CTNF 18/902,953 CTNF 83428 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 ) as being anticipated by Hamada (JP 2023087138) . Regarding claim 1, Hamada disclose: A rotating electric machine core (abstract, rotor 1) formed by laminating a laminating steel sheet (paras 34) that includes a leakage magnetic flux reduction area (bridges 111,112,1111,1112,1113), the laminating steel sheet comprising an insulating film applied to a surface of an individual sheet (para 20) or a predetermined number of laminated sheets, wherein the leakage magnetic flux reduction area is formed as a localized alloying portion that has undergone localized alloying processing (paras 26-28), and the localized alloying portion is pressed into a shape that creates a gap between laminated surfaces of the laminating steel sheet (paras 27-29,40,42). Regarding claim 2/1, Hamada disclose a rotating electric machine, comprising a stator or rotor that is constructed using the rotating electric machine core according to claim 1 (paras 1, 31, 42) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada (JP 2023087138) . Regarding claim 3, Hamada disclose: A method of manufacturing a rotating electric machine core (abstract, rotor 1) formed by laminating a laminating steel sheet (para 34) that includes a leakage magnetic flux reduction area (bridges 111,112,1111,1112,1113), the method comprising: a localized alloying processing step of forming a localized alloying area by applying localized alloying processing to the leakage magnetic flux reduction area (paras 27-29,40,42), where an insulating film is applied onto a surface of an individual sheet (para 20) or a predetermined number of laminated sheets of the laminating steel sheets; a pressing and punching step including a pressing step of pressing the localized alloying area so as to be thinner than other portions of the laminating steel sheet (paras 26-28,13), and a punching step of punching the laminating steel sheet into a shape of the rotating electric machine core (paras 2,10,13); and a laminating and forming step of laminating portions that have been thinned in the pressing step in the laminating steel sheet, so as to be to aligned to form gaps therebetween (paras 27-28 – insulating spaces), and forming the rotating electric machine core by laminating other portions of the laminating steel sheet in contact with each other through the insulating film (paras 26-30). Hamada disclose the invention as discussed above, but appear silent in particular step of manufacture. However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of manufacturing the invention using particular steps and procedures, since it would depend on cost (para 19), desired flux (para 14), reducing losses & increasing efficiency (para 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to manufacture applicant’s invention based on Hamada’s teachings. The motivation to do so would depend on cost (para 19), desired flux (para 14), reducing losses & increasing efficiency (para 2). In regards to claim 3, the method of making limitations are not germane to the patentability of the apparatus and have not been given patentable weight. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process". In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966(Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance the case it is obvious to manufacture the invention using particular steps and procedures. The motivation to do so would depend on cost (para 19), desired flux (para 14), reducing losses & increasing efficiency (para 2 of Hamada) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 571-272-3560. 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. NAISHADH N. DESAI Primary Examiner Art Unit 2834 /NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/902,953 Page 2 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/902,953 Page 3 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/902,953 Page 4 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/902,953 Page 5 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/902,953 Page 6 Art Unit: 2834 Application/Control Number: 18/902,953 Page 7 Art Unit: 2834
Prosecution Insights