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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 December 2023 was filed prior to the mailing date of this office correspondence. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 11 and 20, the limitation “wherein the separation of the first partial region from the second partial region and the provision of the at least one permanent magnet” should read:
-- wherein separating the first partial region from the second partial region and forming the at least one permanent magnet --
Appropriate correction is required.
Note: as best understood, the recited cutting process forms permanent magnet, not providing the permanent magnet.
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 11-20 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.
In claim 11, the limitation, “providing the at least one permanent magnet with a cavity by the cutting process” renders claim indefinite because the recited limitation in lines 5-7 “separating a first partial region of the base body from at least one second partial region of the base body by a cutting process” deemed to read as the cutting process separates the first partial region from the second partial region and forms a permanent magnet, not forming a cavity. If so, it is unclear how the recited cavity is formed by the cutting process. Further, providing the at least one permanent magnet with a cavity by the cutting process is confusing. Therefore, it is unclear how “providing the permanent magnet with a cavity by the cutting process. Would it be, wherein, the cutting process comprises forming at least one permanent magnet having a cavity or the like.
In claim 20, same issue is there for the limitation “providing the at least one permanent magnet with a cavity by the cutting process”.
Claims 12-19 depend on claim 11. Therefore, claims 11-20 are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikuma (US 20140109392) in view of Masuda (US 20190255618).
[AltContent: textbox (first partial region)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
526
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5, Nishikuma.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Nishikuma teaches, a method for producing at least one permanent magnet for an electrical machine (see Abstract), the method comprising:
separating a first partial region (magnet piece 31, see annotated Fig. 5) of the base body (magnet workpiece 30A, Figs. 4 and 5) from at least one second partial region (magnet piece 32, Fig. 5) of the base body by a cutting process, wherein the at least one permanent magnet is provided by the first partial region (the first magnet piece 31 and the second magnet piece 32, their cleaved surfaces 31a and 32a foamed by cleaving, para. [0052]); and
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (cavity)]
PNG
media_image2.png
202
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9(D), Nishikuma.
providing the at least one permanent magnet with a cavity by the cutting process (see annotated Fig. 9(D), the first magnet piece 31 and the second magnet piece 32, their cleaved surfaces 31a and 32a foamed by cleaving are engaged with each other, para. [0052], and Note below)
wherein the separation of the first partial region from the second partial region and the provision of the at least one permanent magnet with the cavity are carried out in a single step (see Fig. 5, positioning mechanism 70 is used to accurately determine the position of the magnet workpiece 30A to be cleaved…magnet workpiece 30A is positioned in place so that the recess 30a as a cleavage start point is located just above the shaft axis O1. The first positioning member 71 is configured to rotate integrally with the movable lower clamp 62 and the movable upper clamp 63 when the magnet workpiece 30A is cleaved, para. [0063]).
Nishikuma does not teach, producing a magnetic base body by compression molding. However, Masuda teaches, a method for producing at least one permanent magnet for an electrical machine (para. [0065]), the method comprising: producing a permanently magnetic base body (magnet M1, Fig. 3) by compression molding (in the molding step, the alloy powder is loaded into a mold and then pressurized to be molded into an arbitrary shape, para. [0033]); separating a first partial region of the base body from at least one second partial region of the base body by a cutting process (magnet M1 was cut along the dotted line L, para. [0073]), wherein the at least one permanent magnet is provided by the first partial region (magnet piece M2, para. [0073]), and forming a cavity (processing include cutting, machining, groove formation, making a hole, para. [0038]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Masuda, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of producing the permanent magnet of Nishikuma and replace the magnet workpiece 30A with a compression molded plate shape magnet body M1 as Masuda disclosed in Fig. 3 so that it enables mechanical processing of the magnetic body with a dicer or a slicer. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant invention that any surprising results were derived, or that any special steps were devised in forming a cavity, or molding the magnetic base body. Such a combination would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art without any need for experimentation and with reasonable expectations of success.
Note: unless otherwise defined a cavity, the cleaved surface 31a and 32a Nishikuma Fig. 9 reads on the recited cavity.
Regarding claim 15, Nishikuma in view of Masuda teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 11. Modified Nishikuma does not teach, cavity is a through opening. However, Masuda further teaches, the method of claim 11, wherein the cavity is a through opening (making a hole, para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 18, Nishikuma in view of Masuda teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 11. Nishikuma further teaches, the method of claim 11, wherein the base body is produced as a cuboid (see magnet workpiece 30A, Fig. 3, or the magnet pieces 131, 132, and 133, Fig. 18) or in a shape of a trapezium.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikuma in view of Masuda as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Miyata (US 20070017601).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nishikuma does not teach, cutting process uses jet cutting. However, Miyata teaches, a method of producing permanent magnet for an electric machine comprising: producing a permanently magnetic base body by compression molding (para. 0039]), in which,
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the cutting process uses jet cutting (slits are formed in a non-sintered or sintered compact by machining on a cutting machine such as an inner or outer blade cutter, wire saw or water jet, para. [0049]).
13. (New) The method of claim 12, wherein the jet cutting is water jet cutting (slits are formed in a non-sintered or sintered compact by machining on a cutting machine such as an inner or outer blade cutter, wire saw or water jet, para. [0049]).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Miyata, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of producing the permanent magnet of Nishikuma and replace the laser cutting process of the magnet workpiece 30A of Nishikuma with a jet cutting process as Miyata disclosed in para. [0049] so that it enables to cut the magnet workpiece having the desired accuracy.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikuma in view of Masuda as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Azar (US 20190088392).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nishikuma does not teach, the cavity is a blind hole. However, Azar teaches, a method of producing permanent magnet for an electric machine, in which, the method of claim 11, wherein the cavity is a blind hole (Fig. 1, three first slits 121 are each formed as blind holes ending in the base body 110, para. [0116]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Azar, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of producing the permanent magnet of Nishikuma and replace the cavity of the magnet with a blind hold as Azar taught in Fig. 1 so that it enables interconnecting the cut lines while cutting the magnetic base body.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikuma in view of Masuda as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Weber (WO 2020030241).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nishikuma does not teach, the cavity extends in meandering manner. However, Weber teaches, a method for producing permanent magnet for an electrical machine, the method comprising: producing a permanently magnetic base body by compression molding or extrusion; separating a first partial region of the base body from at least one second partial region of the base body by a cutting process, in which, the cavity extends in meandering manner (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
[AltContent: textbox (meander)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
535
809
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4, Weber.
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Weber, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of producing the permanent magnet of Nishikuma and replace the magnet workpiece 30A with a magnetic base body having meandering grooves as Weber disclosed in Fig. 4 so that it enables forming the desired dimension of the grooves by erosion wire cutting machines.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikuma in view of Masuda as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kitayama (US 20200119605).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nishikuma does not teach, the permanent magnet is produced in a shape of a triangle. However, Katayama teaches, a method of producing permanent magnet for an electrical machine, in which, the method of claim 11, wherein the at least one permanent magnet is produced in a shape of a triangle (triangular magnet 32D, Fig. 13). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kitayama, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of producing the permanent magnet of Nishikuma and include triangular magnet as Kitayama disclosed in Fig. 13 so that it enables reducing the stress concentration of the core by reducing the centrifugal force.
[AltContent: ]Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikuma in view of Masuda as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kamiya (US 20150061444).
[AltContent: textbox (positive-locking element)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image4.png
433
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (first partial region)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (first partial region)]
PNG
media_image5.png
389
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 3 and 5, Kamiya.
Regarding claim 19, modified Nishikuma does not teach, the permanent magnet includes at least one positive-locking element. However, Kamiya teaches, a method for producing at least one permanent magnet for an electrical machine (abstract, Fig.1), the method comprising: producing a permanently magnetic base body by compression molding (para. [0044]); in which, the method of claim 11, wherein the at least one permanent magnet includes at least one positive-locking element (see Figs. 3 to 5, a pressed surface 34 with which the regulation arc surface 22a of the regulation body 22 comes into contact, an engaged arc surface 34a, para. [0046]) configured to so that the at least one permeant magnet is connected by the positive-locking element with a positive fit to a carrier of the electrical machine (see Figs. 3 and 4). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kamiya, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of producing the permanent magnet of Nishikuma and to include a positive-locking element as Kamiya disclosed in Figs. 3 to 5 so that it enables mechanical fitting by reducing the spacing between the magnet and the carrier.
Conclusion
Prior art Ohshima (US 20160243719) teaches, a method for producing at least one permanent magnet for an electrical machine, the method comprising: producing a permanently magnetic base body by compression molding; separating a first partial region of the base body from at least one second partial region of the base body by a cutting process, wherein the at least one permanent magnet is provided by the first partial region; and providing the at least one permanent magnet with a cavity by the cutting process.
Prior art Fubuki (US 9331557) teaches a method for producing permanent magnet for an electrical machine, the method comprising: producing a permanently magnetic base body by compression molding; separating a first partial region of the base body from at least one second partial region of the base body by a cutting process; and providing the at least one permanent magnet with a cavity by the cutting process, wherein the separation of the first partial region from the second partial region and the provision of the at least one permanent magnet with the cavity are carried out in a single step.
Prior art Takaichi (US 20150158197) teaches, a method for producing permanent magnet for an electrical machine, including: producing a permanently magnetic base body by compression molding; separating a first partial region of the base body from at least one second partial region of the base body by a cutting process, wherein the at least one permanent magnet is provided by the first partial region; and providing the at least one permanent magnet with a cavity by the cutting process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE K. ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 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, 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.
/JOSE K ABRAHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3729
