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 . Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 should be dependent on claim 2 not on claim 1 because the first and second claws are introduced in claim 2 not in claim 1. In this Office action, claim 7 is interpreted as being dependent on claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, S. (US 20210281156 A1) in view of Komuro et al. (US 20080241513 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
529
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses an electric motor (see the title: “STEPPING MOTOR” and fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of magnetic steels (1021 and 1022, fig. 2) arranged in a circumferential direction around a rotating shaft (101, fig. 2); wherein
two adjacent magnetic steels have opposite magnetic polarities at one end proximate to the rotating shaft (para [0042]: “the first magnetic pole 1021 and the second magnetic pole 1022 are magnetically opposite, for example, one is an N pole and the other is an S pole.”), and two adjacent magnetic steels have opposite magnetic polarities at the other end (implied).
Wei does not disclose: the magnetic steels are sintered magnetic steels.
However, sintered magnets are well-known magnets to those having ordinary skills in the art as evidenced by Komuro. Komuro teaches a method of manufacturing a sintered rare earth magnet (see the title: “RARE EARTH MAGNET AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF”) that can be used in for example a stepping motor (see para [0026] and [0071]). Komuro further teaches that such sintered magnets reduce the amount of heavy rare earth element usage and have a high energy product and high thermal resistance (see para [0002].
To utilize a magnet with a high energy product and high thermal resistance that reduces the amount of heavy rare earth element usage, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the magnetic steels are sintered magnetic steels.
Regarding claim 8, Wei in view of Komuro as discussed regarding claim 1 discloses the electric motor of claim 1, but does not disclose: further comprising an adhesive layer provided between two adjacent magnetic steels.
However, using an adhesive layer to attach two adjacent magnetic steels to each other is a known option to those having ordinary skills in the art. The adhesive layer will help secure the magnets around the shaft.
To secure the magnets around the shaft and keep them attached to each other, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the electric motor of claim 1, further comprising an adhesive layer provided between two adjacent magnetic steels.
Regarding claim 9, Wei in view of Komuro as discussed regarding claim 1 discloses the electric motor of claim 1, further comprising, per Komuro teaching, a coating provided at the other end of the magnetic steels.
This is done to prevent the sintered magnets from corrosion (see para [0114], [0115], [0216] and [0428], in particular using a coating for preventing oxygen; para [0010] discusses various problems due to oxygen: “Such a phase including oxygen decreases the magnetization of the magnetic particles and influences the shape of the magnetization curve. Specifically, it causes a decrease in the value of the remanent flux density, decrease in the anisotropic magnetic field, decrease in the square-loop characteristics of the demagnetization curve, decrease in the coercivity, increase in the irreversible demagnetizing factor, increase in the thermal demagnetization, deviation of magnetization properties, deterioration of the corrosion resistance, and decrease in the mechanical properties, resulting in the reliability of the magnet being decreased. Since oxygen influences a lot of characteristics like this, a process where oxygen is not allowed to remain in the magnetic particles has been considered.”).
To prevent corrosion and degradation of the sintered magnets, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: a coating provided at the other end of the magnetic steels.
Regarding claim 10, Wei in view of Komuro as discussed regarding claim 1 the electric motor of claim 1, Wei does not disclose wherein a magnetic energy product of the magnetic steels is greater than 26 MGOe and an intrinsic coercive force of the magnetic steels is greater than 11 KOe.
Komuro teaches: the sintered magnets can have an intrinsic coercive force of the magnetic steels is greater than 11 Koe (see para [0043]: “The magnetic properties of the magnetic particles obtained are a remanent flux density of 0.8 to 1.0 T and a coercive force of 10 to 20 kOe.”) and have a high energy product (para [0099]: “According to such a means, a permanent magnetic material can be obtained without a melting and grinding process for obtaining magnetic particles as in the prior art and making a high energy product is possible due to the surface fluorine compound solution treatment for the ferrite magnetic particle and the heat-treatment, so that it can be applied to various magnetic circuits.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to that by sintered magnets can provide: a magnetic energy product of the magnetic steels is greater than 26 MGOe and an intrinsic coercive force of the magnetic steels is greater than 11 KOe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834