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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a feed mechanism capable of feeding a plurality of iron core members including a locking iron core member and a non-locking iron core member” in claim 1 the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as a press that selectively stamps, see paragraph 0041, or a press equipped with a ram, see paragraph 0068;
“a feed mechanism disposed at an upstream side of the squeeze in a conveyance direction of the iron core members, the feed mechanism being capable of selectively feeding the locking iron core member and the non-locking iron core member to the squeeze” in claim 6 the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as a press that selectively stamps, see paragraph 0041, or a press equipped with a ram, see paragraph 0068; and
“feeding a plurality of iron core members from a feed mechanism” in claim 7 the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as a press that selectively stamps, see paragraph 0041, or a press equipped with a ram, see paragraph 0068.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirama et al. (WO 2023/162830 and see also U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0202324 from the same patent family used as a translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hirama discloses a laminated body manufacturing device comprising: a feed mechanism (supplying mechanism 30 of a press machine including a punch and die and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the feed mechanism) capable of feeding a material or article worked upon including a plurality of iron core members including a locking iron (steel) core member (10) and a non-locking iron (steel) core member (20), the locking iron core member including locking pieces (13) at a plurality of locations of an outer periphery or an inner periphery thereof, and the non-locking iron core member not including the locking pieces; a receiving member (receiving jig 40) capable of receiving the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members fed from the feed mechanism; a dividing mechanism (isolating mechanism 50) disposed between the feed mechanism and the receiving member in a conveyance direction of the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members, the dividing mechanism controlling feeding of the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members to the receiving member; and a squeeze (squeezing portion 60) disposed between the feed mechanism and the dividing mechanism in the conveyance direction, the squeeze laterally supporting the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members being fed from the feed mechanism, and the squeeze being capable of conveying the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members laterally supported by the squeeze in the conveyance direction inside the squeeze, wherein: the dividing mechanism includes: locking parts (locking portions 51) that are movable between a locking position (P1), at which the locking parts respectively lock the materials or articles worked upon including the plurality of locking pieces of the locking iron core member discharged from the squeeze, and a non-locking position (P2), at which the locking parts respectively do not lock the materials or articles worked upon including locking pieces, and an actuating device (actuator 52) that moves the locking parts to the locking position and the non-locking position (Figures 1-5 and 8A-C and Paragraphs 0072-0086 and 0106-0110).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another” and the limitations in claims 2-4, the claims are directed to an apparatus wherein these limitations are directed to the materials and/or articles worked upon by the apparatus and/or functional limitations. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). Further, a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP 2114). Hirama teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of “at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another” and (regarding claim 4) “ wherein fastening portions are provided at the plurality of core pieces composing the block body, and the fastening portions are used for the bonding of the block body” such as wherein as the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus/device include a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces to be stamped each comprising fastening portions so that two adjacent core pieces are bonded to one another by the fastening portions upon feeding (the feed mechanism, including punch and die, includes the function of bonding the plate-shaped core pieces the same as in the instant invention, see paragraph 0042) to form at least one of the iron core members composed of a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another and (regarding claim 2) is capable of “wherein: the iron core members are plurally laminated and compose a block core, one block core or a laminated plurality of block cores composes a motor core, and the block core includes one locking iron core member or a plurality of locking iron core members disposed at a downstream side in the conveyance direction and one non-locking iron core member or a plurality of non-locking iron core members disposed at an upstream side in the conveyance direction” such as wherein as the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus include one locking iron core member or a plurality of locking iron core members disposed at a downstream side in the conveyance direction and one non-locking iron core member or a plurality of non-locking iron core members disposed at an upstream side in the conveyance direction which are then welded together (or each comprise adhesive or each laminated by the fastening portions) so that the iron core members are plurally laminated and compose a block core, one block core or a laminated plurality of block cores composes a motor core (the welding to form a block core and one block core or a laminated plurality of block cores composes a motor core the same as in the instant invention, see paragraphs 0030 and 0086, it being noted claim 2 does not expressly and positively require the device comprise structure for laminating/welding wherein Hirama as in the instant invention further teaches welding, paragraph 0072) and (regarding claim 3) is capable of “wherein, after the actuating device has moved the locking parts from the locking position to the non-locking position, the actuating device returns the locking parts to the locking position in a period in which the non-locking iron core member is passing through a location on a conveyance path of the iron core members that encompasses the locking position” wherein as the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus/device include the non-locking iron core member and the apparatus/device operated so that after the actuating device has moved the locking parts from the locking position to the non-locking position, the actuating device returns the locking parts to the locking position in a period in which the non-locking iron core member is passing through a location on a conveyance path of the iron core members that encompasses the locking position (see further paragraph 0112 of Hirama).
Regarding claim 5, Hirama teaches a rotating mechanism (conveying arm 43) that rotates the receiving member about a rotation axis along the conveyance direction (Paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 6, Hirama discloses a laminated body manufacturing device comprising: a squeeze (squeezing portion 60) capable of conveying materials or articles worked upon including a plurality of iron core members including a locking iron core member (10) and a non-locking iron core member (20) downward, the locking iron core member including locking pieces (13) at a plurality of locations of an outer periphery thereof, and the non-locking iron core member not including the locking pieces; a feed mechanism (supplying mechanism 30 of a press machine including a punch and die and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for a feed mechanism) disposed at an upstream side of the squeeze in a conveyance direction of the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members, the feed mechanism being capable of selectively feeding the materials or articles worked upon including the locking iron core member and the non-locking iron core member to the squeeze; and a receiving member (receiving jig 40) capable of receiving the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members fed from an end portion at a downstream side of the squeeze in the conveyance direction, wherein: the squeeze includes a squeeze upstream portion (81) disposed at the upstream side of the squeeze in the conveyance direction and a squeeze downstream portion (82) disposed at the downstream side of the squeeze in the conveyance direction, the squeeze upstream portion laterally supporting the materials or articles worked upon including both the locking iron core member and non-locking iron core member passing through an interior of the squeeze, and the squeeze downstream portion laterally supporting the materials or articles worked upon including the locking pieces of the locking iron core member passing through the interior of the squeeze (Figures 9, 10, and 12A-12C and Paragraphs 0123-0126).
As to the limitation in claim 6 of “at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another”, claim 6 is directed to an apparatus wherein as noted above these limitations are directed to the materials and/or articles worked upon by the apparatus and/or functional limitations. Hirama teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of “at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another” such as wherein as the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus/device include a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces to be stamped each comprising fastening portions so that two adjacent core pieces are bonded to one another by the fastening portions upon feeding (the feed mechanism, including punch and die, includes the function of bonding the plate-shaped core pieces the same as in the instant invention, see paragraph 0042) to form at least one of the iron core members composed of a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keisuke et al. (JP 2019-118169 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Keisuke discloses a laminated body manufacturing device comprising: a squeeze (cylinder 60) capable of conveying materials or articles worked upon including a plurality of iron (steel) core members including a locking iron core member (10P) and a non-locking iron core member (10Q) downward, the locking iron core member including locking pieces (convex portions 222A considered locking pieces) at a plurality of locations (at least 3) of an outer periphery thereof, and the non-locking iron core member not including the locking pieces; a feed mechanism (pressing punch not shown and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for a feed mechanism) disposed at an upstream side of the squeeze in a conveyance direction of the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members, the feed mechanism being capable of selectively feeding the materials or articles worked upon including the locking iron core member and the non-locking iron core member to the squeeze; and a receiving member (lift jig 80) capable of receiving the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members fed from an end portion at a downstream side of the squeeze in the conveyance direction, wherein: the squeeze includes a squeeze upstream portion (upper half of 60) disposed at the upstream side of the squeeze in the conveyance direction and a squeeze downstream portion (lower half of 60) disposed at the downstream side of the squeeze in the conveyance direction, the squeeze upstream portion laterally supporting the materials or articles worked upon including both the locking iron core member and non-locking iron core member passing through an interior of the squeeze, and the squeeze downstream portion laterally supporting the materials or articles worked upon including (ears including) the locking pieces of the locking iron core member passing through the interior of the squeeze (Figures 1, 5, 6, and 8 and Paragraphs 0009-0013, 0023, 0028-0032, and 0036).
As to the limitation in claim 6 of “at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another” as noted above claim 6 is directed to an apparatus wherein these limitations are directed to the materials and/or articles worked upon by the apparatus and/or functional limitations. Keisuke teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of “at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another” such as wherein as the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus/device include a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces to be punched/stamped each comprising fastening portions so that two adjacent core pieces are bonded to one another by the fastening portions upon feeding (the feed mechanism includes the function of bonding the plate-shaped core pieces the same as in the instant invention, see paragraph 0042) to form at least one of the iron core members composed of a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirama in view of Akira et al. (JP 7-7896 and see also the machine translation) and/or Toshio (JP 2009-291059 and see also the machine translation) and/or Satoshi (JP 2018-143034 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Hirama discloses a laminated body manufacturing method comprising: feeding a plurality of iron (steel) core members (10, 20) from a feed mechanism (supplying mechanism 30 of a press machine including a punch and die and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the feed mechanism), the plurality of iron core members including a locking iron core member (10) and a non-locking iron core member (20), the locking iron core member including locking pieces (13) at a plurality of locations of an outer periphery or an inner periphery thereof, and the non-locking iron core member not including the locking pieces; laterally supporting the iron core members fed from the feed mechanism, including using a squeeze (squeezing portion 60) disposed at a downstream side of the feed mechanism in a conveyance direction of the iron core members, the squeeze being capable of conveying the iron core members laterally supported by the squeeze in the conveyance direction inside the squeeze; selectively supporting the iron core members discharged from the squeeze, including using a dividing mechanism (isolating mechanism 50) that includes: locking parts (locking portions 51) that are movable between a locking position (P1), at which the locking parts respectively lock the plurality of locking pieces of the locking iron core member discharged from the squeeze, and a non-locking position (P2), at which the locking parts respectively do not lock the locking pieces, and an actuating device (actuator 52) that moves the locking parts to the locking position and the non-locking position, the locking parts disposed at the locking position locking the locking pieces of the locking iron core member for supporting the iron core members; moving the locking parts from the locking position to the non-locking position for feeding a plurality of the iron core members supported by the dividing mechanism to a receiving member (receiving jig 40); and returning the locking parts that have been moved to the non-locking position to the locking position in a period in which the non-locking iron core member is passing through a location on a conveyance path of the iron core members that encompasses the locking position (Figures 1-5 and 8A-C and Paragraphs 0072-0086 and 0106-0112).
Regarding claim 8, Hirama teaches rotating the receiving member by a predetermined angle about a rotation axis along the conveyance direction (Paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 9, Hirama teaches wherein: the iron core members are plurally laminated and compose a block core, one block core or a laminated plurality of block cores composes a motor core, and the block core includes one locking iron core member or a plurality of locking iron core members disposed at a downstream side in the conveyance direction of the block core and one non-locking iron core member or a plurality of non-locking iron core members disposed at an upstream side in the conveyance direction (Paragraphs 0010 and 0072).
Regarding claim 10, Hirama discloses a laminated body manufacturing method comprising: feeding a plurality of iron core members (10, 20) to a squeeze (squeezing portion 60), the plurality of iron core members including a locking iron core member (10) and a non-locking iron core member (20), the locking iron core member including locking pieces (13) at a plurality of locations of an outer periphery thereof, and the non-locking iron core member not including the locking pieces, and the squeeze including a squeeze upstream portion (81) disposed at an upstream side of the squeeze in a conveyance direction of the iron core members and a squeeze downstream portion (82) disposed at a downstream side of the squeeze in the conveyance direction, the squeeze upstream portion laterally supporting both the locking iron core member and non-locking iron core member passing through an interior of the squeeze, and the squeeze downstream portion laterally supporting the locking pieces of the locking iron core member passing through the interior of the squeeze; and receiving, at a receiving member (receiving jig 40), the locking iron core member that has passed through the squeeze downstream portion or the locking iron core member that has passed through the squeeze downstream portion and one non-locking iron core member or a plurality of non-locking iron core members supported at an upper face of the locking iron core member (Figures 9, 10, and 12A-12C and Paragraphs 0123-0126).
As to the limitations in claim 7 of “bonding a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces to one another to form a block body” and “at least one of the iron core members being composed as the block body” and in claim 10 of “bonding a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces to one another to form a block body” and “at least one of the iron core members being composed as the block body”, Hirama does not expressly teach at least one of the iron core members being composed as a block body fed to the squeeze by comprising a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces bonded to one another to form the block body. It is well understood in the same art the (iron) core members are composed as a block body fed to the squeeze (39 of Akira and including from a punch 32 and die 36 and 70 of Toshio and including from a punch 27 and die 37 and unlabeled under die 132 and punch 133 of Satoshi) by a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces (27 of Akira and 2a-2c of Toshio and 10 of Satoshi) bonded to one another to form the block body wherein fastening portions (5, 28 of Akira and C2 of Toshio and 42 of Satoshi) including hole portions (5, 28 of Akira and C1 of Toshio and 42 of Satoshi) are provided at the plurality of core pieces and used for the bonding of the block body (the feed mechanism includes the function of bonding the plate-shaped core pieces the same as in the instant invention) as evidenced by Akira (Figures 1, 2, 6, 15, and 16 and Pages 3 and 5 of the machine translation) and/or Toshio (Figures 1, 2, and 4 and Paragraphs 0021-0023) and/or Satoshi (Figures 3, 6, and 7 and Pages 7 and 8 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least one of the iron core members taught by Hirama being composed as a block body fed (from the feed/supplying mechanism 31, 32) to the squeeze (60) by comprising a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces bonded to one another to form the block body to laminate/couple/hold together the core pieces/iron core members as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi.
Regarding claims 1-6, Hirama is described above in full detail as to claims 1-6 wherein Hirama as modified by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi above teach as the materials or articles worked upon at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke in view of Satoshi.
Regarding claim 1, Keisuke discloses a laminated body manufacturing device comprising: a feed mechanism (pressing punch not shown and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for a feed mechanism) capable of feeding a material or article worked upon including a plurality of iron core members including a locking iron (steel) core member (10P) and a non-locking iron (steel) core member (10Q), the locking iron core member including locking pieces (convex portions 222A considered locking pieces) at a plurality of locations (at least 3) of an outer periphery or an inner periphery thereof, and the non-locking iron core member not including the locking pieces; a receiving member (lift jig 80) capable of receiving the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members fed from the feed mechanism; a dividing mechanism (mechanism 62) disposed between the feed mechanism and the receiving member in a conveyance direction of the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members, the dividing mechanism controlling feeding of the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members to the receiving member; and a squeeze (cylinder 60) disposed between the feed mechanism and the dividing mechanism in the conveyance direction, the squeeze laterally supporting the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members being fed from the feed mechanism, and the squeeze being capable of conveying the materials or articles worked upon including iron core members laterally supported by the squeeze in the conveyance direction inside the squeeze, wherein: the dividing mechanism includes: locking parts (62 wherein while a locking part is shown mere duplication of parts is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the duplication has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 and “B. Duplication of Parts”, and further it being well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to further include more than one locking part/engagement piece (1001) for conventional and predictable engagement as evidenced by Satoshi, see Figures 23-24 and Page 26 of the machine translation) that are movable between a locking position (Figure 6), at which the locking parts respectively lock the materials or articles worked upon including the plurality of locking pieces of the locking iron core member discharged from the squeeze, and a non-locking position (Figure 5), at which the locking parts respectively do not lock the materials or articles worked upon including locking pieces (Figures 1, 5, 6, and 8 and Paragraphs 0009-0013, 0023, 0028-0032, and 0036).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “an actuating device that moves the locking parts to the locking position and the non-locking position”, Keisuke does not expressly teach how the locking parts are moved wherein it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to use an actuator of a drive mechanism (1002) to move similar locking parts/engagement pieces (1001) as evidenced by Satoshi (Figures 23-24 and Page 26 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the device taught by Keisuke further comprise an actuating device of a drive mechanism for the conventional and predictable moving the locking parts to the locking position and the non-locking position as would have been well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Satoshi.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another” and the limitations in claims 2-4, as noted above the claims are directed to an apparatus wherein these limitations are directed to the materials and/or articles worked upon by the apparatus and/or functional limitations. Keisuke as modified by Satoshi teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above and is capable of “at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another” and (regarding claim 4) “wherein fastening portions are provided at the plurality of core pieces composing the block body, and the fastening portions are used for the bonding of the block body” such as wherein as the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus/device include a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces to be punched/stamped each comprising fastening portions so that two adjacent core pieces are bonded to one another by the fastening portions upon feeding (the feed mechanism includes the function of bonding the plate-shaped core pieces the same as in the instant invention, see paragraph 0042) to form at least one of the iron core members composed of a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another and (regarding claim 2) is capable of “wherein: the iron core members are plurally laminated and compose a block core, one block core or a laminated plurality of block cores composes a motor core, and the block core includes one locking iron core member or a plurality of locking iron core members disposed at a downstream side in the conveyance direction and one non-locking iron core member or a plurality of non-locking iron core members disposed at an upstream side in the conveyance direction” such as wherein as the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus include one locking iron core member or a plurality of locking iron core members disposed at a downstream side in the conveyance direction and one non-locking iron core member or a plurality of non-locking iron core members disposed at an upstream side in the conveyance direction which are then welded together (or each comprise adhesive or each laminated by the fastening portions) so that the iron core members are plurally laminated and compose a block core, one block core or a laminated plurality of block cores composes a motor core (the welding to form a block core and one block core or a laminated plurality of block cores composes a motor core the same as in the instant invention, paragraphs 0030 and 0086, it being noted claim 2 does not expressly and positively require the device comprise structure for laminating/welding) and (regarding claim 3) is capable of “wherein, after the actuating device has moved the locking parts from the locking position to the non-locking position, the actuating device returns the locking parts to the locking position in a period in which the non-locking iron core member is passing through a location on a conveyance path of the iron core members that encompasses the locking position” wherein as the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus/device include the non-locking iron core member (such as the non-locking iron core member of a size smaller than the squeeze and locking parts) and the apparatus/device operated so that after the actuating device has moved the locking parts from the locking position to the non-locking position, the actuating device returns the locking parts to the locking position in a period in which the non-locking iron core member is passing through a location on a conveyance path of the iron core members that encompasses the locking position.
Regarding claim 5, Keisuke teaches a rotating mechanism (mechanism which rotates the bottom plate 86 of the lift jig 80) that rotates the receiving member about a rotation axis along the conveyance direction (Paragraph 0032).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke in view of Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi.
Regarding claim 10, Keisuke discloses a laminated body manufacturing method comprising: feeding a plurality of iron (steel) core members (10P and 10Q) to a squeeze (cylinder 60), the plurality of iron core members including a locking iron core member (10P) and a non-locking iron core member (10Q), the locking iron core member including locking pieces (convex portions 222A considered locking pieces) at a plurality of locations of an outer periphery thereof, and the non-locking iron core member not including the locking pieces, and the squeeze including a squeeze upstream portion (upper half of 60) disposed at an upstream side of the squeeze in a conveyance direction of the iron core members and a squeeze downstream portion (lower half of 60) disposed at a downstream side of the squeeze in the conveyance direction, the squeeze upstream portion laterally supporting (ears including of the plurality of core members including) both the locking iron core member and non-locking iron core member passing through an interior of the squeeze, and the squeeze downstream portion laterally supporting (ears including) the locking pieces of the locking iron core member passing through the interior of the squeeze; and receiving, at a receiving member (lift jig 80), the locking iron core member that has passed through the squeeze downstream portion or the locking iron core member that has passed through the squeeze downstream portion and one non-locking iron core member or a plurality of non-locking iron core members supported at an upper face of the locking iron core member.
As to the limitation in claim 10 of “bonding a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces to one another to form a block body” and “at least one of the iron core members being composed as the block body”, Keisuke does not expressly teach at least one of the iron core members being composed as a block body fed to the squeeze by comprising a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces bonded to one another to form the block body. Akira, Toshio, and Satoshi are each described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least one of the iron core members taught by Keisuke being composed as a block body fed (from the feed mechanism of pressing punch and including a die) to the squeeze (cylinder 60) by comprising a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces bonded to one another to form the block body to laminate/couple/hold together the core pieces/iron core members as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi.
Regarding claim 6, Keisuke is described above in full detail as to claim 6 wherein Keisuke as modified by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi above teach as the materials or articles worked upon at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke and Satoshi as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi.
Regarding claims 1-5, Keisuke as modified by Satoshi above teach all of the limitations in claims 1-5 as set forth above. The following is an alternative rejection for the limitation in claim 1 of “at least one of the iron core members is composed as a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another” and claim 4 in the event it is somehow considered the device taught by Keisuke as modified by Satoshi is not necessarily capable of the limitation. Akira, Toshio, and Satoshi are each described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least one of the iron core members taught by Keisuke as modified by Satoshi being composed as a block body fed (from the feed mechanism of pressing punch and including a die) to the squeeze (cylinder 60) by comprising a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces bonded to one another (by fastening portions provided at the plurality of core pieces) to form the block body to laminate/couple/hold together the core pieces/iron core members as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/840,835 in view of Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/840,835 fully encompass claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the instant application (and including the supply mechanism is considered the feed mechanism, the isolation mechanism is considered the dividing mechanism, and the operating device is considered the actuating device and further the device taught by claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/840,835 regarding claims 1-4 and 6 teaching all of the structural limitations of the claims and configured for “iron” core members wherein as the materials or articles worked upon are iron core members and regarding claims 7, 9 and 10 wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the core pieces taught by claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/840,835 are iron core members as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as the conventional and predictable material as evidenced by Akira (Page 1 of the machine translation) and/or Toshio (Paragraph 0002) and/or Satoshi (Page 1 of the machine translation)) but for a specific teaching of bonding a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces to one another to form a block body and at least one of the iron core members being composed as the block body. Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/840,835 do not expressly teach at least one of the core pieces/iron core members being composed as a block body fed to the squeeze by comprising a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces bonded to one another to form the block body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least two of the core pieces taught by claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/840,835 is at least one iron core member being composed as a block body fed to the squeeze (from the supply mechanism including a punch and die) by comprising a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces bonded to one another (by fastening portions are provided at the plurality of core pieces and the fastening portions are used for the bonding of the block body) to form the block body to laminate/couple/hold together the core pieces/iron core members as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi (each described above in full detail).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 5 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/840,835 and Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of Keisuke. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/840,835 as modified by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi fully encompass claims 5 and 8 of the instant application but for a specific teaching of a rotating mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the device taught by claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-21 of copending Application No. 18/840,835 as modified by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi further comprise a rotating mechanism that rotates the receiving member by a predetermined angle about a rotation axis along the conveyance direction to rotate the receiving member for receiving the core members as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Keisuke (described above in full detail).
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 19/149,790. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 19/149,790 fully encompass claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the instant application (and including the supply mechanism is considered the feed mechanism, the conveyor is considered the receiving member, and the separation mechanism is considered the dividing mechanism and at least one of the iron core members is composed of a block body in which a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces are bonded to one another by fastening portions provided at the plurality of core pieces composing the block body see claims 7, 8, and 13).
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/512,313 in view of Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/512,313 fully encompass claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the instant application (and including the supply mechanism is considered the feed mechanism, the separation mechanism is considered the dividing mechanism, and the operation device is considered the actuating device) but for a specific teaching of bonding a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces to one another to form a block body and at least one of the iron core members being composed as the block body. Claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/512,313 do not expressly teach at least one of the iron core members being composed as a block body fed to the squeeze by comprising a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces bonded to one another to form the block body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least one of the iron core members taught by claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/512,313 being composed as a block body fed to the squeeze (from the supply mechanism including a punch and die) by comprising a plurality of plate-shaped core pieces bonded to one another (by fastening portions are provided at the plurality of core pieces and the fastening portions are used for the bonding of the block body) to form the block body to laminate/couple/hold together the iron core members as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi (each described above in full detail).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 5 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/512,313 and Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of Keisuke. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/512,313 as modified by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi fully encompass claims 5 and 8 of the instant application but for a specific teaching of a rotating mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the device taught by claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/512,313 as modified by Akira and/or Toshio and/or Satoshi further comprise a rotating mechanism that rotates the receiving member by a predetermined angle about a rotation axis along the conveyance direction to rotate the receiving member for receiving the core members as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Keisuke (described above in full detail).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
