DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 23 July 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed, claims 1-11 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 23 July 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 6-7 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, that Takahashi does not disclose the magnet being formed by “additive manufacturing”. Since Leonardi, not Takahashi, was originally cited as disclosing this method, this argument is moot.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 7-9 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that a combination including Leonardi would “not result in the claimed invention and besides would not result in any functional method” because Leonardi allegedly teaches away from the use of additional supports such as that present in Takahashi. However, while the cited disclosure of Leonardi does not use such additional supports, there is no evidence that Leonardi specifically disparages or discourages the use thereof. "A reference does not teach away... if it... does not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage' investigation into the invention claimed" (DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)(quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004))). Arguing that the prior art merely teaches something different than the claimed invention does not demonstrate that the prior art criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages against the claimed invention.
The argument further alleges various disadvantages and negative effects which would, according to the argument, necessarily result from such a combination. However, no evidence is provided as to why these hypothetical effects, such as deformation of the sheet or decreased magnetic flux density, would necessarily occur. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Takahashi and Leonardi are maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2022/0006339 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Takahashi”, in view of Leonardi et al. (US 2002/0182411 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Leonardi”.
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a method for manufacturing a rotor [40] for an electric machine [1] (fig. 22-24; ¶ 0124, 0614-0615), comprising:
a body [41] and at least one magnet [131,132] which is carried by the body [41] and which comprises at least one first unitary magnet [131] and at least one second unitary magnet [132] (fig. 22-24; ¶ 0294-0295), said method comprising:
- forming the first unitary magnet [131] by depositing a magnetic material over a support [133] distinct from the body [41] (fig. 23; ¶ 0296-0297);
PNG
media_image1.png
245
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- fastening the support [133] to the body [41] (fig. 23; ¶ 0297-0298; the magnets are secured together with the support, and fixed to the body by an adhesive).
Takahashi does not disclose forming the first unitary magnet [131] by additive manufacturing.
Leonardi discloses a method for manufacturing a rotor [44] of an electrical machine [40] comprising a first unitary magnet [36] (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0060), wherein the first unitary magnet [36] is formed by additive manufacturing (¶ 0042; “bulk material 26 preferably includes a permanent magnet material 28 and a soft magnetic binder material 30” which is “produced by the cold-spray process”; the present application defines additive manufacturing as including cold spraying and/or 3D printing).
PNG
media_image2.png
308
945
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the permanent magnets of Takahashi by an additive manufacturing process such as cold spraying of a magnetic material as taught by Leonardi, in order to reduce the formation of unwanted oxides and enabling the precise build-up of magnetic material atop a carrier into the final desired shape of the magnet thereby improving magnetic properties (¶ 0011 of Leonardi).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi, in view of Leonardi, discloses the method for manufacturing a rotor [40] according to claim 1, as stated above.
Leonardi further discloses that the first unitary magnet [36] is formed by cold spraying of a magnetic material [26] (¶ 0042; “bulk material 26 preferably includes a permanent magnet material 28 and a soft magnetic binder material 30”).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi, in view of Leonardi, discloses the method for manufacturing a rotor [40] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the fastening step comprises positioning a face of the first unitary magnet [131] opposite and at a distance of less than 1 mm from a face of the second unitary magnet [132] (fig. 23; ¶ 0297; the magnets are in direct contact with one another, fixed via an “adhesive agent” which is not shown, implying a negligible thickness).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi, in view of Leonardi, discloses the method for manufacturing a rotor [40] according to claim 1, as stated above, comprising a step of forming the second unitary magnet [132] by depositing a magnetic material over the body [41] (fig. 23; ¶ 0297-0298; the magnets are secured together with the support, and fixed to the body by an adhesive).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi, in view of Leonardi, discloses the method of manufacturing a rotor [40] according claim 4, as stated above, wherein the body [41] comprises a stack of metal laminations (¶ 0439; “magnetic steel plates”) and wherein the second unitary magnet [132] is formed by depositing a magnetic material over at least two of said metal laminations (fig. 23; ¶ 0297-0298; the magnets are secured together with the support, and fixed to the body by an adhesive; since the rotor is made up of plural “plates”, it must include at least two laminations upon which the magnets and support are mounted).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi, in view of Leonardi, discloses the method for manufacturing a rotor [40] according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein said at least one second unitary magnet [132] has a shape complementary to that of said at least one first unitary magnet [131] (fig. 23; ¶ 0297; “each of the first magnets 131 and a corresponding one of the magnetic members 133 has a thickness identical with that of the second magnet 132”) and wherein the fastening step comprises nesting said at least one first unitary magnet [131] with said at least one second unitary magnet [132] (fig. 23; ¶ 0297).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi, in view of Leonardi, discloses the method for manufacturing a rotor [40] according to claim 4, as stated above, wherein the support [133] is made of a magnetically-conductive material (¶ 0297; “magnetic steel sheet, soft iron, or a dust core material”) and wherein, in the step of fastening the support [133], it is provided to position the support [133] at the periphery of the rotor [40] (fig. 22-23).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi, in view of Leonardi, discloses the method of manufacturing a rotor [40] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the first unitary magnet [131] is formed over an inner surface of the support [133] (fig. 23) and wherein a step of forming the second unitary magnet [132] is provided for by depositing a magnetic material over an outer surface of the support [133] opposite to the inner surface (fig. 22-23; ¶ ¶ 0297-0298; the first magnet is secured to the inner radial side of the support, and the second magnets are fixed to the outer circumferential sides of the support).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi, in view of Leonardi, discloses the method for manufacturing a rotor [40] according to claim 8, as stated above, wherein said support [adhesive agent] is made of an electrically-insulating material (¶ 0297, 0391; in an alternative interpretation, the adhesive agent may be considered the “support”, which fastens the magnets to the body and is made of “epoxy, low in electric permittivity”).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi, in view of Leonardi, discloses the method for manufacturing a rotor [40] according to claim 8, as stated above, wherein the body [41] comprises at least one recess [135] and wherein, in the step of fastening the support [133], it is provided to insert the support [133] into said recess [135] (fig. 23, 24b; ¶ 0298; “keys 134 [are] contoured to conform with the recessed shape of the key grooves 135”).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi discloses a rotor [40] for an electric machine [1] (fig. 22-24; ¶ 0124, 0614-0615) comprising:
- a body [41] (fig. 22-24; ¶ 0294-0295);
- at least one magnet [131,132] which is carried by the body [41] (fig. 22-24; ¶ 0294-0295); and
- a support [133] distinct from the body [41] and affixed on the body [41] (fig. 23; ¶ 0296-0297);
PNG
media_image1.png
245
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein said magnet [131,132] comprises at least:
- a first unitary magnet [131] which is formed by depositing a magnetic material over the support [133] (fig. 23; ¶ 0296-0297); and
- a second unitary magnet [132] (fig. 23; ¶ 0297-0298; the magnets are secured together with the support, and fixed to the body by an adhesive).
Takahashi does not disclose forming the first unitary magnet [131] by additive manufacturing.
Leonardi discloses a method for manufacturing a rotor [44] of an electrical machine [40] comprising a first unitary magnet [36] (fig. 1-5; ¶ 0060), wherein the first unitary magnet [36] is formed by additive manufacturing (¶ 0042; “bulk material 26 preferably includes a permanent magnet material 28 and a soft magnetic binder material 30” which is “produced by the cold-spray process”; the present application defines additive manufacturing as including cold spraying and/or 3D printing).
PNG
media_image2.png
308
945
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the permanent magnets of Takahashi by an additive manufacturing process such as cold spraying of a magnetic material as taught by Leonardi, in order to reduce the formation of unwanted oxides and enabling the precise build-up of magnetic material atop a carrier into the final desired shape of the magnet thereby improving magnetic properties (¶ 0011 of Leonardi).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Lamarre et al. (US 2024/0213834 A1) discloses a rotor comprising a body and multiple unitary magnets.
Kolehmainen et al. (US 2023/0299651 A1) discloses a rotor comprising first and second unitary magnets secured by a support to a body.
Ibrahim et al. (US 2022/0278568 A1) discloses a rotor comprising first and second unitary magnets disposed on a body and fixed by a support (fig. 6-9), wherein the unitary magnets are formed using cold spray additive manufacturing.
Ravaud (US 2021/0218290 A1; US 2020/0028393 A1) discloses a rotor comprising first unitary magnets fixed within a body and second unitary magnets fixed by a support.
Loder et al. (US 2019/0199151 A1) discloses a rotor comprising permanent magnets formed using a method of electroless deposition, physical vapor deposition (PVD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), cold spraying, gas condensation, etc.
Ginder et al. (US 2004/0202797 A1) discloses a method for manufacturing a rotor of an electrical machine comprising a first unitary magnet, wherein the first unitary magnet is formed by cold spraying of a magnetic material.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights