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 .
Interview Attempt
A voicemail message was left after an attempt was made on 5/11/2026 to reach the Attorney of Record, Shuji Yoshizaki (Reg. No. 62,785) regarding a proposed Examiner’s Amendment to place the claims in condition for allowance. However, as of the writing and submission of this Office Action, no response has been received to the voicemail message.
Status of Claims
Pending and under examination: claims 1-15
Objected to: claim 5
Rejected: claims 1-15
Suggested Amendments
The Examiner recommends amending both claims 7 and 14 into independent claim 1, in order to help advance prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the third line of claim 5, “are” should be “is”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyabara (US 20120182103 A1) in view of Sato et al. (JP2011200763A; Espacenet English machine translation cited and attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-9, with regard to the claimed “A method for forming a coating film of a UV curable resin on a surface of a rare earth magnet by coating the surface of the rare earth magnet with the UV curable resin composition and irradiating the UV curable resin composition with UV light to cure the UV curable resin composition,” Miyabara teaches A method of manufacturing a magnet which includes applying an ultraviolet curing resin on a magnet main body, and radiating an ultraviolet ray to the ultraviolet curing resin [0011]. The magnet is a rare earth magnet [0023].
With regard to the claimed “(B) curing the UV curable resin composition by irradiating the UV curable resin composition attached onto the surface of the rare earth magnet with UV light”, Miyabara teaches this limitation in [0028].
However, Miyabara is silent regarding the claimed “(A) attaching a droplet of a UV curable resin composition to a surface of a rare earth magnet by ejecting the droplet from a tip of a head by an inkjet system of ejecting droplets from the head”.
Sato teaches a method for forming a masking coating on a metal surface by inkjet method (Abstract), which further includes ejecting an ink composition containing polymerizable monomers that can be polymerized by active energy rays as ink droplets from an inkjet head; depositing the ejected ink droplets onto a metal surface having a surface tension of 55 to 75 mN/m; and irradiating the deposited droplets with active energy rays to form a masking layer on the metal, wherein the viscosity of the ink composition is 5 to 20 mPa·s, the surface tension of the ink composition is 20 to 40 mN/m, the ink droplet size is 1 to 15 pl, and the deposition resolution of the ink droplets is set to 600 dpi or higher [0012], which meets “(A)” in claim 1 and also meets the limitations in claims 6-9.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyabara with the technique of Sato, as doing so would heighten the patterning precision of the masking coating and make the surface smooth (Abstract, Sato).
Regarding claims 2-4, Sato teaches that the to prevent pinholes from occurring in the masking area (resist pattern), ink droplets of inkjet ink are typically deposited in an overlapping manner. In that overlapping area, ink droplets inevitably land on the ink film [0010] (meeting the claimed “connecting…” limitations in claims 2-3). Since the surface tension of ink droplets and ink films are almost the same, ink droplets that land on an ink film are far less likely to wet and spread compared to ink droplets that land on a metal surface [0010].
Sato further teaches: “Furthermore, the number of print passes is primarily determined by the nozzle spacing of the inkjet head and the ink droplet landing resolution. For example, to print with an ink droplet landing resolution of 1,440 dpi using an inkjet head with a nozzle spacing of 68 μm, the head must be moved 17 μm each time, and the print must be completed in four passes. This is to print the gaps that are formed due to the nozzle spacing of the inkjet head. Additionally, to improve rendering quality, printing may be done using four or more passes, such as eight, sixteen, or even more passes. This is to make the slight deviations in ink flight and variations in ink droplet size inherent in individual inkjet nozzles less noticeable by using a large number of nozzles randomly during printing. Thus, increasing the number of print passes can sometimes improve print quality.”
As such, it is implicit that the droplets are sequentially injected, because the nozzle is not continuously injecting a stream; rather, individual droplets means that the droplets must be sequentially ejected, meeting the respective limitations in claims 2-3. The printing being done using four or more passes meets the claimed “repeated” limitations of claims 3-4.
With regard to the repeating A and B sequentially, it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.). As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyabara in view of Sato, in order to sequentially repeat steps A and B, as doing so would allow for finely controlling the characteristics of the ejected droplets, due to there being less of a waiting time before the liquid droplets (which spread) cure (i.e. solidify, and stop spreading).
Regarding claim 5, Sato teaches that the ink droplet is irradiated within 1.5 seconds after ejection [0012], which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 10, Miyabara is silent regarding the claimed compound, but Sato teaches using a polymerizable monomer including a methacrylic group [0023], which is a radical acrylic monomer.
Regarding claim 11, Sato teaches that the thickness is 4-25 µm [0045], which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claims 12-13, Miyabara and Sato do not explicitly teach the average roughness Ra in claim 12 or Rz in claim 13, but Sato does teach that the surface of the resin film is smooth [0077]. Sato also teaches the following process of making:
Sato further teaches: “Furthermore, the number of print passes is primarily determined by the nozzle spacing of the inkjet head and the ink droplet landing resolution. For example, to print with an ink droplet landing resolution of 1,440 dpi using an inkjet head with a nozzle spacing of 68 μm, the head must be moved 17 μm each time, and the print must be completed in four passes. This is to print the gaps that are formed due to the nozzle spacing of the inkjet head. Additionally, to improve rendering quality, printing may be done using four or more passes, such as eight, sixteen, or even more passes. This is to make the slight deviations in ink flight and variations in ink droplet size inherent in individual inkjet nozzles less noticeable by using a large number of nozzles randomly during printing. Thus, increasing the number of print passes can sometimes improve print quality.”
Sato further teaches that the thickness is 4-25 µm [0045]. Thus, in view of the substantially identical process of making, compared to that in the instant specification, and the substantially similar droplet amounts, resolution, and film thickness, it is prima facie expected that the roughness overlaps with or is close to the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 14, Miyabara and Sato do not explicitly teach the claimed coating film density, but Sato teaches that the monomer that may be used includes a polymerizable monomer including a methacrylic group [0023], which is a radical acrylic monomer. It is prima facie expected that the density overlaps with, or is close, but not overlapping with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 15, Miyabara and Sato are silent regarding the magnet being a sintered magnet; however, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Miyabara’s magnet with a sintered magnet and performing the same process, as doing so would allow for rust-proofing and protecting the surface of any virtually any conventionally produced magnet, such as a sintered magnet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights