Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/975,056

ELECTRIC WORK MACHINE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 27, 2022
Examiner
STOUT, RILEY OWEN
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Makita Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
86 granted / 115 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
150
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
55.1%
+15.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.8%
-5.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 115 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, and 6-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. With respect to claims 4 6, 10 and 13, Applicant argues that the limitation of “such that the recess-protrusion portion is- positioned on an outer circumferential edge of the sensor board” is not taught by Coates. In at least figure 33, the slot 298 is on the outer circumferential edge of the power module 34 showing the feature of the recess on an outer-circumferential edge. As Coates teaches the above-mentioned limitation, the arguments fail and the rejection is maintained. 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, 7-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Nagahama et al (US 20150069864 A1) in view of Coates et al (US 10786894 B2) in view of Oishi (US 20130234548 A1). With respect to claim 1, Nagahama discloses an electric work machine, comprising: a brushless motor (fig. 18, a brushless motor 17) including a stator (fig. 18, stator 18) including an insulator fixed to the stator core (fig. 5, front and rear insulators 21 and 22); and a coil attached to the insulator (paragraph 49 “In the present embodiment, the coils 23 are respectively wound around the teeth 26 of the stator core 20 and through (around) the respective protruding parts 28, 38 of the front and rear insulators 21, 22”) and a rotor rotatable relative to the stator (see at least figure fig. 2 and throughout, rotor 19); the rotor including: a rotor core (fig. 2, rotor core 6); and a permanent magnet fixed to the rotor core (fig. 2, permanent magnets 63); a sensor board facing the rotor and the stator in an axial direction (see at least figure 18 and 19 circuit board 24 faces rotor and stator at the axis of rotation) along a rotation axis of the rotor, the sensor board including a sensor on an opposing surface of the sensor board (see at least figure 19, 100 Rotation detection devices are on a side of the board facing away from the stator), the opposing surface opposing the rotor and the stator, the sensor being configured to detect a position of the rotor in a rotation direction (paragraph 72 “In this embodiment, the positions of permanent magnets provided on the centrifugal fan 65 are detected by the rotation detection devices 100”); a resin-molded portion covering the opposing surface of the sensor board (fig. 8-9, resin insulation part 50 ) and having a recess at a position corresponding to the stator (see figures 8-9 and 20 insulator part corresponds to stator 18 and paragraph 53 “Recessed parts 50b, 50b for positioning are formed on an inner circumferential side of the insulation part 50.”); and an output unit directly or indirectly drivable by the rotor (fig. 1, chuck 13 and throughout, rotor 19 is used for work by the power tool). Nagahama does not disclose “teaches such that the stator and the sensor board sandwich the resin-molded portion, the resin molded-portion including recess overlapping the stator as viewed in the axial direction; the recess being thinner than another portion of the resin-molded portion, the recess being configured to receive the coil in the axial direction.” Coates teaches such that the stator and the sensor board sandwich the resin-molded portion, the resin molded-portion including recess overlapping the stator as viewed in the axial direction (col. 17 ln 23-26 “In an embodiment, thermal interface 282 may be a thin layer made of Sil-Pad® or similar thermally-conductive electrically-insulating material. Thermal interface 282 may be disposed between the heat sink 284 and the power board 280.”) the recess being configured to receive the coil (fig. 34 and col 17-15 ln 66-5 “power board 280 includes slots 298 for receiving and electrically connecting to the input terminals 104. In an embodiment, slots 298 may be defined and spread around an outer periphery of the power board 280. The outputs of the transistors bridge driver circuit is coupled to the motor 28 phases via these input terminals 104.”). Coates does not teach “the recess being thinner than another portion of the resin-molded portion.” Oishi teaches the recess being thinner than another portion of the resin-molded portion (see figure 4, circuit board 79 guides terminals through it and is much thinner than coupling member 128 which is made of resin). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the motor and resin covered circuit board of Nagahama with sandwiched assembly of the stator, board and resin portion of Coates with the thicker resin-molded portion of Oishi in order to further protect the circuit board from electromagnetic interference from the stator. With respect to claim 7 Nagahama in view of Coates teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nagahama further teaches an electric work machine, comprising: a brushless motor (fig. 18, a brushless motor 17) including a stator (fig. 18, stator 18) and a rotor (see at least figure fig. 2 and throughout, rotor 19) rotatable relative to the stator; a sensor board (fig. 5 circuit board 24) facing the rotor in an axial direction along a rotation axis of the rotor (see at least figure 18 and 19 circuit board 24 faces rotor and stator at the axis of rotation), the sensor board including a sensor on an opposing surface of the sensor board (see at least figure 19, 100 Rotation detection devices are on a side of the board facing away from the stator), the opposing surface opposing the rotor, the sensor being configured to detect a position of the rotor in a rotation direction (paragraph 72 “In this embodiment, the positions of permanent magnets provided on the centrifugal fan 65 are detected by the rotation detection devices 100”), a substrate having the opposing surface receiving the sensor and wiring connected to the sensor (fig. 5, short circuiting element 25), and a resist layer covering an area with the wiring on the opposing surface (see figure 5, resin insulation part 50 covers both the circuit board 24 and the short circuiting element 25) and an output unit directly or indirectly drivable by the rotor (fig. 1, chuck 13 and throughout, rotor 19 is used for work by the power tool), wherein the substrate includes a resist-free area without the resist layer in at least a portion of the opposing surface (see figure 5, resin cover 50 covers most of the board except the signal lines 49), and the resin-molded portion is in direct contact with the opposing surface in the resist-free area (see figure 5, resin insulation cover covers the short circuiting element 25). Nagahama does not disclose “recess-protrusion portions positioned on an outer circumferential portion of the sensor board; a resin-molded portion covering the opposing surface of the sensor board such that the stator and the sensor board sandwich the resin-molded portion; portion, the resin-molded portion extending along the outer circumferential portion and covering the recess-protrusion portions;” Coates teaches recess-protrusion portions positioned on an outer circumferential portion of the sensor board (figure 33, the slot 298 is on the outer circumferential edge of the power module 34); a resin-molded portion covering the opposing surface of the sensor board such that the stator and the sensor board sandwich the resin-molded portion (col. 17 ln 23-26 “In an embodiment, thermal interface 282 may be a thin layer made of Sil-Pad® or similar thermally-conductive electrically-insulating material. Thermal interface 282 may be disposed between the heat sink 284 and the power board 280.”). Coates does not teach “the resin-molded portion extending along the outer circumferential portion and covering the recess-protrusion portions.” Oishi teaches the resin-molded portion extending along the outer circumferential portion and covering the recess-protrusion portions (see figure 4, circuit board 79 guides terminals on an outer edge of the board and is in contact with the much thinner than coupling member 128 which is made of resin) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the motor and resin covered circuit board of Nagahama with sandwiched assembly of the stator, board and resin portion of Coates with the thicker resin-molded portion of Oishi in order to further protect the circuit board from electromagnetic interference from the stator. With respect to claim 8, Nagahama in view of Coates in view of Oishi teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nagahama further teaches wherein the resist-free area includes a peripheral portion of the opposing surface (see at least figure 6a, signal lines include a peripheral portion of the opposing surface). With respect to claim 9, Nagahama in view of Coates in view of Oishi teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nagahama further teaches wherein the sensor board is annular (see figure 5, circuit board 24 is circular shaped), and the peripheral portion includes an outer peripheral portion and an inner peripheral portion of the sensor board (see figure 5 marked above). With respect to claim 17, Nagahama in view of Coates in view of Oishi teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nagahama further teaches wherein the resin- molded portion includes a plurality of recesses spaced about a circumference of the resin- molded portion (see at least figure 8, insulation part 50 has a number of recesses 50b). Claims 4 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Nagahama et al (US 20150069864 A1) in view of Coates et al (US 10786894 B2). With respect to claim 4, Nagahama teaches an electric work machine, comprising: a brushless motor (fig. 18, a brushless motor 17) including a stator (fig. 18, stator 18) and a rotor rotatable relative to the stator (see at least figure fig. 2 and throughout, rotor 19); a sensor board facing the rotor in an axial direction along a rotation axis of the rotor (see at least figure 18 and 19 circuit board 24 faces rotor and stator at the axis of rotation), the sensor board including a sensor on an opposing surface of the sensor board (see at least figure 19, 100 Rotation detection devices are on a side of the board facing away from the stator), the opposing surface opposing the rotor, the sensor being configured to detect a position of the rotor in a rotation direction (paragraph 72 “In this embodiment, the positions of permanent magnets provided on the centrifugal fan 65 are detected by the rotation detection devices 100”), and a recess-protrusion portion in a portion of a side surface adjacent to the opposing surface (see figures 8-9 and 20 insulator part corresponds to stator 18 and paragraph 53 “Recessed parts 50b, 50b for positioning are formed on an inner circumferential side of the insulation part 50.”); a resin-molded portion covering the opposing surface of the sensor board (fig. 8-9, resin insulation part 50, corresponds to the opposing surface recess portion); and an output unit directly or indirectly drivable by the rotor (fig. 1, chuck 13 and throughout, rotor 19 is used for work by the power too). Nagahama does not teach “such that the recess-protrusion portion is- positioned on an outer circumferential edge of the sensor board; such that the stator and the sensor board sandwich the resin-molded portion, the resin molded-portion covering the recess-portion of the side surface.” Coates teaches such that the recess-protrusion portion is- positioned on an outer circumferential edge of the sensor board (see figure 33, slot 298 is on the outer circumferential edge of the power module 34); such that the stator and the sensor board sandwich the resin-molded portion, the resin molded-portion covering the recess-portion of the side surface (col. 17 ln 23-26 “In an embodiment, thermal interface 282 may be a thin layer made of Sil-Pad® or similar thermally-conductive electrically-insulating material. Thermal interface 282 may be disposed between the heat sink 284 and the power board 280.” See figure 33A, thermal interface 282 covers the side surfaces of the slots 298) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the motor and resin covered circuit board of Nagahama with sandwiched assembly of the stator, board and resin portion of Coates in order to further protect the circuit board from electromagnetic interference from the stator. With respect to claim 6, Nagahama in view of Coates teaches the above-mentioned limitations. Nagahama further teaches wherein the sensor board is annular (see at least figure 5-6 and 19, circuit board 24 is circular in shape), and the side surface includes an outer side surface and an inner side surface of the sensor board (see figure 5 marked below). PNG media_image1.png 372 732 media_image1.png Greyscale Nagahama Figure 5 Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama in view of Coates in further view of Akutsu et al (US 20180198351 A1). With respect to claim 10, Nagahama in view of Coates teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface.” Akutsu teaches “wherein the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface (see figure 1, circuit board 28 is surrounded by molded resin portions, on its top, side and bottom portion).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the motor of Nagahama with the sandwiched resin covered circuit board of Coates with the three-sided resin covering of Akutsu in order to further protect the vulnerable electronics from ingress to the motor, thereby increasing the motor’s lifespan. Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama in view of Coates in further view of Akutsu et al (US 20180198351 A1). With respect to claim 13, Nagahama in view of Coates teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface.” Akutsu teaches “wherein the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface (see figure 1, circuit board 28 is surrounded by molded resin portions, on its top, side and bottom portion).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the motor Nagahama with the sandwiched resin covered circuit board of Coates with the three-sided resin covering of Akutsu in order to further protect the vulnerable electronics from ingress to the motor, thereby increasing the motor’s lifespan. Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama in view of Coates in view of Oishi in further view of Akutsu et al (US 20180198351 A1). With respect to claim 14, Nagahama in view of Coates in view of Oishi teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface.” Akutsu teaches “wherein the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface (see figure 1, circuit board 28 is surrounded by molded resin portions, on its top, side and bottom portion).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the motor Nagahama with the sandwiched resin covered circuit board of Coates with the thicker resin portion of Oishi and the three-sided resin covering of Akutsu in order to further protect the vulnerable electronics from ingress to the motor, thereby increasing the motor’s lifespan. With respect to claim 15, Nagahama in view of Coates in view of Oishi teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface.” Akutsu teaches “wherein the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface (see figure 1, circuit board 28 is surrounded by molded resin portions, on its top, side and bottom portion).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the motor Nagahama with the sandwiched resin covered circuit board of Coates with the thicker resin portion of Oishi and the three-sided resin covering of Akutsu in order to further protect the vulnerable electronics from ingress to the motor, thereby increasing the motor’s lifespan. With respect to claim 16, Nagahama in view of Coates in view of Oishi teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface.” Akutsu teaches “wherein the resin-molded portion extends across the opposing surface and the side surface of the sensor board and a surface of the sensor board opposite to the opposing surface (see figure 1, circuit board 28 is surrounded by molded resin portions, on its top, side and bottom portion).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to combine the motor Nagahama with the sandwiched resin covered circuit board of Coates with the thicker resin portion of Oishi and the three-sided resin covering of Akutsu in order to further protect the vulnerable electronics from ingress to the motor, thereby increasing the motor’s lifespan. 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 RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached on (571)272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 27, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 28, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 28, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 03, 2025
Response Filed
May 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 08, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580448
Electromagnetically-Controlled Magnetic Cycloidal Gear Assembly for Achieving Enhanced Torque Capacity and Method of Operating Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12549044
A ROTOR FOR A PERMANENT MAGNET ELECTRICAL MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12531449
FIELD MAGNETON OF ROTARY ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12525839
AXIAL FLUX MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12519356
ROTOR AND ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+0.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 115 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month