DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 of US. Patent Application No. 19/134,211, filed on 30 May, 2025, were presented for examination. In the response filed 21 July, 2026, new claim 8 was added. Claims 1-8 are currently pending in the 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4 August, 2026, was filed before the mailing date of this Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 July, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the top of page 6, Applicant requests withdrawal of the objection to claims 2-3, which depend from a rejected independent claim 1, because Applicant alleges the rejections to claim 1 are not proper. This request must be denied because claim 1 still stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2), as discussed below.
At the bottom of page 6, Applicant addresses the rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Okada. Applicant cites case law to the effect that “anticipation requires the disclosure in a single prior art reference of each element of the claim under consideration” and then provides limitations of claim 1 that, since they are in claim 1, will not be listed here. Applicant then characterizes Okada as having the rib projecting toward the inner peripheral side, and the Examiner does not contest this. Okada’s rib does project inwardly, as asserted by Applicant at the top of page 7, and Applicant contrasts this with the rib of the present application, which protrudes radially outward. Applicant follows this with: “accordingly, Okada fails to explicitly or inherently disclose ‘a rib formed in a shape protruding in a radial direction’ as recited by claim 1”.
The motor arts, and generally all arts dealing with rotors, almost always utilize a cylindrical coordinate system for describing the rotating and stationary components. A cylindrical coordinate system, which Applicant invokes de facto when using terms like “radial direction”, has three coordinate reference directions: axial, radial, and circumferential. None of these has a vector unless modified with an additional, more specific adjective. For example, “in the axial direction” would mean toward the top and/or toward the bottom, while “in the radial direction” means a) outward from the axis of rotation and/or b) inward toward the axis of rotation from an area away from the axis unless modified with the specific term(s) outward or inward. The claim does not say “radially outward” and in a broadest reasonable interpretation the claimed term “protruding in a radial direction” includes “protruding in a radially inward direction” and thus Okada anticipates the limitation, and thus claim 1. It might in other situations be possible that this assertion by Applicant (that the claimed language by differentiating over Okada due to the rib protrudes radially outwardly) could serve as an estoppel, and in other instances this might be the case, but in this particular instance the universally accepted and important terms “radial”, “axial”, etc. are too important to be interpreted narrowly unless the additional modifier is present. And after all, claim 1 only requires “a” radial direction for the protruding, such that it seems claim 1 is and originally was meant to include “radially inward” anyway.
In the first full paragraph of page 7, Applicant alleges that Okada does not explicitly or inherently disclose a single cylindrical portion as claimed and that, instead, Okada includes a two-layer structure, which “is structurally distinct from the single ‘cylindrical portion’ recited by claim 1.” The Examiner counters that Okada’s two-layer structure has been united into a single cylindrical portion, and therefore meets the respective claim limitation. There is no limitation in the claim to preclude this interpretation. Any time two things are fused together to purposefully create a new structure, the new structure becomes and remains one structure.
The last full paragraph of page 7 goes into the product-by-process framework invoked by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1 under Okada. Applicant cites MPEP 2113, particularly the clause about the structure implied by the process step. The next few cited lines from the MPEP were already included in the prior Office Action and importantly include that “the structure implied by the process steps should be considered… when the product can only be defined by the process steps…” (which is not the case here) “…or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product…” The Examiner conceded in the prior Office Action (and in the rejections below) that he does mean this to include that he is requiring of the prior art that it teach at least an injection molded rotor magnet and evidence of it having been made by an injection molding process, as well as the rib comprising a thickness. However, Applicant keeps asserting dimensional comparisons of the rib and cylindrical portion thickness relative to the pinpoint gate which is part of the manufacturing process, not of the rotor magnet per se, which is the preamble of the claim. The Examiner believes the dimensions of the pinpoint gate are part of the rotor magnet itself only when and if the traces are part of the claim, but in claim 1 they are not.
To repeat from the rejections of the prior Office Action (and below), the preamble does not begin “a rotor magnet and a pinpoint gate…”, nor does it claim a “process of making a rotor magnet…” which would positively invoke the pinpoint gate. According to MPEP Section 2113, “product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps” – the step being in this case “formed by injection-molding…. through a pinpoint gate…” which ties the gate to a method step. The Examiner has determined that the structure implied by the gate device used to make it does require at least an injection molded rotor magnet and evidence of it having been made by an injection molding process, as well as the cylindrical portion and rib comprising a thickness; however the claim is directed to a “rotor magnet” and the means by which the claim can be definitively said to apply to an allegedly infringing or prior art rotor magnet resides outside/beyond the combination of the rotor magnet and the gate and injection molding device that made it, particularly for instance once the product has left the manufacturing facility. According to the same MPEP section, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as 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 other words, the end product, which is the rotor magnet of Okada, could have been made by a pinpoint gate comprising an inner diameter between the thickness of the cylindrical portion [3] and the thickness of the rib [31]. The claim does not recite the inner diameter in a way sufficient to limit it to the mouth portion of the tip/gate that left the traces [4]. The claim is broad enough that the gate tip end portion of the injection device that made Okada’s rotor magnet could have various inner diameters not associated with the size of the traces, even though figs. 13-14 show a gate tip end portion whose inner diameter is smaller than the thickness of the cylindrical portion. In the preamble of claim 1, the rotor magnet is “formed by injection-molding…. through a pinpoint gate…” and therefore the rotor magnet’s structural limitations alone define the scope of the claim, as the pinpoint gate is not positively claimed and a person examining the device of Okada per se, already in use or on the market, would not be able to definitively establish that the gate that made it did not have some tip inner diameter within or outside of the size range put forth in the claim, without tracing the device’s journey back to the facility where it was made.
Thus, contrary to the request at the top of page 8, the Office maintains the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Okada.
Beginning on line 10 of page 8, Applicant proceeds to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kim. Applicant alleges that Kim does not disclose the pinpoint gate. Without repeating the counter-arguments that were used for Okada above (since they are included in the rejection under Kim, below), the Examiner must counter that the claim does not positively recite the pinpoint gate – it is invoked only via mention of the process by which the product is made, and accordingly, per the MPEP section 2112, the pinpoint gate and/or its dimension are only part of the product when its use in manufacture leads to a relic, such as the trace of claims 2 and 8, that is actually extant on said product. The last full paragraph of page 8 is substantially identical to the corresponding paragraph vis-à-vis Okada, and the Examiner’s counter is the same. The claim can compare the dimensions of the rotor magnet to any machine or tool that was used in the process of manufacture – if that machine/tool did not leave a trace, a trace that is positively claimed, the claim can only be compared to a prior art, or a potentially infringing, rotor magnet, on its own current properties. Once it has left the manufacturing facility, the pinpoint gate is out of consideration. The factory that made the rotor magnet could have been already demolished. Or, for example, if a potentially infringing rotor magnet was made in another country, and then an injunction were filed against a competitor in the United States, the amount of evidence required to prove the rotor magnet’s origins, all the way down to what pinpoint gate was being used on a particular mold, on a particularly day or for a particular batch of motor components, would be more than is possible to assemble. MPEP section 2112 is extremely relevant here, and for all the reasons in this Office Action, the Examiner must refute these arguments based on the diameter of the pinpoint gate. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
The bulk of page 9 deals with the traversal of the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Suzuki. Applicant lists the limitation of claim 7 including “a rib formed in a shape protruding in the radial direction at an end potion of the cylindrical portion in an axial direction”. Applicant characterizes Suzuki’s ribs 13 as extending continuously from the upper end to the lower end of the body, which the Examiner does not contest. The ribs do extend from one end to the other. Applicant asserts that this means that Suzuki does not disclose a rib at an end portion. The Examiner notes that claim 1 was very specific in saying that the rib is at one end and not the other. Due to that, Suzuki was not applied to claim 1. However, the language of claim 7 does not preclude ribs at both ends. Suzuki has a rib “at an end portion” and it also has said rib at the other end portion. Claim 7 does not have the exclusive language of claim 1 and because the Examiner believes Applicant filed claim 7 to omit that limitation of claim 1 on purpose, he will not interpret this paragraph as an estoppel to thereby invoke it to breathe the exclusive language into claim 7 – if Applicant wished for claim 7 to be allowed based on the rib not continuing to the other end, the Examiner believes Applicant would have put that limitation in claim 7 like they did in claim 1.
The last full paragraph of claim 9 characterizes various features of Suzuki, and focuses on the gap [16] of Suzuki to counter the part of the rejection wherein “the outer peripheral surface [13a] of the cylindrical portion is fitted in an inner peripheral surface [15a] of the rotor housing [15]”. The Examiner concedes that there is a gap, but does not understand how this applies to the claim in a broad interpretation. In the characterization of the bottom of page 9 of the response, Applicant seems to be suggesting that the outer surface of the rib is not part of the outer surface of the cylindrical portion. All the Examiner can respond is that it is part of it. When Applicant characterizes Suzuki such that “only the rib apical parts 13a contact the frame 15, not the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion…”, the Examiner’s counter is that the rib apical parts are part of the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion – in fact they are the outermost surfaces of said cylindrical portion.
The transition from page 9 to page 10 defaults to more arguments about the pinpoint gate, but does not flesh them out, so the Examiner defaults to the MPEP citation and rationale provided in the rejection of claim 7 below and in the prior Office Action.
Applicant in page 10, apropos the rejections of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. as unpatentable over Okada in view of Suzuki, traverses said rejections by maintaining that the Office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the Office failed to properly determine the scope and content of the cited references. The Examiner counters that the scope and content of the references was not included in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections per se, exactly because these two references had been so thoroughly utilized and discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections that any reader of the Office Action would not need to be refreshed of their contents at this point in the Action. If Okada anticipates claim 1 and nearly anticipates claim 7 save for one slight limitation, and Suzuki nearly anticipates claim 1 save for one slight limitation, the Examiner cannot see what more discussion of them would have helped Applicant better understand their scope and contents (as per the Graham v. Deere requirements).
In the last paragraph of page 10, Applicant asserts that Suzuki fails to cure the deficiencies of Okada. However, although the Examiner’s explanation of how Suzuki would be obvious to modify Okada is detailed (below and in the prior Office Action) was duly specific and detailed, Applicant does not point out the exact defect in the rejection or in the motivation to combine. Thus the Office cannot counter the argument at this point.
Concerning formal matters, Applicant asserts that the substitute drawing sheets overcome the drawing objection posed in the prior Office Action. The Examiner concurs, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okada (US 2025/0105686 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Okada teaches a rotor magnet [permanent magnet rotor 10] (see title and ¶ 0032-0033) provided turnably relative to a substrate to which a stator or a rotation angle sensor is fixed (it is an inner rotor located on a shaft [1] with a rotation axis and therefore it is “provided turnably” – although the substrate, stator, and/or sensor are not explicitly recited in the reference, the body of the claim does not positively claim the stator and/or sensor to give the relevant portion of the preamble patentable weight – also, the reference is so clearly directed to being used inside an annular stator that its authors clearly did not bother describing this, the word “electric motor” sufficing to let a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art know that the stator is included), disposed so as to face the stator or the rotation angle sensor (it is thus disposed on the shaft, since the stator would have to surround the inner rotor in use for the motor to work), and formed by injection-molding a material mixture of a magnetic material and a resin through a pinpoint gate (see ¶ 0035 which recites “the gate connection portion 4 is connected to a gate that is an inlet of a resin in an injection molding machine…” and ¶ 0059 which recites “the first magnetic resin material is, for example, a ferrite bonded magnet material…” because ferrite is not a resin, the term “ferrite bonded” means that the resin is mixed with a magnetic material), the rotor magnet [10] comprising:
a cylindrical portion [outer peripheral magnet 3] formed in a cylindrical shape (see ¶ 0035 and annotated excerpts of figs. 1-2 attached below) and having a plurality of magnetic poles [N-S-N-S] arranged (see fig. 1 and ¶ 0034-0038); and
PNG
media_image1.png
331
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a rib [semicircular projection 31] formed in a shape (semicircle – see ¶ 0035) protruding in a radial direction (Radial Direction drawn and labeled by the Examiner in the excerpts above) at only one of two end portions (the Examiner has labeled the one end portion and the other end portion, thereby adding up to two end portions, only the one end portion having the rib [31] of the cylindrical portion [3] in an axial direction,
wherein a thickness of the cylindrical portion is smaller than an inner diameter of a pinpoint gate tip end portion, and
a thickness of the rib is equal to or larger than the inner diameter of the pinpoint gate tip end portion {it is noted that the pinpoint gate, and therefore its tip end portion, are part of the apparatus/process making the rotor magnet – the pinpoint gate itself is outside the scope of the “rotor magnet” of the preamble. The preamble does not begin “a rotor magnet and a pinpoint gate…”, nor does it claim a “process of making a rotor magnet…” which would positively invoke the pinpoint gate. According to MPEP Section 2113, “product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps” – the step being in this case “formed by injection-molding…. through a pinpoint gate…” which ties the gate to a method step. The Examiner has determined that the structure implied by the gate device used to make it does require at least an injection molded rotor magnet and evidence of it having been made by an injection molding process, as well as the cylindrical portion and rib comprising a thickness; however the claim is directed to a “rotor magnet” and the means by which the claim can be definitively said to apply to an allegedly infringing or prior art rotor magnet resides outside/beyond the combination of the rotor magnet and the gate and injection molding device that made it, particularly for instance once the product has left the manufacturing facility. According to the same MPEP section, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as 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 other words, the end product, which is the rotor magnet of Okada, could have been made by a pinpoint gate comprising an inner diameter between the thickness of the cylindrical portion [3] and the thickness of the rib [31]. The claim does not recite the inner diameter in a way sufficient to limit it to the mouth portion of the tip/gate that left the traces [4]. The claim is broad enough that the gate tip end portion of the injection device that made Okada’s rotor magnet could have various inner diameters not associated with the size of the traces, even though figs. 13-14 show a gate tip end portion whose inner diameter is smaller than the thickness of the cylindrical portion. In the preamble of claim 1, the rotor magnet is “formed by injection-molding…. through a pinpoint gate…” and therefore the rotor magnet’s structural limitations alone define the scope of the claim, as the pinpoint gate is not positively claimed and a person examining the device of Okada per se, already in use or on the market, would not be able to definitively establish that the gate that made it did not have some tip inner diameter within or outside of the size range put forth in the claim, without tracing the device’s journey back to the facility where it was made}.
With respect to claim 4/1, Okada teaches the rotor magnet of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the rib is disposed so as to avoid a boundary {the Examine has labeled the boundary in the new fig. 1 excerpt below that is avoided by the rib [31] (clocked 36o from it)} between the plurality of magnetic poles [N-S] as viewed in the axial direction (along the shaft 1) of the rotor magnet [10].
PNG
media_image2.png
332
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20220048596 A, reference provided herein with machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, Kim teaches a rotor magnet [hub 110] provided turnably relative to a substrate [plate 10] to which a stator [30] or a rotation angle sensor is fixed (see ¶ 0004-0006 which are descriptive of fig. 1, which is the prior art over which the improvement is implemented – the Office is interpreting the inventive embodiment of figs. 2-3 and ¶ 0033-0071 as including the stationary features of fig. 1, even though description of them is omitted in the description of figs. 2-3 which is directed only to the rotor components) disposed so as to face the stator [30] or the rotation angle sensor, and formed by injection-molding a material mixture of a magnetic material and a resin (¶ 0046 recites “the hub 110 may be formed of a synthetic resin material…. and the magnet 120 may be a ferritic plastic magnet in which ferrite powder and resin are mixed…”) through a pinpoint gate {see ¶ 0050 which recites “such a magnet 120 may be integrally provided on an inner circumference of the body 112 of the hub 110 by an insert injection method when the hub 110 of a plastic material is injection-molded” -- it is noted that the pinpoint gate, and therefore its tip end portion, are part of the apparatus/process making the rotor magnet – the pinpoint gate itself is outside the scope of the “rotor magnet” of the preamble. The preamble does not begin “a rotor magnet and a pinpoint gate…”, nor does it claim a “process of making a rotor magnet…” both of which would positively invoke the pinpoint gate. According to MPEP Section 2113, “product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps” – the step being in this case “formed by injection-molding…. through a pinpoint gate…” which ties the gate to a method step. The Examiner has determined that the structure implied by the gate device used to make it does require at least an injection molded rotor magnet and evidence of it having been made by an injection molding process, as well as the cylindrical portion and rib comprising a thickness; however the claim is directed to a “rotor magnet” and the means by which the claim can be definitively said to apply to an allegedly infringing or prior art rotor magnet resides outside/beyond the combination of the rotor magnet and the gate and injection molding device that made it, particularly for instance once the product has left the manufacturing facility}, the rotor magnet [110] comprising:
a cylindrical portion [magnet 120] formed in a cylindrical shape and having a plurality of magnetic poles arranged (see ¶ 0048 which recites “the magnet 120 may be a polar anisotropic magnet…”, wherein the term anisotropic combined with the term polar necessitates the existence of at least two poles, although the latter are not explicitly discussed); and
PNG
media_image3.png
348
1141
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a rib [protrusion 122] formed in a shape [semi-cylindrical bulge] protruding in a radial direction (outward away from the shaft 130) at only one of two end portions (the Examiner has labeled the two end portions in the joint excerpt of figs. 1-3 attached above) of the cylindrical portion [120] in an axial direction, wherein
a thickness of the cylindrical portion [120] is smaller than an inner diameter of a pinpoint gate tip end portion, and
a thickness of the rib [122] is equal to or larger than the inner diameter of the pinpoint gate tip end portion {According to the same MPEP section 2113, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as 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 other words, the end product, which is the rotor magnet of Kim, could have been made by a pinpoint gate comprising an inner diameter between the thickness of the cylindrical portion [120] and the thickness of the rib [112]. The claim does not recite the inner diameter in a way sufficient to preclude the possibility that a gate whose tip end potion had an inner diameter within the claimed range could have made Kim’s rotor magnet. In the preamble of claim 1, the rotor magnet is “formed by injection-molding…” (which is a method step) and therefore the rotor magnet’s structural limitations alone define the scope of the claim, as the pinpoint gate is not positively claimed and a person examining the device of Kim per se, already in use or on the market, would not be able to definitively establish that it was or was not made by a gate with some tip inner diameter within the size range put forth in the claim, without tracing the device’s journey back to the facility where it was made}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (JP 2010273497 A, provided in an IDS but the Examiner has cited it herein to use the attached machine translation).
With respect to claim 7, Suzuki teaches a brushless motor (see ¶ 0004 – it is noted that fig. 4 and ¶ 0004-0005 discuss the prior art over which figs. 1-3 are an improvement – said improvement is the magnet of fig. 2 – it is clear from ¶ 0008 that fig. 4 is the brushless motor in which the improved magnet/rotor is being used, such that the contents of ¶ 0004-0005 are taken as being part of the embodiment of figs. 1-3 – for instance, nowhere after ¶ 0004 does the reference go back on the mention the motor is a brushless one) comprising:
a stator [combined iron core 17 and salient poles 19];
a rotor magnet [field magnet 11] disposed so as to face the stator [17/19] in a radial direction; and
a rotor housing [frame 15] (see ¶ 0028) holding the rotor magnet [11], wherein the rotor magnet [11] is formed by injection-molding a material mixture of a magnetic material and a resin (see ¶ 0025 which recites “the field magnet 11 is a polar-anisotropic ring magnet formed by injection molding and made from a kneaded product of magnetic powder… and binder resin…”) through a pinpoint gate (see ¶ 0035 which recites “it is possible to ensure a large space in which the gate is disposed when the field magnet 11 is formed by injection molding…”),
PNG
media_image4.png
285
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the rotor magnet [11] has a cylindrical portion [ring body 12] (see abstract) formed in a cylindrical shape and having a plurality of magnetic poles [N-S-N-S] (see abstract and ¶ 0037 which recites “the number of magnetic poles P of 12..”) arranged, and a rib [13] formed in a shape [bulge] protruding in the radial direction (outward from the rotational axis) at an end portion (end portion labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 2 excerpt above) of the cylindrical portion [12] in an axial direction and engaging with the rotor housing [15] (at 13a – see ¶ 0028 which recites “the frame 15 makes contact with the apical part 13a…”),
a thickness of the cylindrical portion [12] is smaller than an inner diameter of a pinpoint gate tip end portion,
a thickness of the rib [13] is equal to or larger than the inner diameter of the pinpoint gate tip end portion {it is noted that the pinpoint gate, and therefore its tip end portion, are part of the apparatus/process making the rotor magnet – the pinpoint gate itself is outside the scope of the “rotor magnet” of the preamble. The preamble does not begin “a brushless motor and a pinpoint gate…”, nor does it claim a “process of making a brushless motor…” which would positively invoke the pinpoint gate. According to MPEP Section 2113, “product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps” – the step being in this case “formed by injection-molding…. through a pinpoint gate…” which ties the gate to a method step. The Examiner has determined that the structure implied by the gate device used to make it does require at least an injection molded rotor magnet and evidence of it having been made by an injection molding process, as well as the cylindrical portion and rib comprising a thickness; however the claim is directed to a “brushless motor” and the means by which the claim can be definitively said to apply to an allegedly infringing or prior art rotor magnet resides outside/beyond the combination of the brushless motor and the gate and injection molding device that made its rotor magnet, particularly for instance once the motor and/or rotor magnet has/have left the manufacturing facility. According to the same MPEP section, “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as 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 other words, the end product, which is the motor of Suzuki, could have had its rotor magnet made by a pinpoint gate comprising an inner diameter between the thickness of the cylindrical portion [12] and the thickness of the rib [13]. The claim does not recite the inner diameter in a way sufficient to limit it to the mouth portion of the tip/gate that left the traces [14]. The claim is broad enough that the gate tip end portion of the injection device that made Suzuki’s rotor magnet could have various inner diameters not associated with the size of the traces. In the preamble of claim 7, the rotor magnet is “formed by injection-molding…. through a pinpoint gate…” and therefore the motor’s structural limitations alone define the scope of the claim, as the pinpoint gate is not positively claimed and a person examining the device of Suzuki per se, already in use or on the market, would not be able to definitively establish that the gate that made it did not have some tip inner diameter within or outside of the size range put forth in the claim, without tracing the device’s journey back to the facility where it was made}, and
an outer peripheral surface [13a] of the cylindrical portion is fitted in an inner peripheral surface [15a] of the rotor housing [15] (see ¶ 0028 which recites “the frame 15 is disposed on the outer peripheral surface 11a side of the field magnet 11, and has an inner diameter such that the inner peripheral surface 15a… of the frame 15 makes contact with the apical part 13a…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Suzuki.
With respect to claim 5/4/1, Okada teaches the rotor magnet of claim 4, but omits teaching wherein the rib is disposed at a center of any one of the magnetic poles as viewed in the axial direction of the rotor magnet.
Suzuki was used in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 7 above, and the basis for considering it analogous art can be found therein.
Suzuki teaches wherein the rib [13] is disposed at a center of any one of the magnetic poles [N/S/N/S] as viewed in the axial direction of the rotor magnet [11] (see ¶ 0039 which recites “the ribs are provided at positions on the outer circumferential surface side facing the magnetic pole centers of the ring main body portions…”).
PNG
media_image5.png
262
369
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rotor magnet of Okada, while disposing the rib at a center of the pole, as taught by Suzuki, in order to increase the starting torque (see Suzuki ¶ 0039 which recites “it can be seen that providing the rib at a position facing the magnetic pole center of the ring main body is preferable from the perspective of further increasing the starting torque…” – Suzuki provides two options, one being the one just described and the other being wherein the rib is at the boundary, as taught by Okada, and in contrasting their attributes comes to this conclusion that disposing the rib at the magnetic pole center has the advantage of better starting torque).
With respect to claim 6/5/4/1, Okada in view of Suzuki teaches the rotor magnet of claim 5, both Okada and Suzuki teach wherein the rotor magnet is a polar-anisotropic ring magnet (Okada ¶ 0059 and 0061 and Suzuki abstract and ¶ 0031).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 8 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.
With respect to claim 2 and claim 3 which depends from it, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a rotor magnet provided turnably relative to a substrate to which a stator or a rotation angle sensor is fixed, disposed so as to face the stator or the rotation angle sensor, and formed by injection-molding a material mixture of a magnetic material and a resin through a pinpoint gate, the rotor magnet comprising:
a cylindrical portion formed in a cylindrical shape and having a plurality of magnetic poles arranged; and
a rib formed in a shape protruding in a radial direction at only one of two end portions of the cylindrical portion in an axial direction, wherein
a thickness of the cylindrical portion is smaller than an inner diameter of a pinpoint gate tip end portion, and
a thickness of the rib is equal to or larger than the inner diameter of the pinpoint gate tip end portion;
further comprising: a trace bulged in a substantially circular shape having a size corresponding to the inner diameter of the pinpoint gate tip end portion as a trace of injection molding of the rotor magnet on a rib end surface which is an end surface of the rib in the axial direction, wherein
the thickness of the cylindrical portion is smaller than an outer diameter of the trace, and
the thickness of the rib is equal to or larger than the outer diameter of the trace.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a brushless motor comprising:
a stator; a rotor magnet disposed so as to face the stator in a radial direction; and a rotor housing holding the rotor magnet, wherein the rotor magnet is formed by injection-molding a material mixture of a magnetic material and a resin through a pinpoint gate,
the rotor magnet has a cylindrical portion formed in a cylindrical shape and having a plurality of magnetic poles arranged, and a rib formed in a shape protruding in the radial direction at an end portion of the cylindrical portion in an axial direction and engaging with the rotor housing,
a thickness of the cylindrical portion is smaller than an inner diameter of a pinpoint gate tip end portion,
a thickness of the rib is equal to or larger than the inner diameter of the pinpoint gate tip end portion, and
an outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion is fitted in an inner peripheral surface of the rotor housing;
the brushless motor further comprising:
a trace bulged in a substantially circular shape having a size corresponding to the inner diameter of the pinpoint gate tip end portion as a trace of injection molding of the rotor magnet on a rib end surface which is an end surface of the rib in the axial direction, wherein
the thickness of the cylindrical portion is smaller than an outer diameter of the trace, and
the thickness of the rib is equal to or larger than the outer diameter of the trace.
Kim does not teach traces at all. Osaka teaches traces that may have, or be intended to have, the trace’s outer diameter larger than the thickness of the cylindrical portion, but there is no explicit evidence in the reference to support this. Suzuki also teaches traces that may have, or be intended to have, the trace’s outer diameter larger than the thickness of the cylindrical portion, but again there is no explicit evidence in the reference to support this. Yamamoto (see conclusion below) teaches traces but their outer diameter is not described as being less than the thickness of the cylindrical portion. This can be said for all the references in PTO Form 892 which depict traces on a rotor magnet comprising a cylindrical portion. The feature wherein the trace’s outer diameter is larger than the thickness of the cylindrical portion is, absent other evidence which the Examiner could not find, a distinct improvement over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270 - 5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights