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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2024, 03/27/2024, and 08/11/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a cobalt columnar body" in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same cobalt columnar body as claimed in claim 10, from which claim 11 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1, 2, 4, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ATAYA (JP 201686620; 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
Regarding Claim 2, ATAYA discloses 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 4, ATAYA discloses 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 8, ATAYA discloses 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 discloses 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 12, ATAYA discloses a motor comprising: the shaft (50) according to claim 1; and a stator (disclosed ‘coils’ are a stator as broadly claimed).
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.
Claims 3, 5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATAYA in view of TANAI (US 4095129).
Regarding Claim 3, ATAYA discloses the rotor according to claim 1.
However, ATAYA does not disclose the tubular magnet has an inner diameter of 2 mm or less.
TANAI discloses a rotor 10 with a permanent magnet 20 with an inner diameter of less than 2mm (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 tubular magnet has an inner diameter of 2 mm or less, 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 produce a motor that is small in size, low in cost, light-weight and capable of delivering a high output torque with minimum power consumption, with enhanced efficiency, ease of assembly and maintenance, and low cost of manufacture, as taught by TANAI (see col. 1, lines 10-43)
Regarding Claim 5, ATAYA discloses the rotor according to claim 1.
However, ATAYA does not disclose the tubular magnet has a thickness of 10 to 300 m.
TANAI discloses the tubular magnet 20 has a thickness of 10 to 300 m (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 tubular magnet has a thickness of 10 to 300 m, 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 produce a motor that is small in size, low in cost, light-weight and capable of delivering a high output torque with minimum power consumption, with enhanced efficiency, ease of assembly and maintenance, and low cost of manufacture, as taught by TANAI (see col. 1, lines 10-43)
Regarding Claim 10, ATAYA discloses the rotor according to claim 1.
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.
Regarding Claim 11, ATAYA in view of TANAI teaches the rotor according to claim 10.
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 a 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.
Claims 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATAYA in view of HAYASHI (JP 2005050988; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 6, ATAYA discloses the rotor according to claim 1.
However, ATAYA does not disclose 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 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 discloses the rotor according to claim 1.
However, ATAYA does not disclose 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 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 discloses the motor according to claim 12.
However, ATAYA does not disclose 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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150179320 Furusawa and US 20160087494 Fischer both disclose permanent magnet rotors with radial easy axes of magnetization.
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