling a compound containing the material to be molded and where the mold can be used to form a magnet having 8 poles (Tsutsumi, paragraphs [0001] and [0046] and Fig. 2), meeting the limitation of creating a cylindrical multipole magnet and where it has an inner peripheral surface and an outer peripheral surface. Tsutsumi discloses the use of a rare earth metal in the magnet such as Sm—Fe—N (Tsutsumi, paragraph [0015]), meeting the limitation the cylindrical multipole magnet comprises an anisotropic rare earth magnet material. However, Jp’464 does not disclose where the rare earth magnet material is a powder and includes a resin, nor where a filling ratio of the anisotropic rare earth magnetic powder being at least 50 vol% but not higher than 65 vol% with respect to a total volume of the anisotropic rare earth magnetic powder and the resin.
Okonogi relates to the same field of endeavor of rare earth magnet anisotropic in a cylindrical shape and a radial orientation (Okonogi, abstract). Okonogi teaches where the magnet powder used here is a magnet powder composed of a rare earth intermetallic compound containing one or more rare earth metals and a transition metal as basic components and an organic resin is preferably a polyamide resin such as thermoplastic nylon 6,12 (Okonogi, paragraph [0001]). Okonogi teaches that the filling amount of magnet powder is preferably in the range of 50 vol % to 75 vol % (Okonogi, paragraph [0001]), overlapping the claimed range of at least 50 vol% but not higher than 65 vol%. Okonogi teaches if the mixing ratio of the magnetic powder to the organic resin is less than 50% by volume, the magnetic performance will be low and the material will not be suitable for practical use, however if the filling amount exceeds 75 vol %, extrusion molding becomes impossible (Okonogi, paragraph [0001]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the use of the powder form of rare earth material and fill it in an amount of between 50 and 65% with resin as taught by Okonogi into the method of forming a rare earth magnet disclosed in Tsutsumi, thereby having high magnetic performance while still enabling molding (Okonogi, paragraph [0001]).
However, Tsutsumi does not disclose having N- and S-poles alternately and continuously in a circumferential direction, wherein a surface magnetic flux density of the outer peripheral surface is at least 0.2 times a surface magnetic flux density of the inner peripheral surface.
Nevertheless, as noted above, Tsutsumi in combination with Okonogi discloses the same starting material of rare earth metal powder such as Sm—Fe—N in an amount of between 50 and 65% with resin, and Tsutsumi discloses a substantially identical method of orientation where magnets are arranged on both the inner and outer sides of the molding cavity (Tsutsumi, Fig 2), matching the disclosed method in paragraph [0044] of the specification. Therefore as Tsutsumi and Okonogi discloses the same starting material and applies the same method thereto, a person of ordinary skill would expect this to result in the same properties of having N- and S-poles alternately and continuously in a circumferential direction, wherein a surface magnetic flux density of the outer peripheral surface is at least 0.2 times a surface magnetic flux density of the inner peripheral surface. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2112.01(I).
As to claim 2, Tsutsumi discloses that any number of poles may be used (Tsutsumi, paragraph [0046]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select 16 poles thereby achieving a desired magnetic flux waveform (Tsutsumi, paragraph [0015]).
As to claim 3, Tsutsumi discloses where the wall thickness of a magnet is 1.5 mm (Tsutsumi, paragraph [0030]), meeting the claim limitation of a difference between an outer diameter of the cylindrical multipole magnet and an inner diameter of the cylindrical multipole magnet is at least 1.0 mm but not more than 8.0 mm. Further, the MPEP notes that in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (emphasis added), see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)).
As to claim 7, Tsutsumi discloses the use of a rare earth metal in the magnet such as Sm—Fe—N (Tsutsumi, paragraph [0015]), meeting the limitation wherein the anisotropic rare earth magnetic powder comprises a nitride containing samarium and iron.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-218464 A (cited on IDS dated 8/7/23) and its English translation hereinafter Tsutsumi and JP H06-11014 B2 and its English translation hereinafter Okonogi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0027286 A1 of Tada.
As to claim 4, the combination of Tsutsumi and Okonogi teaches where the magnet powder used here is a magnet powder composed of a rare earth intermetallic compound containing one or more rare earth metals and a transition metal as basic components and an organic resin (Okonogi, paragraph [0001]). However, neither Tsutsumi nor Okonogi discloses wherein the resin comprises a first resin having a weight average molecular weight that is at least 1,000 but not more than 30,000 and a second resin having a weight average molecular weight that is at least 50,000 but not more than 300,000.
Tada relates to the same field of endeavor of compositions for bonded magnets (Tada, paragraph [0002]). Tada teaches using an acid-modified polypropylene resin with a molecular weight in the range of 20,000 or greater and 90,000 or less (Tada, paragraph [0028]), overlapping the claimed range for the second resin having a molecular weight that is at least 50,000 but not more than 300,000. Tada teaches that higher molecular weights increase the mechanical strength of the bonded magnet (Tada, paragraph [0033]). Tada also teaches including a polypropylene resin having a number average molecular weight of 9,000 or less (Tada, paragraph [0042]), overlapping the claimed range for a first resin having a weight average molecular weight that is at least 1,000 but not more than 30,000. Tada teaches that low molecular weight polypropylene resin having a number average molecular weight of 9,000 or less further improves hot water resistance (Tada, paragraph [0043]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an acid-modified polypropylene resin with a molecular weight in the range of 50,000 to 90,000 and a polypropylene resin having a number average molecular weight of 1,000 to 9,000 as taught by Tada into the method of forming a bonded magnet disclosed in the combination of Tsutsumi and Okonogi, thereby increasing the mechanical strength of the bonded magnet and improving hot water resistance (Tada, paragraphs [0033] and [0043]).
As to claim 5, Tada discloses where the amount of the polypropylene resin having a number average molecular weight of 9,000 or less is, for example, in a range of 0.01 part by weight or greater and 3.5 parts by weight or less (Tada, paragraph [0044]). Tada also discloses where the amount of the acid-modified polypropylene resin is, for example, in a range of 3.5 parts by weight or greater and less than 10.4 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the rare earth-iron-nitrogen-based magnetic powder (Tada, paragraph [0031]). This means that the amount of the first resin (polypropylene resin ) to the second resin (acid-modified polypropylene resin) is 0.096% to 50%, falling within the claimed range of more than 0% but less than 60% by mass based on the total amount of first and second resin.
As to claim 6, the combination of Tsutsumi and Okonogi teaches where the magnet powder used here is a magnet powder composed of a rare earth intermetallic compound containing one or more rare earth metals and a transition metal as basic components (Okonogi, paragraph [0001]). However, neither Tsutsumi nor Okonogi teaches wherein the anisotropic rare earth magnetic powder has an exothermic onset temperature of 170°C or higher as measured by differential scanning calorimetry.
Tada teaches adding a phosphate film to the magnetic powder to form a passivation film having a P-O bond on the surface of the powder particles (Tada, paragraph [0024]). Tada teaches that this treatment improves oxidation resistance, water resistance, resin wettability, or chemical resistance (Tada, paragraph [0023]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a phosphate film to the magnetic powder as taught by Tada into the method of forming a bonded magnet disclosed in the combination of Tsutsumi and Okonogi, thereby improves oxidation resistance, water resistance, resin wettability, or chemical resistance (Tada, paragraph [0023]). Thus, as the combination of Tsutsumi, Okonogi, and Tada discloses an identical powder as disclosed in the specification paragraph [0018]), the phosphate coated powder would exhibit these properties. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), see MPEP § 2112.01(II).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-218464 A (cited on IDS dated 8/7/23) and its English translation hereinafter Tsutsumi and JP H06-11014 B2 and its English translation hereinafter Okonogi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 106298138 A and its English translation of Wu.
As to claim 8, the combination of Tsutsumi and Okonogi teaches where the magnet powder used here is a magnet powder composed of a rare earth intermetallic compound containing one or more rare earth metals and a transition metal as basic components (Okonogi, paragraph [0001]). However, neither Tsutsumi nor Okonogi discloses where the anisotropic rare earth magnetic powder has a particle size distribution of 4.5 or less, wherein the particle size distribution represents a ratio of a 90th percentile particle size (D90) to a 10th percentile particle size (D10) in a cumulative particle size distribution by volume (D90/D10).
Wu relates to the same field of endeavor of rare earth permanent magnets (Wu, abstract). Wu teaches forming a magnetic powder where D90/D10 is 3.5-4.5 (Wu, paragraph [0016]), falling within the claimed range of 4.5 or less. Wu teaches that these distributions of powder size produce high performance magnet with the comprehensive performance (BH) max + H cj greater than 60 (Wu, paragraph [0025]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute use a magnetic powder with D90/D10 is 3.5-4.5 as taught by Wu into the method of forming a bonded magnet disclosed in the combination of Tsutsumi and Okonogi, thereby producing a high performance magnet with the comprehensive performance (BH) max + H cj greater than 60 (Wu, paragraph [0025]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-218464 A (cited on IDS dated 8/7/23) and its English translation hereinafter Tsutsumi and JP H06-11014 B2 and its English translation hereinafter Okonogi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 1447823 A1 of Nishiuchi.
As to claims 9-10, Tsutsumi in combination with Okonogi discloses the cylindrical multipole magnet according to claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above. However, neither Tsutsumi nor Jp’014 discloses where a back yoke is fixed to the outer or inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical multipole magnet.
Nishiuchi relates to the same field of endeavor of rare-earth bonded magnets (Nishiuchi, abstract). Nishiuchi teaches where outer and inner yokes (102a, 102b, and 103) are fixed to the outer and inner surfaces of the cylindrical magnets (Nishiuchi, paragraph [0194] and Fig 11). Nishiuchi teaches that this construction forms a permanent magnet rotor (Nishiuchi, paragraph [0194]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add outer and inner yokes as taught by Nishiuchi to the cylindrical multipole magnet disclosed in the combination of Tsutsumi and Okonogi, thereby forming a permanent magnet rotor for a stepping motor (Nishiuchi, paragraph [0194]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733