DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 10.10.24. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims below are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “gate mark being formed”, “a trace of a groove connecting two or more of the plurality of holes being formed” . Claim 16 being a product claim should be rephrased to not include process steps.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hiwa (US20220345013A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Hiwa discloses (Figs 7-10, 18) a magnet unit (3), comprising:
a holding member (3) including a first surface (51S), a second surface (52S) opposite to the first surface, and a plurality of holes (53,43a,43b,56) extending from the first surface to the second surface; and
a plurality of magnets (60) in the plurality of holes, respectively,
a gate mark (731) being formed on the first surface,
a trace (751 will leave trace) of a groove connecting two or more of the plurality of holes being formed on the second surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
628
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
698
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
680
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
682
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
696
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Hiwa discloses the magnet unit according to claim 16. Hiwa further discloses wherein the holding member (3) is a rotor core (Fig 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
554
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Hiwa discloses the magnet unit according to claim 16. Hiwa further discloses wherein the holding member (3) is cylindrical (Fig 7).
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 14,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiwa (US20220345013A1) in view of Okuyama et al (US20190238033A1), hereinafter Okuyama.
Regarding Claim 1, Hiwa discloses (Figs 7-10, 14-18) a method for manufacturing a magnet unit (3), the method comprising:
placing (Fig 15,S5) a holding member in a mold (80), the holding member (3) including a first surface (51S), a second surface (52S) opposite to the first surface, and a plurality of holes (53,43a,43b,56) extending from the first surface to the second surface, the mold including one or more gas venting grooves (85,851), said placing the holding member in the mold causing the second surface (52S faces 82S inner surface of second side mold 82) to face the one or more gas venting grooves, and causing two or more of the plurality of holes (43a,43b) to be connected to each other (43a,43b are connected axially and 43b is connected to 85 via 851 Para 0067) via the one or more gas venting grooves;
injection-molding a
after said injection-molding, removing the holding member (3) from the mold (Fig 15,S8 is breaking of gates) but does not explicitly disclose a magnetic material.
Okuyama discloses a magnetic material (40 is bond magnet Para 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed method of Hiwa with injection molding of magnetic material as taught by Okuyama in order to not fill the magnet holes fully and have desired shape of magnet that is best as per magnetic design choice.
PNG
media_image7.png
692
588
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
862
388
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
676
620
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
750
548
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 1. Hiwa in view of Okuyama further discloses wherein the plurality of holes includes a plurality of first holes and a plurality of second holes (Hiwa Fig 7 discloses pairs of 53, 43a, 43b,56) but does not explicitly disclose an area of an opening of each of the plurality of second holes is less than an area of an opening of each of the plurality of first holes in a plan view from a side of the second surface.
Okuyama (Fig 8) further discloses an area of an opening of each of the plurality of second holes (23b) is less than an area of an opening of each of the plurality of first holes (23a)in a plan view (Fig 8) from a side of the second surface (31 surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed method of Hiwa in view of Okuyama with plurality of unequal area holes as further taught by Okuyama in order to have desired shape of magnet with bridges that is best as per magnetic design choice.
PNG
media_image11.png
546
484
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 2. Hiwa in view of Okuyama further discloses wherein the one or more gas venting grooves (Hiwa, 85,851) includes a first groove (85,851), and said placing the holding member (3) in the mold (80) causes one of the plurality of first holes (43b of pair) and one of the plurality of second holes (other 43b of pair) to be connected to each other via the first groove (43b is connected to 85 via 851 Para 0067).
Regarding Claim 4, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 2. Hiwa in view of Okuyama further discloses wherein the one or more gas venting grooves (Hiwa, 85,851) comprise a plurality of gas venting grooves, and said placing the holding member (3) in the mold (80) causes one of the plurality of first holes (43b of pair) and one of the plurality of second holes (other 43b of pair) to be connected to each other via each of the plurality of gas venting grooves (43b is connected to 85 via 851 Para 0067).
Regarding Claim 5, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 2. Hiwa in view of Okuyama further discloses wherein the one or more gas venting grooves (Hiwa, 85,851) comprise a plurality of gas venting grooves (Hiwa, 85,851 is multiple), and said placing the holding member (3) in the mold (80) causes one of the plurality of first holes (43b of pair) and one of the plurality of second holes (other 43b of pair) to be connected to each other via one, but not two or more (43b is connected to 85 via 851 Para 0067), of the plurality of gas venting grooves .
Regarding Claim 9, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 1. Hiwa in view of Okuyama further discloses wherein the holding member (3) is a rotor core (Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 1. Hiwa in view of Okuyama further discloses wherein the holding member (3) is cylindrical (Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 1. Hiwa in view of Okuyama further discloses wherein said placing the holding member (3) in the mold (80) causes an edge of the one or more gas venting grooves (85) to align with an edge of the plurality of holes (43b is connected to 85 via 851 Para 0067).
Regarding Claim 14, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 1. Hiwa in view of Okuyama further discloses wherein the one or more gas venting grooves (85,851) include a plurality (Fig 17) of gas venting grooves radially spreading (85,851 have a radial width).
Regarding Claim 17, Hiwa discloses the magnet unit according to claim 16. Hiwa further discloses wherein the plurality of holes includes a plurality of first holes and a plurality of second holes (Hiwa Fig 7 discloses pairs of 53, 43a, 43b,56) but does not explicitly disclose an area of an opening of each of the plurality of second holes is less than an area of an opening of each of the plurality of first holes in a plan view from a side of the second surface.
Okuyama (Fig 8) further discloses an area of an opening of each of the plurality of second holes (23b) is less than an area of an opening of each of the plurality of first holes (23a)in a plan view (Fig 8) from a side of the second surface (31 surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed method of Hiwa in view of Okuyama with plurality of unequal area holes as further taught by Okuyama in order to have desired shape of magnet with bridges that is best as per magnetic design choice.
Claims 8,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiwa in view of Okuyama and Mishra et al (US20120049663A1), hereinafter Mishra.
Regarding Claim 8, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic material includes a resin and SmFeN-based magnetic powders.
Mishra discloses [Para 0030] wherein the magnetic material includes a resin and SmFeN-based magnetic powders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed method of Hiwa in view of Okuyama with choice of magnetic material as taught by Mishra in order to have right compromise between cost, quality, endurance, magnetic characteristics that is best as per magnetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 18, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the magnet unit according to claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic material includes a resin and SmFeN-based magnetic powders.
Mishra discloses [Para 0030] wherein the magnetic material includes a resin and SmFeN-based magnetic powders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed magnet unit of Hiwa in view of Okuyama with choice of magnetic material as taught by Mishra in order to have right compromise between cost, quality, endurance, magnetic characteristics that is best as per magnetic design choice.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiwa in view of Okuyama and Ishimatsu et al (US20150054196A1), hereinafter Ishimatsu.
Regarding Claim 13, Hiwa in view of Okuyama discloses the method according to claim 1but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more gas venting grooves extends along a surface of the mold that faces the second surface of the holding member from an outer edge of the holding member.
Ishimatsu discloses (Fig 4B) wherein each of the one or more gas venting grooves (17a) extends along a surface of the mold (17) that faces the second surface (14 surface facing 17) of the holding member (14) from an outer edge (Fig 4B, 14o) of the holding member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed method of Hiwa in view of Okuyama with gas venting groove extending from outer edge of holding member as taught by Ishimatsu in order to easily vent the trapped gas of resin from the larger outer circumference, thereby allowing proper filling of the resin inside the mold.
PNG
media_image12.png
440
478
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 12,15 are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 recites “The method according to claim 2, wherein the one or more gas venting grooves comprise a first gas venting groove and a second gas venting groove, and said placing the holding member in the mold causes one of the plurality of first holes and one of the plurality of second holes to be connected to each other via the first gas venting groove, and causes the first gas venting groove and the second gas venting groove to be connected to each other via the one of the plurality of first holes, and not via the one of the plurality of second holes. In Hiwa, the gas venting groove 85,851 is common to first and second hole 43b pair , which does not read on the above limitation. Therefore claim 6 is allowable.
Claim 7 recites “The method according to claim 2, wherein the one or more gas venting grooves includes a first gas venting groove, and said placing the holding member in the mold causes two or more of the plurality of first holes and two or more of the plurality of second holes to be connected to each other via the first gas venting groove”. In Hiwa, the gas venting groove 85,851 is common to first and second hole 43b pair , which does not read on the above limitation specifically “two or more”. Therefore claim 7 is allowable.
Claim 12 recites “The method according to claim 11, wherein said placing the holding member in the mold causes a footprint of the one or more gas venting grooves to enclose a footprint of the plurality of holes”. In Hiwa, there are no gas venting grooves that enclose the plurality of holes, the gas venting groove 85,851 is common to first and second hole 43b pair and overlaps only a part of 43b. Therefore claim 12 is allowable.
Claim 15 recites “The method according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of holes includes a first hole that crosses a first number of the plurality of gas venting grooves, and a second hole that crosses a second number of the plurality of gas venting grooves, the second number being less than the first number, an area of an opening of the first hole being greater than an area of an opening of the second hole. In Hiwa, there is only one gas venting groove 85,851, therefore will not read on above limitation “the second number being less than the first number”. Although Okuyama reads on the “an area of an opening of the first hole being greater than an area of an opening of the second hole”, it does not read on “the second number being less than the first number” as there is no specific disclosure of gas venting groove in Okuyama. Therefore claim 15 is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights