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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-4 remain withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant contends on pages 5-6 of the reply that ”More specifically, OKUDAIRA discloses a resin filling device 20 that includes an upper mold 21 and a lower mold 22, in which the lower mold 22 includes a sprue 41 that is "a passage for guiding resin from a nozzle of an injection molding machine," in which the injection molding machine causes the resin to be molten by heating, and a runner plate 44, having runner portions 43 including branch passages 46, that extend toward respective magnet insertion holes 3. See OKUDAIRA at paras. [0036]-[0040]; see also OKUDAIRA at Fig. 5, reproduced above.
That is, in OKUDAIRA, the resin is heated by an injection molding machine, like that of HUME, that is not provided in the allegedly analogous manifold portions (i.e., the portions that extend radially from the sprue portion in radial direction of a rotor core) nor nozzle heating portions configured to heat respective nozzle portions of the passage that extend from the manifold portions toward the rotor core, as generally recited in Applicant's amended independent claim 5. See Id.
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to modify OKUDAIRA, in view of the disclosure of HUME, to disclose or suggest Applicant's invention, as such a modification would result in a modification of the injection molding machine in OKUDAIRA, and not the lower mold 22 itself, such that the alleged combination would still fail to disclose or suggest at least "wherein the heater includes a manifold heating portion configured to heat manifold portions of the passage and multiple nozzle heating portions configured to heat respective nozzle portions of the passage," as generally recited in Applicant's amended independent claim 5.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Okudaira is relied upon to teach a method for manufacturing a rotor (P0017-18, P0030), the method comprising: housing the magnets in the magnet housing holes (P0030, 4 into 3), and heating the thermoplastic (P0042), while Hume is relied upon to teach the specifics of a manifold heater with heated nozzles to heat the thermoplastic. Hume describes in fig.15 and col.3, ll60-67 through col.4, ll 1-15 that “several nozzles 2 are coupled to a heated manifold… To maintain the melt uniformly at its optimum processing temperature, heat pipes 28 are disposed within, and about the circumference of, the nozzle body 2. The heat pipes derive heat from a band heater 17 which is disposed about the insulating sleeve 7. In multiple nozzle applications, the heat pipes 28 may alternatively derive heat directly from the heated manifold.” Hume further teaches that the heating mechanism is secured to and inside of a mold portion, 10 (“support ring 13 secures the nozzle body 2 to the mold”, col.3, ll57-59, fig.15, fig.16). While this portion may be removable from the mold portion, the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214.
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okudaira (US20180062488A1) in view of Hume (US5871786A).
Regarding claim 5, Okudaira teaches a method for manufacturing a rotor (P0017-18, P0030), the method comprising: housing magnets in magnet housing holes in a rotor core (P0030, 4 into 3); introducing, through a passage, thermoplastic in a molten state into openings in a state in which a first end face and a second end face of the rotor core are respectively in contact with a first die and a second die (“thermoplastic resin”, P0032, fig.5 below), thereby filling the magnet housing holes, which house the magnets, with the thermoplastic (P0033); and cooling the thermoplastic, wherein the filling the magnet housing holes, which house the magnets (P0044), with the thermoplastic includes heating the thermoplastic (P0042); wherein the passage includes a sprue portion connected to a nozzle of an injection molding machine (P0036, 41), and a runner portion connected to the sprue portion (P0036, 43), the sprue portion is provided on an axis of the rotor core (P0037, fig.5), the runner portion includes: multiple manifold portions that extend radially from the sprue portion in radial directions of the rotor core (P0042, B).
Okudaira teaches that the plastic is in molten state through heating but is silent to heating with a heater, and to multiple nozzle portions that extend from the manifold portions toward the rotor core, the nozzle portions are respectively connected to the manifold portions (fig.5), and the heater includes: a manifold heating portion configured to heat the manifold portions; and multiple nozzle heating portions configured to heat the respective nozzle portions.
Hume, in the same field of endeavor, injection molding, teaches heating thermoplastic with a heater (col.5, ll 5-20), wherein multiple nozzle portions that extend from the manifold portions toward the rotor core, the nozzle portions are respectively connected to the manifold portions (col.3, ll60-65), and the heater includes: a manifold heating portion configured to heat the manifold portions (col.4, ll 9-13); and multiple nozzle heating portions configured to heat the respective nozzle portions (col.4, ll 1-9, col.5, ll14-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heated thermoplastic with a heater such as described in Hume in an injection molding process for the purpose of enabling the melt to be maintained at its optimum flow temperature as taught by Hume (col.5, ll 32-33).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Okudaira
Regarding claim 6, Okudaira is silent to the method for manufacturing the rotor further comprises measuring a flowability of the thermoplastic at each of the nozzle portions prior to the filling the magnet housing holes, which house the magnets, with the thermoplastic; and the measuring the flowability of the thermoplastic at each of the nozzle portions includes: by using a rotor core different from the rotor core to be used in the filling the magnet housing holes, which house the magnets, with the thermoplastic, introducing, through the passage, the thermoplastic in a molten state into the second openings in a state in which the first end face and the second end face of the rotor core are respectively in contact with the first die and the second die; and measuring the flowability of the thermoplastic at each of the nozzle portions based on a filling state of the thermoplastic in the magnet housing holes, wherein the filling the magnet housing holes, which house the magnets, with the thermoplastic includes controlling each of the nozzle heating portions such that one or more of the nozzle portions that have been measured to have a relatively low flowability of the thermoplastic in the measuring the flowability of the thermoplastic become hotter than one or more of the nozzle portions that have been measured to have a relatively high flowability of the thermoplastic in the measuring the flowability of the thermoplastic.
Hume teaches that “Leads 58 are coupled to the coil heater 56 at one end, and to a controller (not shown) which is used to increase or decrease the temperature of the coil heater by increasing the voltage supplied to the leads. This enables one to vary the temperature at the tip according the results obtained in a previous injection cycle. For example, if the melt material was running too cold and tended to freeze up or slowed in the end assembly, the temperature could be increased by increasing the power; if the temperature was running too hot and burning the melt the temperature could be decreased. Thus, the controlled coil heater enables the melt to be maintained at its optimum flow temperature” (col.5, ll21-34)
This meets the limitations that the method for manufacturing a rotor further comprises measuring a flowability of the thermoplastic at each of the nozzle portions prior to the filling the magnet housing holes, which house the magnets, with the thermoplastic; and the measuring the flowability of the thermoplastic at each of the nozzle portions includes: by using a rotor core different from the rotor core to be used in the filling the magnet housing holes, which house the magnets, with the thermoplastic, introducing, through the passage, the thermoplastic in a molten state into the second openings in a state in which the first end face and the second end face of the rotor core are respectively in contact with the first die and the second die; and measuring the flowability of the thermoplastic at each of the nozzle portions based on a filling state of the thermoplastic in the magnet housing holes, wherein the filling the magnet housing holes, which house the magnets, with the thermoplastic includes controlling each of the nozzle heating portions such that one or more of the nozzle portions that have been measured to have a relatively low flowability of the thermoplastic in the measuring the flowability of the thermoplastic become hotter than one or more of the nozzle portions that have been measured to have a relatively high flowability of the thermoplastic in the measuring the flowability of the thermoplastic; because Hume teaches that the temperature of the nozzle portions is adjusted for a second injection based on the results of a first non-ideal injection that could be considered a test run for optimization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the temperature of nozzle portions for the purpose of maintaining a melt at an optimal flow temperature as taught by Hume (col.5, ll32-34).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.H.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights