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 .
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 is rejected as it recites the limitation “a site where they connect to each other” in line 2. The limitation “they” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear what the limitation refers to. Although the limitation “they” can be “partial outline and the remaining outline,” the term is so broad and vague such that other elements can be read on as well.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2005020972 A) hereinafter Yamamoto, and further in view of Hirata (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160361745 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a method (Title: Manufacturing Method and Manufacturing Device of Laminated Core) for producing a plate piece (single core piece 22, ¶16) including a partial outline (surface between end punching portions 5/6 and single core piece 22, ¶16; and/or surface between connecting portion 24b and concave portion 22a, ¶24; FIGS. 1, 3, & 13 below depict the intruding curved portion being mapped as the partial outline) and a remaining outline continuous from the partial outline (remaining outline of single core piece 22 not comprising of the partial outline), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
303
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
225
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
274
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
removing an outer region (end punched portion 5 & 6, ¶15) external to the partial outline from a plate workpiece by a first punch (¶15, “An end punched portion 5, 6 for punching the shape portion 22 a”); and
punching out an inner region (single core piece 22) internal to the remaining outline by a second punch from the plate workpiece in which the outer region has been removed (entire punched portion 7, ¶16, “an entire punched portion 7 for punching the entire single core piece 22 including the convex shape portion 22 are provided”).
However, Yamamoto fails to disclose the punching method comprising of using a second punch while applying a block to a side surface of the plate workpiece along the partial outline.
Hirata discloses a method (Title: Metal Plate Punching Method and Metal Plate Punching System) for producing a plate piece (core plates 22, ¶24), the method comprising:
Removing an outer region by a first punch (¶29, “The first holes 24a of each core plate 22 are formed by punching the workpiece 28 with a first punching apparatus 31”; FIGS. 5-7 depict the process of the first punch); and
PNG
media_image4.png
679
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Punching an inner region by a second punch while applying a block (retaining blocks 48, ¶33) to a side surface of the plate workpiece along the partial outline (¶33, “The upper die 43 has a punch 46 and a holding block 47. The punch 46 corresponds to the outer shape of the core plate 22 and is allowed to enter the punching hole 44. The holding block 47 is located on the outer circumferential side of the punch 46. Retaining blocks 48 are provided on the bottom surface of the punch 46 at positions corresponding to the punched first holes 24a”; FIGS. 8-10 depict the process of the second punch).
PNG
media_image5.png
674
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yamamoto discloses a method of manufacturing a laminated core via a plurality of plate pieces, namely the single core pieces, which are punched out by a first, second, and third punching apparatus to define the geometry of the single core piece. Yamamoto also discloses the punched out single core pieces each featuring a partial and remaining outline. Hirata discloses a metal plate punching method which has a first punching process to define a hole, wherein the hole is further used as a guide for a block during a second punching process. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the two-step punching process of Hirata, and implement it into the manufacturing punching method of Yamamoto to allow for varied clearance that exists between the inner surface of the first hole and a part of the retaining block. Doing so would achieve a greater smoothened guiding surface and reduces possible manufacturing errors (Hirata ¶34).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto in view of Hirata teaches the plate punching method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Hirata further discloses wherein the second punch comprises:
the block (retaining block 48, ¶33); and
a main protrusion (punch 46, ¶33) for punching out the inner region (core plate 22, ¶33), and height of the block is greater than height of the main protrusion (Though Hirata discloses in FIG. 8 the retaining block 48 is directly under punch 46, a POSITA could recognize that a volume of the block could be identified to include the punch volume directly adjacent to it. Annotated FIG. 8 below shows how block 48 plus the punch 46 is greater than just the punch 46 itself).
PNG
media_image6.png
231
517
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 2 in the manner of using a guide block during a second punching process to properly align elements).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Hirata teaches the plate punching method of claim 2, as detailed above, and Hirata further discloses wherein a difference in height between the block and the main protrusion is greater than thickness of the plate workpiece (FIG. 8 depicts punch 46 having greater height/thickness than core plate 22).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 3 in the manner of using a guide block during a second punching process to properly align elements).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Hirata teaches the plate punching method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Yamamoto further discloses wherein the partial outline and the remaining outline form an acute angle at a site where they connect to each other (FIG. 1, 3, & 13 depict the connection between the partial outline [mapped as described in claim 1] and the remaining outline [mapped s described in claim 1] to be less than an acute angle).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 3 in the manner of using a guide block during a second punching process to properly align elements).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto in view of Hirata teaches the plate punching method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Yamamoto further discloses wherein the plate piece is one of a plurality of segment cores that constitute a core of an electric motor (as depicted in FIG. 1), and
the partial outline of the plate piece contacts an adjacent segment core (¶Abstract, “the single core piece 22 is arranged with a convex portion 22b and the concave portion 22a confronted each other, by causing the single core piece 22 received at the laminating portion 8a to move in order into a ring form”).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 5 in the manner of using a guide block during a second punching process to properly align elements).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto discloses a punching machine (Title: Manufacturing Method and Manufacturing Device of Laminated Core) configured to produce a plate piece (single core piece 22, ¶16) that includes a partial outline (surface between end punching portions 5/6 and single core piece 22, ¶16; and/or surface between connecting portion 24b and concave portion 22a, ¶24; FIGS. 1, 3, & 13 below depict the intruding curved portion being mapped as the partial outline) and a remaining outline continuous from the partial outline (remaining outline of single core piece 22 not comprising of the partial outline), the punching machine comprising:
a first punch configured to remove an outer region (end punched portion 5 & 6, ¶15) external to the partial outline from a plate workpiece (¶15, “An end punched portion 5, 6 for punching the shape portion 22 a”); and
a second punch configured to punch out an inner region (single core piece 22) internal to the remaining outline from the plate workpiece in which the outer region has been removed (entire punched portion 7, ¶16, “an entire punched portion 7 for punching the entire single core piece 22 including the convex shape portion 22 are provided”),
wherein the second punch comprises:
a main protrusion for punching out the inner region (entire punched portion 7, ¶16);
However, Yamamoto fails to disclose the second punch comprising a block configured to be applied to a side surface of the plate workpiece along the partial outline, wherein height of the block is greater than height of the main protrusion.
Hirata discloses a method (Title: Metal Plate Punching Method and Metal Plate Punching System) for producing a plate piece (core plates 22, ¶24), the method comprising:
A first punch configured to remove an outer region (first punching apparatus 31, ¶29, “The first holes 24a of each core plate 22 are formed by punching the workpiece 28 with a first punching apparatus 31”; FIGS. 5-7 depict the process of the first punch); and
A second punch configured to punch out an inner region (punch 46, ¶33, “The upper die 43 has a punch 46 and a holding block 47. The punch 46 corresponds to the outer shape of the core plate 22 and is allowed to enter the punching hole 44. The holding block 47 is located on the outer circumferential side of the punch 46. Retaining blocks 48 are provided on the bottom surface of the punch 46 at positions corresponding to the punched first holes 24a”; FIGS. 8-10 depict the process of the second punch);
Wherein the second punch comprises:
a main protrusion for punching out the inner region (punch 46, ¶33); and
a block (retaining block 48, ¶33) configured to be applied to a side surface of the plate workpiece along the partial outline, wherein height of the block is greater than height of the main protrusion.
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 6 in the manner of modifying a punching apparatus to include a guide block during for a second punching process to properly align elements).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto in view of Hirata teaches the plate punching method of claim 6, as detailed above, and Hirata further discloses wherein a difference in height between the block and the main protrusion is greater than thickness of the plate workpiece (FIG. 8 depicts punch 46 having greater height/thickness than core plate 22).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 7 in the manner of modifying a punching apparatus to include a guide block during for a second punching process to properly align elements).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto in view of Hirata teaches the plate punching method of claim 6, as detailed above, and Yamamoto further discloses wherein the main protrusion is configured such that edges thereof corresponding to the partial outline and the remaining outline form an acute angle (FIG. 1, 3, & 13 depict the connection between the partial outline [mapped as described in claim 6] and the remaining outline [mapped s described in claim 6] to be less than an acute angle).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 8 in the manner of modifying a punching apparatus to include a guide block during for a second punching process to properly align elements).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights