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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claim 1 recited the following limitation:
“a caulking punch having a recess with a trapezoidal cross section”,
“simultaneously performing shearing and the extending of a lengthwise direction end of the caulking portions”
“disposing a lowermost surface of the caulking portion closer to the caulking punch than an upper surface of a push-up mechanism”
Such limitations are new matter which were not disclosed in the original disclosure as filed.
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.
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 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (JP 2021027737 A) in view of Nagai et al. (US 2013/0249346 A1).
RE claim 2, Sugiyama teaches a laminated iron core 3 (or 2) (see Figs.1-6) in which elongate caulking portions 31 (or 41) formed in each of annular iron core pieces 3 according to press working are fitted to each other and each of the iron core pieces 3 is laminated and fixed to each other,
wherein the caulking portion 31 comprises:
a planar portion 312 which is connected to a main body of the iron core piece 3, which is formed into a concave shape (Fig.4b) with respect to a face of one side 3a of the iron core piece 3 in a thickness direction, which is formed into a convex shape (Fig.4a) with respect to a face of another side 3b of the iron core piece 3 in the thickness direction, and which is parallel to each of the faces 3a, 3b (see translation page 3, next to last ¶); and
a pair of extended portions 313 having a pair of sloped portions 313 which extend obliquely toward an opposite side in a lengthwise direction and another side in the thickness direction from both ends of the planar portion 312 in the lengthwise direction of the caulking portions 31.
wherein the lengthwise direction of the caulking portion 31 intersects a radial direction of the iron core piece 3 (Fig.1),
a lengthwise direction end face of a convex side of one of the caulking portions formed on one of the iron core pieces, which is adjacently stacked, contacts a lengthwise direction face of a concave side of another of the caulking portions formed on another of the adjacently stacked core pieces 3 (Fig.6), and
each of the iron core pieces 3 has a plurality of caulking portions 31 that are recessed relative to one surface of the iron core piece 3 in the thickness direction and are connected to each other in the lengthwise direction (Fig.6).
Sugiyama does not teach the extend portions are thinner, at least partly, than the main body of the iron core piece.
Nagai teaches the extend portions 23 are thinner, at least partly, than the portion 16 of the iron core piece (¶ 63). This reduces an eddy current which is generated between the mutually adjoining divided iron core pieces (¶ 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiyama by having the extend portions are thinner, at least partly, than the main body of the iron core piece, as taught by Nagai, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 4/2, Sugiyama in view of Nagai has been discussed above. Sugiyama does not teach a depth that the planar portion is recessed from the face of the one side in the thickness direction is set to a range from 0.15 to 0.85 times the thickness of the iron core piece.
Nagai teaches a case in which the thickness of the iron core piece is 1, a depth that the planar portion is recessed from the face of the one side in the thickness direction is set to a range from 0.15 to 0.85 (see ¶ 67 for caulking depth of 0.06 and thickness of 0.3 mm. Assuming 0.3 mm = 1, the ratio 0.06/0.3 = 0.2 which fall within the range of ratio 0.15/1 to 0.85/1 as claimed). Such value can be adjusted to optimize iron loss value (¶ 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiyama by having a depth that the planar portion is recessed from the face of the one side in the thickness direction is set to a range from 0.15 to 0.85 times the thickness of the iron core piece, as suggested by Nagai, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
RE claim 5/2, Sugiyama in view of Nagai has been discussed above. Sugiyama further teaches the pair of extended portions 313 are directly connected to the main body 3 at an end portion at an opposite side to the planar portion 312 (Fig.4).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Nagai as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Torisu (JP H07185695 A, the machine translation of which has been provided).
RE claim 3/2, Sugiyama in view of Nagai has been discussed above. Sugiyama does not teach the pair of extended portions have a pair of outer-side planar portions which extend toward an opposite side in the lengthwise direction from an end portion of an opposite side to the planar portion in the pair of sloped portions, and which are parallel to each of the faces.
Torisu teaches the pair of extended portions 19 have a pair of outer-side planar portions 18 (Fig.1) which extend toward an opposite side in the lengthwise direction from an end portion of an opposite side to the planar portion 20 in the pair of sloped portions 19, and which are parallel to each of the faces (see translation ¶ 8), the caulking force of the length direction is also added, the caulking strength is improved as a result (see translation ¶ 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiyama in view of Nagai by having the pair of extended portions have a pair of outer-side planar portions which extend toward an opposite side in the lengthwise direction from an end portion of an opposite side to the planar portion in the pair of sloped portions, and which are parallel to each of the faces, as taught by Torisu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 6/2, Sugiyama in view of Nagai has been discussed above. Sugiyama does not teach the pair of extended portions are not directly connected to the main body at the end portion at an opposite side to the planar portion.
Torisu teaches the pair of extended portions 19 are not directly connected to the main body 13 at the end portion at an opposite side to the planar portion 20 (portion 19 connected to main body 13 indirectly via portion 18), the caulking force of the length direction is also added, the caulking strength is improved as a result (see translation ¶ 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiyama in view of Nagai by having the pair of extended portions are not directly connected to the main body at the end portion at an opposite side to the planar portion, as taught by Torisu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Nagai and Torisu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Iwata et al. (US 2013/0187514 A1).
RE claim 9/3, Sugiyama in view of Nagai has been discussed above. Sugiyama does not teach each of the outer-side planar portions includes structures which are arranged at different positions from each other in the thickness direction.
Iwata suggests that portions included structures which are arranged at different positions from each other in the thickness direction (Fig.12). With this modification, the amount of deformation of the flexible portions is further increased previous example, thereby further easily setting gaps in the circumferentially facing divided parts (¶ 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiyama in view of Nagai and Torisu by having each of the outer-side planar portions includes structures which are arranged at different positions from each other in the thickness direction, as taught by Iwata, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (JP 2021027737 A) in view of Nagai et al. (US 2013/0249346 A1), Torisu (JP H07185695 A) and Iwata et al. (US 2013/0187514 A1).
RE claim 11, Sugiyama teaches a laminated iron core 3 (or 2) (see Figs.1-6) in which elongate caulking portions 31 (or 41) formed in respective annular iron core pieces 3 by press working are fitted to each other and each of the iron core pieces is laminated and fixed to each other, wherein the caulking portion 31 comprises:
a planar portion 312 which is connected to a main body of the iron core piece 3, which is formed into a concave shape (Fig.4b) with respect to a face of one side of the iron core piece 3 in a thickness direction, which is formed into a convex shape (Fig.4a) with respect to a face of another side 3b of the iron core piece 3 in the thickness direction, and which is parallel to each of the faces 3a, 3b (see translation page 3, next to last ¶); and
a pair of extended portions 313 having a pair of sloped portions 313 which extend obliquely toward an opposite side in a lengthwise direction and the other side in the thickness direction from both ends of the planar portion 312 in the lengthwise direction of the caulking portions 31,
wherein the lengthwise direction of the caulking portion 313 intersects a radial direction of the iron core piece 3 (Fig.1),
a lengthwise direction end face of a convex side of one of the caulking portions 313 formed on one of the iron core pieces 3, which is adjacently stacked, contacts a lengthwise direction face of a concave side of another of the caulking portions 313 formed on another of the adjacently stacked core pieces 3 (Fig.6),
Sugiyama does not teach:
the extend portions are thinner, at least partly, than the main body of the iron core piece,
the pair of extended portions extend in opposite directions in the lengthwise direction from end portions of the pair of sloped portions at an opposite side from the planar portions, and each have a pair of outer planar portions parallel to the respective faces.
the outer planar portions include outer planar portions disposed at different positions in the thickness direction.
RE (i) above, Nagai teaches the extend portions 23 are thinner, at least partly, than the portion 16 of the iron core piece (¶ 63). This reduces an eddy current which is generated between the mutually adjoining divided iron core pieces (¶ 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiyama by having the extend portions are thinner, at least partly, than the main body of the iron core piece, as taught by Nagai, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Torisu teaches the pair of extended portions 19 extend in opposite directions in the lengthwise direction from end portions of the pair of sloped portions at an opposite side from the planar portions 20, and each have a pair of outer planar portions parallel to the respective faces (see translation ¶ 8), the caulking force of the length direction is also added, the caulking strength is improved as a result (see translation ¶ 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagai by having the pair of extended portions extend in opposite directions in the lengthwise direction from end portions of the pair of sloped portions at an opposite side from the planar portions, and each have a pair of outer planar portions parallel to the respective faces, as taught by Torisu, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (iii) above, Iwata suggests that portions included structures which are arranged at different positions from each other in the thickness direction (Fig.12). With this modification, the amount of deformation of the flexible portions is further increased previous example, thereby further easily setting gaps in the circumferentially facing divided parts (¶ 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugiyama in view of Nagai and Torisu by having the outer planar portions include outer planar portions disposed at different positions in the thickness direction, as taught by Iwata, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE claim 8/3, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the pair of extended portions have a pair of outer-side sloped portions which extend obliquely toward the opposite side in the lengthwise direction and the one side in the thickness direction from the end portion of the opposite side to the pair of sloped portions in the pair of outer-side planar portions, and which are thinner, at least partly, than the main body.
RE claim 10/3, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the pair of extended portions extend obliquely from the ends of the pair of outer-side planar portions at an opposite side from the pair of sloped portions toward one side in the thickness direction and opposite sides in the lengthwise direction, and have a pair of outer sloped portions that are at least partly thinner than the main body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claims 2 and 11, Applicant argued that amended claim 2 newly added claim 11 are patentable over the prior-art of record. However, such argument is not persuasive because they do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834