DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 2.17.26. Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined.
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 and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendment to the independent claim 1 which will be examined below.
Examiner thanks Applicant for amending Title and therefore previous objection is withdrawn.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 16-17 due to limitation “easy-magnetization direction”, Applicant has cited Para 0098 and 0064 as reasonable basis for explaining above term. While Examiner accepts and withdraws previous rejection, Examiner will not be able to read the cited paragraphs into claim recitation. Therefore related claims will be interpreted broadly same as previous Office Action i.e., any direction that is best for magnetization.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides arguments to which the
Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: By this amendment, Applicant has amended claim 1 to clarify "the area of the first adhesion layer is greater than 0". This avoids the Examiner's reliance on the interpretation of Ohsugi, where "the area of the adhesion layer in the first portion = 0". Ohsugi fails to teach "in the first section, an area of the first adhesion layer in a first portion of the electrical steel sheet where a main magnetic flux is generated in the L-axis direction is smaller than an area of the first adhesion layer in a second portion of the electrical steel sheet where a main magnetic flux is generated in the C-axis direction, and the area of the first adhesion layer is greater than 0", as recited in Applicant's amended claim 1 and therefore Ohsugi fails to anticipate Applicant's amended claim 1.
Examiner Response 1: Examiner agrees that above amendment is not disclosed explicitly by Ohsugi.
Applicant Argument 2: Paragraphs [0034] to [0035] of Ohsugi explain the significance of eliminating adhesion portions on some of tooth portions 23 (23B) among multiple tooth portions 23. Therefore, it is not obvious to provide adhesion layers 41 on tooth portions 23B, contrary to this teaching, where no adhesion layers 41 exist in Fig. 6 of Ohsugi. In fact, the Examiner did not cite Figs. 4, 5, and 8 of Ohsugi, which show adhesion layers on all tooth portions 23. Furthermore, it is even less obvious to establish the relationship between the sizes of the adhesion layers as in Claim 1 of the present application.
Examiner Response 2: While Examiner will consider above argument in amended claim prosecution, Ohsugi as disclosed in Figs 4,5,6 and 8 shows various possibilities of applying adhesive which includes intermittent tooth application as well as all tooth application. Further Examiner believes that it is natural in the art to minimize the overall area of adhesive and locate it conveniently (not in the flux path) and get an optimal balance between strength and magnetic efficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6,10,12-13,17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamamura(US20180056629A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamamura discloses (Figs 4-5) a stacked core (10) comprising:
a plurality of stacked electrical steel sheets (1); and
a plurality of adhesion layers (8) disposed between the electrical steel sheets adjacent to each other in a stacking direction (C1), wherein
the electrical steel sheet includes an annular body (Fig 5)
at least one adhesion layer of the plurality of adhesion layers is a first adhesion layer (8),
in one electrical steel sheet (1) of the two electrical steel sheets (1,1) sandwiching the first adhesion layer (8) in the stacking direction (C1), when an imaginary axis (Fig 5,L axis)intersecting with a central axis (C1) of the annular body and extending in an easy-magnetization direction (L axis is magnetizable) is defined as an L-axis, an imaginary axis (Fig 5,C axis) intersecting with the central axis (C1) and intersecting (Fig 5) with the L-axis is defined as a C-axis, and the electrical steel sheet is partitioned into a plurality of sections (S1,S1) in a circumferential direction (R) of the annular body by the L-axis and the C-axis,
at least one section of the plurality of sections is a first section (S1), and
in the first section, an area of the first adhesion layer (8) in a first portion (P1) of the electrical steel sheet where a main magnetic flux is generated in the L-axis direction is smaller than an area of the first adhesion layer in a second portion (P2) of the electrical steel sheet where a main magnetic flux is generated in the C-axis direction (In P1, there is adhesive 8-11, and in P2, there is adhesive 8-11 and 8-19, therefore it is less than P2) and
the area of the first adhesion layer is greater than 0 (8-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
598
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hamamura discloses the stacked core according to claim 1. Hamamura further discloses wherein in the first section (S1), when a region relatively close to the C-axis (Fig 5) is referred to as a C-axis side region(Fig 5) and a region relatively close to the L-axis (Fig 5) is referred to as an L-axis side region (Fig 5), the first portion (P1) includes a portion located in the C-axis side region of the annular body, and the second portion (P2)includes a portion located in the L-axis side region of the annular body (P1 and P2 are adjacent circumferentially, therefore they relatively close to each other and can be partially overlapping).
Regarding Claim 6, Hamamura discloses the stacked core according to claim 2. Hamamura further discloses wherein the electrical steel sheet (1) further includes a plurality of teeth (17) protruding from the annular body (Fig 5) inward in a radial direction (Fig 5, towards C1) of the annular body and disposed at intervals in a circumferential direction (R direction) of the annular body, the first portion (P1) includes a portion of the teeth (17) located in the L-axis side region (Fig 5) , and the second portion (P2) includes a portion of the teeth (17) located in the C-axis side region (Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Hamamura discloses the stacked core according to claim 2. Hamamura further discloses wherein in the first section (S1), when an imaginary axis (Ri) extending in a direction dividing a central angle formed by the C-axis and the L-axis around the central axis (C1) into two equal parts is defined as a reference axis (Ri), the C-axis side region and the L-axis side region have a symmetrical relationship in the circumferential direction (same number of teeth with adhesive on either side of Ri) with respect to the reference axis (Ri).
Regarding Claim 12, Hamamura discloses the stacked core according to claim 1. Hamamura further discloses wherein all of the plurality of adhesion layers (8) are the first adhesion layers (8).
Regarding Claim 13, Hamamura discloses the stacked core according to claim 1. Hamamura further discloses wherein all of the plurality of sections (S1,S1) are the first sections (S1).
Regarding Claim 17, Hamamura discloses the stacked core according to claim 1. Hamamura further discloses wherein the two or more easy-magnetization directions [Hamamura does not disclose orientation, therefore magnetization is not orientation dependent] exist in the one electrical steel sheet (1), the L-axis each (Fig 5) extends in the two or more easy-magnetization directions to intersect with each other on the central axis (C1), and the C-axis extends in a direction in which a central angle formed around the central axis by the L-axes adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction is divided into two equal parts (Fig 5 discloses C axis is bisecting angle between two L axis).
Regarding Claim 18, Hamamura discloses the stacked core according to claim 1. Hamamura further discloses a rotating electrical machine [0003] comprising the stacked core according to claim 1.
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 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.
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.
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 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamura in view of Ohsugi (WO2020129937A1 English translation)
Regarding Claim 14, Hamamura discloses the stacked core according to claim 1. Hamamura does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrical steel sheet is a non-oriented electrical steel sheet.
Ohsugi discloses wherein the electrical steel sheet is a non-oriented electrical steel sheet [Para 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed stacked core of Hamamura with non-oriented electrical steel sheet as taught by Ohsugi in order to have uniformity in the direction of ease of flow of magnetic flux in the laminate.
Regarding Claim 15, Hamamura discloses the stacked core according to claim 1. Hamamura does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrical steel sheet is a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet.
Ohsugi discloses wherein the electrical steel sheet is a grain-oriented electrical steel sheet [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed stacked core of Hamamura with grain-oriented electrical steel sheet as taught by Ohsugi in order to have desired direction of ease of flow of magnetic flux in the laminate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5,7-9,11,16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 recites “The stacked core according to claim 2, wherein the first adhesion layer includes a first adhesive portion disposed on at least one of an inner peripheral edge and an outer peripheral edge of the annular body, and Page 3 of 6 in the first section, an area of the first adhesive portion in the C-axis side region is smaller than an area of the first adhesive portion in the L-axis side region”. Hamamura does not disclose first adhesive portion on peripheral edges (inner or outer) of the annular body. In Hamamura, adhesive is on the tooth and middle of yoke. Therefore claim 3 is allowable. Claims 4-5 are allowable as they are dependent upon claim 3.
Claim 7 recites “The stacked core according to claim 6, wherein the first adhesion layer includes a second adhesive portion disposed on a peripheral edge of the teeth, and in the first section, an area of the second adhesive portion in the C-axis side region is larger than an area of the second adhesive portion in the L-axis side region”. In Hamamura, there is no second adhesive portion on the peripheral edge of the teeth. Therefore claim 7 is allowable. Claims 8-9 are allowable as they are dependent upon claim 7.
Claim 11 recites “The stacked core according to any one of claim 2,wherein the first adhesion layer includes a belt-shaped adhesive portion, in the L-axis side region, a total area of the belt-shaped adhesive portions in which the circumferential direction is a longitudinal direction is larger than a total area of the belt-shaped adhesive portions in which a radial direction of the annular body is a longitudinal direction, and in the C-axis side region, the total area of the belt-shaped adhesive portions in which the circumferential direction is a longitudinal direction is smaller than the total area of the belt- shaped adhesive portions in which the radial direction is a longitudinal direction. Hamamura discloses belt shape but does not disclose rest of the limitations. Therefore claim 11 is allowable.
Claim 16 recites “The stacked core according to any one of claim 1, wherein the only one easy-magnetization direction exists in the one electrical steel sheet, and the L-axis and the C-axis are orthogonal to each other”. In annotated Fig 5 of Hamamura, they are not orthogonal. Therefore claim 16 is allowable.
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 VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834