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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 April 2024 and 07 February 2025 were filed prior to the mailing date of this office correspondence. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 16 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 March 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima (US 20230231431) in view of Nilson (US 20030182787).
[AltContent: textbox (shaft)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (magnet)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
623
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 13, Iijima
Regarding claim 1, Iijima teaches, a manufacturing method for a rotor (method of manufacturing rotor, Figs. 6 to 15) comprising a rotor shaft (shaft 14 with inner sleeve 31, see annotated Fig. 13, inner circumferential surface 31b of the inner sleeve 31 is in contact with the outer circumferential surface 14a of the rotating shaft 14, para. [0036]), a permanent magnet (permanent magnet 70, Fig. 7, para. [0048]) retained at an outer periphery of the rotor shaft with a resin (resin portion 51) interposed therebetween, and a magnet reinforcement pipe (protective layer 38) formed in a cylindrical shape and covering the permanent magnet from an outer peripheral side (protective layer 38 is a metal member having a substantially cylindrical shape, para. [0040]), wherein the rotor manufacturing method comprises:
filling the resin in liquid form between the rotor shaft and the permanent magnet (S02, a first resin portion forming operation S02, alternatively, a second resin portion forming operation S04, alternatively, a third resin portion forming operation S06, Figs. 6, 8, 10, 12, para. [0050]);
breaking the permanent magnet using charging pressure of the resin (a crack forming operation S03…in the crack forming operation S03, a pressure e.g., a fracturing pressure, that is equal to or greater than the pressure that fractures the permanent magnet 70 is applied to the uncured resin 50a, see Fig. 5 and Fig. 9, para. [0050, 0053-0054]).
[AltContent: textbox (magnet reinforcement pipe)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
178
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3, Nilson.
Iijima does not teach expanding a diameter of the magnet reinforcement pipe. However, Nilson teaches a method of manufacturing a rotor comprising a rotor shaft (shaft 6, Figs. 2 to 4), a permanent magnet (permanent magnets 3) retained at an outer periphery of the rotor shaft with a resin (an epoxy resin is injected between the sleeve 1 and the rotor body 2, para. [0043]) interposed therebetween, and a magnet reinforcement pipe (sleeve 1) formed in a cylindrical shape and covering the permanent magnet from an outer peripheral side (see Fig. 2); filling the resin in liquid form between the rotor shaft and the permanent magnet (an epoxy resin is injected between the sleeve 1 and the rotor body 2, para. [0043]); and expanding a diameter of the magnet reinforcement pipe (the sleeve is expanded by a liquid that solidifies and is solid at the working temperatures of the rotor, such as a thermosetting plastic, more particularly an epoxy resin…liquid is injected under pressure between the sleeve and the rotor body, para. [0015]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Nilson, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manufacturing method for a rotor of Iijima and to replace the reinforcement pipe 38 of Iijima in Fig. 13 with a reinforcement pipe 1 of Nilson so that it enables in withstanding the resin charging pressure by expanding the sleeve when the liquid is injected under pressure between the sleeve and the rotor body as Nilson disclosed in para. [0015]. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant invention that any surprising results were derived, or that any special steps were devised in filling the resin liquid, or charging pressure of the resin. Such a combination would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art without any need for experimentation and with reasonable expectations of success.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (groove)]
PNG
media_image3.png
764
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3, Iijima.
Regarding claim 2, Iijima in view of Nilson teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 1. Ijima further teaches, the rotor manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein a groove (grooves 41, Fig.3) is extending along an axial direction (see the knurl grooves 41b in annotated Fig. 3, knurl grooves 41b extend helically along the axial direction, para. [0045]) is formed at the outer periphery of the rotor shaft, and the resin is filled in liquid form between the rotor shaft and the permanent magnet through the groove (first resin portion 51 extends substantially in the axial direction to fill a gap between the magnet pieces 60 and the outer circumferential surface 33a…into the grooves 41para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Iijima in view of Nilson teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 1. Ijima further teaches, the rotor manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein: a collar-shaped collar portion (inner sleeve 31 has a large diameter portion 33, a base body portion 34, and a small diameter portion 35, see annotated Fig. 13 below, para. [0036]) is formed at part of the outer periphery of the rotor shaft; a gap (see Fig. 13) is formed between the rotor shaft and the permanent magnet by an outer peripheral face of the collar portion being engaged with an inner peripheral face of the permanent magnet; and the resin is filled in liquid form into the gap (uncured resin 50a can be injected between the outer circumferential surface 31a of the inner sleeve 31 and the inner circumferential surface 70b of the permanent magnet 70 by injecting the uncured resin 50a through the injection port 56a, para. [0052]).
[AltContent: textbox (gap)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (shaft)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (collar-shaped collar portion)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
623
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 13, Iijima
Regarding claim 5, Iijima in view of Nilson teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 1. Ijima further teaches, the rotor manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein: a pair of circular plate-shaped end rings (end rings 39a and 39b, see annotated Fig. 2 below) are arranged at two axial direction sides with respect to the permanent magnet; a gap is formed between the rotor shaft and the permanent magnet by passing the rotor shaft through a center of each of the pair of end rings and also engaging an outer peripheral face of each of the pair of end rings with an inner peripheral face of the magnet reinforcement pipe (end ring 39a and the end ring 39b are disposed so as to contact the outer circumferential surface 34a of the base body portion 34 of the inner sleeve 31, para. [0041]); and the resin is filled in liquid form into the gap through a resin-filling flow path formed in the rotor shaft (fourth resin portion 54a is formed between the end ring 39a and the magnet portion 36. The fourth resin portion 54a is also for lied between the end ring 39a and the protective layer 38, para. [0041]).
[AltContent: textbox (end ring)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (end ring)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
689
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2, Iijima.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Nilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (JP 2847393).
Regarding claim 4, Ijima further teaches, the rotor manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein: a pair of circular plate-shaped end rings (end rings 39a and 39b, see annotated Fig. 2 above) are arranged at two axial direction sides with respect to the permanent magnet (see Fig. 2); a gap is formed between the rotor shaft and the permanent magnet by passing the rotor shaft through a center of each of the pair of end rings and also by engaging an outer peripheral face of each of the pair of end rings with an inner peripheral face of the magnet reinforcement pipe (end ring 39a and the end ring 39b are disposed so as to contact the outer circumferential surface 34a of the base body portion 34 of the inner sleeve 31, para.[0041]); and the resin is filled in liquid form into the gap (fourth resin portion 54a is formed between the end ring 39a and the magnet portion 36. The fourth resin portion 54a is also for lied between the end ring 39a and the protective layer 38, para. [0041). Though, Iijima teaches end rings are fixing after filling the resin, from the teachings of Iijima in para. [0041, 0058] the end ring 39a and the end ring 39b are press-fit onto the inner sleeve 31…the end ring 39a and the end ring 39b are then pressed against the uncured resin, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that fixing the pair of end rings 39a and 39b and then filling liquid resin through a resin-filling hole would reduce the process steps and hence improve the rotor manufacturing method. Doing so would enable in eliminating the need for a mold in the resin filling step.
Modified Iijima does not teach a resin-filling hole formed in at least one of the pair of end rings. However, Yamamoto teaches a method of manufacturing a motor including filling the resin in liquid form, in which, the resin is filled in the liquid form through a resin-filling hole formed in at least one of the pair of end rings (resin holes 9a or 9b provided in the end plates 5a and 6a, Page 7, first paragraph). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Yamamoto, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manufacturing method for a rotor of Iijima and to replace the end rings 39a and 39b of Iijima in Fig. 2 with end rings 5a and 6a of Yamamoto so that it enables filling the resin in liquid form while manufacturing a rotor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 would be allowable for disclosing a manufacturing method of a rotor, wherein a notch to serve as an origin point when breaking the permanent magnet is formed at an inner peripheral face of the permanent magnet.
Though, prior art of record Iijima teaches breaking the permanent magnet 70 using charging pressure of the resin, Iijima fails to teach a notch to serve as an origin point when breaking the permanent magnet is formed at an inner peripheral face of the permanent magnet.
Prior art of records Nilson or Yamamoto does not teach breaking the permanent magnet using charging pressure of the resin; or a notch to serve as an origin point when breaking the permanent magnet is formed at an inner peripheral face of the permanent magnet.
Therefore, claim 6 would be allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Prior art Fukaya (US 20120274165) teaches a manufacturing method for a rotor including a rotor shaft, a permanent magnet retained at an outer periphery of the rotor shaft with a resin interposed therebetween, and a magnet reinforcement pipe formed in a cylindrical shape and covering the permanent magnet from an outer peripheral side; filling the resin in liquid form between the rotor shaft and the permanent magnet; and breaking the permanent magnet.
Prior art Arimatsu (US 20160141929) teaches a manufacturing method for a rotor including a rotor shaft, a permanent magnet retained at an outer periphery of the rotor shaft with a resin interposed therebetween, and a magnet reinforcement pipe formed in a cylindrical shape and covering the permanent magnet from an outer peripheral side; filling the resin in liquid form between the rotor shaft and the permanent magnet; and expanding a diameter of the magnet reinforcement pipe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE K. ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JOSE K ABRAHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights