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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted 02/26/2025 and 01/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3,5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Asano et al. (US 2018/0183285).
Regarding claim 1, Asano et al. discloses:
A rotating electrical machine rotor manufacturing method (abstract, para 52) comprising:
a step of providing a first core (14a, Fig 1, para 51) and a second core (14b), each having an axis (J) and a magnet arrangement hole (16a,b, 28);
a first setting step of setting the first core on a molding device (para 53);
a first filling step of, after the first setting step (para 42),
filling the magnet arrangement hole of the first core with an injection molding material including magnetic powder (para 42);
a second setting step of, after the first filling step (pars 52-58),
setting the second core (14b) together with the first core (14a) on the molding device in a state where the second core is adjacent to the first core in an axial direction (Fig 1, para 42; and
a second filling step of, after the second setting step,
filling the magnet arrangement hole (16a,b,28) of the second core (14b) with the injection molding material (Fig 1, paras 42, 52-58).
Regarding claim 3/1, Asano et al. discloses wherein the second setting step includes bringing the second core adjacent to the first core in an axial direction in a state where the magnet arrangement hole of the first core and the magnet arrangement hole of the second core partially overlap in an axial view (Fig 1, paras 52-58).
Regarding claim 5/1, Asano et al. discloses wherein the second setting step includes bringing the second core (14b) adjacent to the first core (14a) in an axial direction in a state where the magnet arrangement hole of the first core (16a) and the magnet arrangement hole (16b,28) of the second core (1b) overlap in an axial view (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Asano et al. discloses:
A rotating electrical machine rotor (abstract, Fig 1, paras 42-58) comprising:
a core (16a,b, Fig 1) having an axis (J) and a magnet arrangement hole (16a,b,28); and
a permanent magnet disposed in the magnet arrangement hole (paras 42,52-58),
wherein the permanent magnet includes a cured material of an injection molding material including magnetic powder (para 42 – inherently it is cured in order for the motor to function as disclosed), and
the cured material includes a joint portion (18,22d, Fig 1) aligned in an axial direction at a position axially inward with respect to an axial end in the magnet arrangement hole (paras 9,11-14).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2,4and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano et al. (US 2018/0183285).
Regarding claim 2/1, Asano et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, except the method comprising performing the second filling step before the injection molding material that fills the first core is completely cured.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of performing the second filling step before the injection molding material that fills the first core is completely cured, since it would be based on available space surrounding adjacent components, cost and ease of assemblage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Asano et al. wherein the method comprising performing the second filling step before the injection molding material that fills the first core is completely cured.
The motivation to do so would be based on available space surrounding adjacent components, cost and ease of assemblage.
Regarding claim 4/2, Asano et al. discloses wherein the second setting step includes bringing the second core (14b) adjacent to the first core (14a) in an axial direction in a state where the magnet arrangement hole of the first core (16a) and the magnet arrangement hole (16b,28) of the second core partially overlap in an axial view (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6/2, Asano et al. discloses wherein the second setting step (paras 52-58) includes bringing the second core (14b) adjacent to the first core (14a) in an axial direction in a state where the magnet arrangement hole of the first core (16a) and the magnet arrangement hole (16b) of the second core overlap in an axial view (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano et al. (US 2018/0183285) in view of Fujimaki et al. (EP 3128657).
Regarding claim 7/3, Asano et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the molding device includes an orientation device that is able to form an oriented magnetic field, an axial length of an effective area of the oriented magnetic field is shorter than a total of an axial length of the first core and an axial length of the second core, the first filling step is performed in a state where the first core is included in the axial range of the effective area of the oriented magnetic field, and the second filling step is performed in a state where the second core is included in the axial range of the effective area of the oriented magnetic field.
Fujimaki et al. disclose an apparatus wherein rotor slots are filled with a flowable mixture in oriented magnetic fields (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Asano et al. with the teachings of Fujimaki et al. wherein the molding device includes an orientation device that is able to form an oriented magnetic field, an axial length of an effective area of the oriented magnetic field is shorter than a total of an axial length of the first core and an axial length of the second core, the first filling step is performed in a state where the first core is included in the axial range of the effective area of the oriented magnetic field, and the second filling step is performed in a state where the second core is included in the axial range of the effective area of the oriented magnetic field.
The motivation to do so would facilitate to produce both the inner rotors concurrently and in parallel (mixed flow production) and simplify manufacturing (abstract, para 12 of Fujimaki et al.).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano et al. (US 2018/0183285) in view of Asano et al., further in view of Fujimaki et al. (EP 3128657).
Regarding claim 8/4, Asano et al. in view of Asano et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the molding device includes an orientation device that is able to form an oriented magnetic field, an axial length of an effective area of the oriented magnetic field is shorter than a total of an axial length of the first core and an axial length of the second core, the first filling step is performed in a state where the first core is included in the axial range of the effective area of the oriented magnetic field, and the second filling step is performed in a state where the second core is included in the axial range of the effective area of the oriented magnetic field.
Fujimaki et al. disclose an apparatus wherein rotor slots are filled with a flowable mixture in oriented magnetic fields (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Asano et al. in view of Asano et al. with the teachings of Fujimaki et al. wherein the molding device includes an orientation device that is able to form an oriented magnetic field, an axial length of an effective area of the oriented magnetic field is shorter than a total of an axial length of the first core and an axial length of the second core, the first filling step is performed in a state where the first core is included in the axial range of the effective area of the oriented magnetic field, and the second filling step is performed in a state where the second core is included in the axial range of the effective area of the oriented magnetic field.
The motivation to do so would facilitate to produce both the inner rotors concurrently and in parallel (mixed flow production) and simplify manufacturing (abstract, para 12 of Fujimaki et al.).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights