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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office relies on Tanai only for disclosing diameter of the rotor, see page 5, lines 7-9. However, in rejecting now-canceled claim 10, Tanai is also recited for the teaching of utilizing cobalt alloys in PM rotor construction.
In response to applicant's arguments, see page 5, lines 9-12, against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that TANAI does not disclose “the use of a cobalt columnar body as the shaft material”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The rejection relies upon the teaching of TANAI to establish appropriate selection of cobalt alloy materials for rotor construction, as applied to a structure similar to that of ATAYA (see MPEP 2144.07)
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the use of a cobalt columnar body as the shaft material”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Previous claim 10 and newly-amended claim 1 recite a ferromagnetic shaft “including a cobalt columnar body” which, as broadly claimed, could be interpreted to mean the entire shaft is made wholly of cobalt or an alloy thereof, or merely that a part of the shaft is made partly of cobalt or an alloy thereof, including any number of discrete permanent magnets or components attached thereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATAYA (JP 201686620; previously cited) in view of TANAI (US 4095129; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, ATAYA discloses a shaft (50) comprising:
a ferromagnetic shaft (20); and
a tubular magnet (11) covering an outer circumferential surface of the ferromagnetic shaft (20)
wherein a magnetization easy axis (F) of the tubular magnet (11) is oriented in a radial direction (see Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, ATAYA does not disclose the ferromagnetic shaft includes a cobalt columnar body and the tubular magnet is a samarium cobalt magnet.
TANAI discloses a samarium cobalt magnet (see col. 4, lines 11-19).
It 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 to provide the rotor of ATAYA wherein the ferromagnetic shaft includes a cobalt columnar body and the tubular magnet is a samarium cobalt magnet, similar to TANAI.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide small lightweight stepping motors as is well-known in the art, as taught by TANAI (see col. 1, lines 11-27) and as an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2143.I.A.).
Regarding Claim 2, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic shaft (20) and the tubular magnet (11) are in direct contact (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
TANAI discloses a rotor 10 with a permanent magnet 20 with an inner diameter of less than 2mm (see col. 4, lines 11-19).
Regarding Claim 4, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein
an inner diameter of the tubular magnet and an axial length of the tubular magnet satisfy a formula below: 1< L/d1 (see Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
306
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
TANAI discloses the tubular magnet 20 has a thickness of 10 to 300 m (see col. 4, lines 11-19).
Regarding Claim 8, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein each of both ends of the ferromagnetic shaft (20) includes an exposed portion configured to be uncovered with the tubular magnet (11) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 1, wherein the tubular magnet (11) is magnetized in a radial direction, and an outer circumferential surface of the tubular magnet (11) includes four or more magnetic poles (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
TANAI discloses the samarium cobalt magnet includes a SmCo5 magnet (see col. 1, lines 11-27).
However, neither ATAYA nor TANAI discloses a portion of the ferromagnetic shaft covered with the tubular magnet includes a Sm2Co17 layer and the cobalt columnar body in order from a side of the tubular magnet.
It 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 to provide the rotor of ATAYA wherein the ferromagnetic shaft includes a Sm2Co17 layer and a cobalt columnar body in order from a side of the tubular magnet, similar to the teachings of TANAI.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide small lightweight stepping motors as is well-known in the art, as taught by TANAI (see col. 1, lines 11-27) and as an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 12, ATAYA discloses a motor comprising: the shaft (50) according to claim 1; and a stator (disclosed ‘coils’ are a stator as broadly claimed).
Claims 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATAYA in view TANAI and further in view of HAYASHI (JP 2005050988; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 6, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
However, ATAYA in view of TANAI does not teach a thickness distribution (coefficient of variation) of the tubular magnet is 50 µm or less.
HAYASHI discloses a magnet motor with a thickness distribution (coefficient of variation) of the tubular magnet is 50 µm or less (see para [0033]).
It 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 to provide the rotor of ATAYA in view of TANAI with a thickness distribution (coefficient of variation) of the tubular magnet is 50 µm or less, similar to HAYASHI.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide a thin magnet with few cracks and irregularities having a low surface resistivity and low contact resistance with the inner wall of the housing, while maintaining magnetic characteristics, as taught by HAYASHI (see paras [0011] and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 7, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 1.
However, ATAYA in view of TANAI does not teach an outer circumferential surface of the tubular magnet (11) has a surface roughness Rz of 20 µm or less.
HAYASHI discloses a magnet motor an outer circumferential surface of the tubular magnet (11) has a surface roughness Rz of 20 µm or less (see para [0033]).
It 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 to provide the rotor of ATAYA in view of TANAI with an outer circumferential surface of the tubular magnet (11) has a surface roughness Rz of 20 µm or less, similar to HAYASHI.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide a thin magnet with few cracks and irregularities having a low surface resistivity and low contact resistance with the inner wall of the housing, while maintaining magnetic characteristics, as taught by HAYASHI (see paras [0011] and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 13, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the motor according to claim 12.
However, ATAYA in view of TANAI does not teach a cylindrical container configured to house the shaft and the stator, wherein the container has an outer diameter of 3 mm or less.
HAYASHI discloses a cylindrical container configured to house the shaft and the stator, wherein the container has an outer diameter of 3 mm or less (see para [0033]).
It 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 to provide the rotor of ATAYA in view of TANAI with a cylindrical container configured to house the shaft and the stator, wherein the container has an outer diameter of 3 mm or less, similar to HAYASHI.
A person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains would have been motivated to make such modification in order to provide a compact motor proportional to the thin film magnet as taught by HAYASHI (see paras [0011] and [0033])
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20080219834-A1 Merfeld discloses a rotor shaft including a landing sleeve formed of cobalt alloy; 'Design of Permanent Magnet Brushless Motors for High Speed Applications' Gieras discusses the use of cobalt in rotor body construction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN STEFANON whose telephone number is (703)756-4648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays 8AM - 5PM EDT.
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, Oluseye 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.
/JUSTIN STEFANON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights