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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed, as the Application recites a method of making a magnet, the magnet itself, and a dynamoelectric machine with a magnet.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 3, Claims 31-37 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups 1-3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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 31, 33-34, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurath et al. (US 2024/0127994 A1) in view of Huang (NPL), Reiter (US 2003/0063993 A1), and Marinescu et al. (US 2011/0200839 A1).
Regarding Claim 31, Maurath teaches an electric motor, a dynamoelectric machine, comprising a multilayered magnet comprising alternating layers. (Paragraph 0028; Abstract; Fig. 4-5). Maurath teaches the multilayered magnet comprises a plurality of first layers, magnetic base material, and a plurality of second insulating layers, separating layers., adjacent to the first layers (Claims 1-2 of Maurath) Maurath teaches the plurality of first layers is a green body is formed by injection molding onto a mold, base plate, a mixture of a magnetic material and a binder. (Paragraph 0063, 0071-0072). Maurath teaches the second insulating layer comprises a further material of aluminum oxide (Paragraph 0034), which has an electrical conductivity (Huang) that overlaps the claimed range. Maurath teaches the second insulating layer has a thickness of less than 500 microns, which overlaps the claimed range. (Paragraph 0038) 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).
Maurath does not specifically teach the plurality of second layers are formed by injection molding.
Reiter teaches a multilayer magnet comprising magnetic first layer and insulating layer. (Abstract). Reiter teaches injection molding both layers (Paragraph 0006). Reiter teaches injection molding both the insulating and magnetic layers provides the advantage of structural strength to the magnet, higher density and allows for complex geometry for the magnet, if needed. (Paragraph 0004). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to injection mold the second insulating of Maurath for higher density, higher strength and allowance for more complex geometry for the resulting magnet.
Maurath and Reiter do not specifically teach the thickness of the insulating layers.
Marinescu teaches a multilayer magnet formed of alternating layers of magnetic layer and insulating layers (Abstract). Marinescu teaches the insulating layers should have a thickness of less than 500 microns and the magnetic layers should have a thickness of no less than 500 microns. (Paragraph 0038). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. 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). Marinescu teaches this thickness of the magnetic layers ensures the multilayer magnet can operate as operate as a magnet in various applications and ensure good electrical resistivity. (Paragraph 0001, 0007, 0038). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed thicknesses taught by Marinescu to the magnets of Maurath for a magnet that can be used in various applications and have good electrical resistivity.
Regarding Claim 33, Maurath teaches the magnetic material is SmCo powder or NdFeB powder (Paragraph 0047, 0056).
Regarding Claim 34, Maurath teaches the binder is a plastic binder. (Paragraph 0103).
Regarding Claim 36-37, Maurath teaches the further material is a ceramic, aluminum oxide. (Paragraph 0034)
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurath, Huang, Reiter, and Marinescu as applied in Claim 31, in further view of NXP (NPL).
Regarding Claim 32, Maurath teaches the magnet is a permeant type of magnet. (Claim 14 of Maurath) and the machine is an electric motor, a dynamoelectric machine. (Paragraph 0112). Maurath does not specifically teach the machine is a permanently excited synchronous motor.
NXP teaches permanent magnet (excited) synchronous motors are a type of motor that high-performance and high-efficiency motor offering higher control of motor, which use permanent magnets, (Page 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the motor be a PMSM device as a PMSM is a better motor with better control.
Claim 31 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurath et al. (US 2024/0127994 A1) in view of Liu (CN 113667823 A) and Marinescu et al. (US 2011/0200839 A1).
Regarding Claims 31 and 35, Maurath teaches an electric motor, a dynamoelectric machine, comprising a multilayered magnet comprising alternating layers. (Paragraph 0028; Abstract; Fig. 4-5). Maurath teaches the multilayered magnet comprises a plurality of first layers, magnetic base material, and a plurality of second insulating layers, separating layers., adjacent to the first layers (Claims 1-2 of Maurath) Maurath teaches the plurality of first layers is a green body is formed by injection molding onto a mold, a base plate, a mixture of a magnetic material and a binder. (Paragraph 0063, 0071-0072). Maurath teaches the second insulating layer has a thickness of less than 500 microns, which overlaps the claimed range. (Paragraph 0038) 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).
Maurath teaches the second insulating can be formed by applying an oxidizing agent to the first magnetic layers. (Paragraph 0035). Maurath does not specifically teach the insulating layers are formed by oxidizing agent is sodium peroxide and/or iron oxide.
Liu teaches sodium peroxide and potassium peroxide are suitable for oxidizing NdFeB magnetic material and is less polluting than other oxidation methods. (Page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use sodium peroxide to as the oxidizing agent in Maurath.
Maurath and do not specifically teach the thickness of the insulating layers.
Marinescu teaches a multilayer magnet formed of alternating layers of magnetic layer and insulating layers (Abstract). Marinescu teaches the insulating layers should have a thickness of less than 500 microns and the magnetic layers should have a thickness of no less than 500 microns. (Paragraph 0038). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. 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). Marinescu teaches this thickness of the magnetic layers ensures the multilayer magnet can operate as operate as a magnet in various applications and ensure good electrical resistivity. (Paragraph 0001, 0007, 0038). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed thicknesses taught by Marinescu to the magnets of Maurath for a magnet that can be used in various applications and have good electrical resistivity.
Regarding Claim 33, Maurath teaches the magnetic material is SmCo powder or NdFeB powder (Paragraph 0047, 0056).
Regarding Claim 34, Maurath teaches the binder is a plastic binder. (Paragraph 0103).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurath, Liu, and Marinescu as applied in Claim 31, in further view of NXP (NPL).
Regarding Claim 32, Maurath teaches the magnet is a permeant type of magnet. (Claim 14 of Maurath) and the machine is an electric motor, a dynamoelectric machine. (Paragraph 0112). Maurath does not specifically teach the machine is a permanently excited synchronous motor.
NXP teaches permanent magnet (excited) synchronous motors are a type of motor that high-performance and high-efficiency motor offering higher control of motor, which use permanent magnets, (Page 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the motor be a PMSM device as a PMSM is a better motor with better control.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights