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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 06/17/2026. Claims 1 & 3-4 have been amended, claims 2 and 5 have been cancelled, new claims 7-8 have been added, and claims 1, 3-4, & 6-8 are pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, & 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al (W.O. Patent Application Publication 2020251050 A1) hereinafter Tamura, and further in view of Kawasaki et al (J.P. Patent Application Publication 2012217278 A) hereinafter Kawasaki.
Regarding claim 1, Tamura discloses (Title: Armature) a magnet arrangement method for arranging a plurality of magnetized magnets (annular magnet unit 42, p. 28, ll. 31) that are arranged in a Halbach array (Halbach array, p. 28, ll. 31), the magnet arrangement method comprising:
an arrangement process of arranging the plurality of magnetized magnets in an arrangement jig made of a magnetic body (magnet holder 41, p. 29, ll. 3; and stator 50, p. 28, ll. 39),
the plurality of magnetized magnets including three magnetized magnets (p. 29, ll. 2-13 and annotated FIG. 23 details and depicts the magnet group. The first magnet comprises of the first magnet 131 and magnetic material 133. The second magnet also comprises of first magnet 131 and magnetic material 133. The third magnet comprises of the second magnet 132) arranged so that a magnetic flux loop (arrows going through magnets 131 and 132) is formed using the three magnetized magnets as a set of magnet groups, the set of magnet groups including a first magnetized magnet arranged on a first side (FIG. 23 depicts 1st magnet comprising the first magnet 131 and magnetic material 133) and a second magnetized magnet arranged on a second side (FIG. 23 depicts 2nd magnet comprising the first magnet 131 and magnetic material 133 on the right side), and a third magnetized magnet arranged in a center between the first magnetized magnet and the second magnetized magnet (FIG. 23 depicts 3rd magnet comprising the second magnet 132 disposed between), wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
416
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the arrangement process, a size of an area that the arrangement jig contacts the second magnetized magnet is made different from a size of an area that the arrangement jig contacts the first magnetized magnet (p. 29, ll. 21-23, “It is optional whether the key 134 and the key groove 135 (convex portion and concave portion) are provided”; the usage of the key and groove segments would allow for more surface contact between two bodies. In this case, the optionally provided key and groove could be not provided, resulting in less surface contact), and
a first concave part (key 134 & groove 135, p. 29, ll. 14-25) is formed in a part of the arrangement jig that contacts the second magnetize magnet provided on both respective sides (as depicted in FIG. 23). The arrangement jig configured to form the magnetic flux loop when the plurality of magnetized magnets are arranged in such a way that a size of an area where the second magnetized magnet contacts the arrangement jig (contacting surfaces between 2nd magnet and magnet holder 41) is made smaller than a size of an area where the first magnetized magnet provided on the respective sides and configured to form the magnetic flux loop contacts the arrangement jig (contacting surfaces between 1st magnet and magnet holder 41) (as detailed above, Tamura discloses in p. 29, ll. 21-23 that the key 134 and groove 135 are optionally provided. Utilizing the key and groove at the contacting surfaces between the 1st magnet and magnet holder 41 would add the structure depicted in FIG. 23, providing greater surface area), and
an adsorption force that the second magnetized magnet applies to the arrangement jig is thereby reduced to reduce a difference between the adsorption force that the second magnetized magnet applies to the arrangement jig and an adsorption force that the first magnetized magnet applies to the arrangement jig (the left magnet [mapped as first magnet 131 and magnetic material 133] is depicted in FIG. 23 with an adsorption force directed upwards while right magnet [mapped as first magnet 131 and magnetic material 133] is depicted with an adsorption force directed downwards. The orientation of the magnetized vector contributes to the field of the Halbach array, such that the vector/magnetic flux is concentrated on one side, producing a stronger/weaker magnetic adsorption force in one magnet compared to another. In this case, between the left and right depicted magnets 131 and magnetic material 133).
Tamura discloses the first concave part formed in a part of the arrangement jig that contacts the second magnetized magnet, increasing the total contacting surface area between the two bodies. However, Tamura fails to disclose a first concave part that accomplishes the opposite, manipulating it such that the inclusion of the concave part reduces the total contacting surface area between two bodies.
Kawasaki discloses (Title: Permanent Magnet Type Rotary Electric Machine and Manufacturing Method Thereof) a magnet arrangement method for arranging a plurality of magnetized magnets (main magnet 122 & auxiliary magnet 123, p. 3, ll. 1) that are arranged in a Halbach array (Halbach array, p. 3, ll. 7), the magnet arrangement method comprising:
a first concave part (gap 124 p. 3, ll. 13) is formed in a part of the arrangement jig that contacts the magnetized magnet provided on respective sides (as depicted in FIG. 7, gap 124 reduces area surface contact between magnet 123 with yoke 121 compared to magnet 122 with yoke 121).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tamura discloses a method of arranging a plurality of magnets, comprising of a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd magnet to create a Halbach array that may utilize a key and groove that is optionally provided to a surface between the magnet and magnet holder, purposed for suppressing displacement of said magnet during manufacturing. The use of the key and groove, as depicted in FIG. 23 is seen to also provide greater surface contacting area between the magnet and magnet holder. Kawasaki also discloses of a method of arranging a plurality of magnets, providing a gap that is located between a magnet and a yoke, decreasing the total contacting surface area between the magnet and yoke. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to encompass the gap formation, taught by Kawasaki, and implement it into the key and groove segments of Tamura’s disclosure to have greater control of magnetic flux between the magnets as well as preventing magnetic flux leakage directed back into the yoke (Kawasaki, p. 3, ll. 13-16). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA that the gap formation provides an alternative method to manipulating the surface contacting area between the magnet, being routine optimization as it allows for better preservation of the Halbach field pattern due to no manipulation of the magnet’s shape/size as well as reduced material use/costs during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 4, Tamura in view of Kawasaki teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Tamura further discloses wherein a boundary part between different magnetic poles (contacting surface between magnet unit 42 and magnet holder, stretching across the magnet group) is arranged so as to straddle a groove (key 134 and groove 135 that is located between the 1st magnet and magnet holder 41, as depicted in annotated FIG. 23 below), which is a third concave part formed in the arrangement jig.
PNG
media_image3.png
416
729
media_image3.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 4 in the manner of arranging magnets to achieve specific surface area contact points between a magnet and a jig/yoke).
Regarding claim 6, Tamura, in view of Kawasaki, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Tamura further discloses a rotor manufacturing method (rotor 40, p. 28, ll. 29) comprising the magnetic arrangement method.
(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 arranging magnets to achieve specific surface area contact points between a magnet and a jig/yoke).
Regarding claim 7, Tamura, in view of Kawasaki, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Tamura further discloses wherein the first concave part has a dimple shape (FIG. 23 depicts key 134 and groove 135 in a dimple shape).
(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 arranging magnets to achieve specific surface area contact points between a magnet and a jig/yoke).
Regarding claim 8, Tamura, in view of Kawasaki, teaches the method of claim 1, as detailed above, and Tamura further discloses wherein in the arrangement process, a fourth magnetized magnet is arranged between the magnet groups that are adjacent to each other (second magnet 132, depicted in annotated FIG. 23 below, is located between two magnet groups).
PNG
media_image4.png
416
729
media_image4.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 8 in the manner of arranging magnets to achieve specific surface area contact points between a magnet and a jig/yoke).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki, in view of Ishibashi, and further view of Sasaki et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20190044401 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tamura and Kawasaki further disclose the magnet arrangement method according to claim 1, as detailed above.
However, Tamura and Kawasaki fail to disclose a method wherein a second concave part is formed on a surface of the magnetized magnet that contacts the arrangement jig.
Sasaki discloses a method (Title: Axial Gap Motor, Has Rotor Including First Magnet Layer And Second Magnet Layer In Which Set Of Main Magnetic Pole Magnets And Set Of Auxiliary Pole Magnets Are Arranged In Array In Circumferential Direction To Increase Field Strength) wherein a second concave part (convex portions 82, ¶85, convex portions also create surrounding portions forming concave portions, as pointed out in annotated FIG. 5 below) is formed on a surface of the magnetized magnet (first magnet layer 50, ¶85) that contacts the arrangement jig (outer ring member 75, ¶89).
PNG
media_image5.png
252
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tamura, in view of Kawasaki, discloses the method for magnet arrangement method that arranges a plurality of magnetized magnets in on a magnet holder in order to obtain a Halbach array with gaps formed into the yoke, purposed to reduce flux leakage into the direction of the yoke. Sasaki discloses a method of manufacturing a rotor, wherein instead concave and convex shaped portions are formed directly into the magnetized magnets. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the magnet shaping method of Sasaki and incorporate it into the method of Kawasaki to allow for a plurality of magnetic layers, namely a first and second layer of magnetic layers, to properly align with an outer ring element in the circumferential direction of an electric rotor machine and achieving a higher torque density in the final manufactured product (¶90 & ¶116).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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