DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 of U.S. Application No. 18/005,995, filed on 19 January, 2023, were presented for examination. In a preliminary amendment also filed 19 January, 2023, claim 14 was canceled. In the response to a restriction requirement, filed on 24 February, 2025, Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-8), with traverse. The traversal addressed the Group III claims, asserting that claims 22 and 23 depend on claim 1 and should be examined with Group I. In that response, claim 1 was amended such that the invention of claim 1 no longer reads on the reference that showed lack of inventive unity, at least as said lack of unity appertains to Group III. Therefore claims 22-23 (Group III) were at that time essentially part of Group I, and are still part of Group I.
In the amendment filed 7 July, 2025, claim 4 was canceled. In the amendment filed 12 December, 2025, claim 23 was canceled. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are pending in the application. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 22 have been examined herein, while claims 9-13 and 15-21 (Group II) were removed from consideration in a previous Office Action and/or response by Applicant.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 December, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 December, 2025, with respect to rejections of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated under Wei, of claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Wei in view of Moore, of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Wei in view of Moore and further in view of Kiso, of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Wei in view of Moore and further in view of Mihaila, and claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kiso in view of Wei and further in view of Masuda, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On page 8 of the arguments/remarks, Applicant asserts that Wei does not show or disclose “wherein the stator supporting ring has a ring shape with lug structures unevenly distributed along a circumferential direction of the stator supporting ring; each of the lug structures is provided with a first mounting hole… and wherein a distance between two lug structures on a first side of the stator supporting ring is larger than a distance between two lug structures on a second side of the stator supporting ring that is opposite the first side” as recited in amended claim 1. The Examiner concurs that Wei does not teach these features in combination.
On page 9, Applicant asserts the same omission for Wei in view of Moore and of Wei in view of Moore and further in view of Kiso with respect to claims 2-3 and 5. The Examiner likewise concurs.
Beginning on page 10, Applicant asserts the same omission for Wei in view of Moore and further in view of Mihaila with respect to claims 6-7. The Examiner likewise concurs.
Beginning on page 11, Applicant asserts the same omission for Kiso in view of Wei and further in view of Masuda with respect to claim 22. The Examiner likewise concurs.
Consequently, the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 22 have been withdrawn. However, the amendments introduced some indefiniteness issues, please see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bolt or rivet” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent basis was established instead for a “bolt or fin” in line 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bolt or rivet” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent basis was established instead for a “bolt or fin” in line 5.
With respect to claim 22, lines 15-24 of the claim are functionally equivalent to lines 6-15 of claim 1. However, claim 22 already depends on claim 1 (see line 5 of claim 22) and this results in lines 15-24 being repetitions of limitations that are already in the claim. Claim 22 will stand or fall with claim 1 anyway so the newly added limitations (lines 15-24) can simply be deleted via amendment. As currently amended, claim 22, due to these repetitious limitations, is indefinite.
Claim 22 further contains the limitation “bolt or rivet” in line 22 that makes claims 1 and 6 indefinite. As the Examiner expects lines 15-24 to be canceled via amendment, this issue will probably become moot, but if Applicant chooses another path to address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) that keeps this limitation in part or in whole, the Examiner requests that it be changed to “bolt or fin” because a rivet cannot be part of the claim if the fin is already in it, since it is obvious that they both refer to the same element in the drawings.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 8 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 1, while claim 7 is rejected for depending on rejected claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
With respect to claim 1, and all claims depending therefrom, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a stator for a disk motor, comprising a ring-shaped stator core comprising a plurality of ring-shaped or arc-shaped layers of magnetically conductive materials laminated on each other in a radial direction, wherein the stator core further comprises a stator yoke, and the stator yoke is provided with a radial mounting hole and the stator yoke and a stator supporting ring are fixedly connected by inserting a bolt or fin into the radial mounting hole,
the stator supporting ring has a ring shape with lug structures unevenly distributed along a circumferential direction of the stator supporting ring;
each of the lug structures is provided with a first mounting hole for fixedly connecting the stator supporting ring to a support in the axial direction; and
a second mounting hole is provided at a position between two adjacent ones of the lug structures to cooperate with the bolt or fin to fix the stator supporting ring and the stator yoke together;
wherein a distance between two lug structures on a first side of the stator supporting ring is larger than a distance between two lug structures on a second side of stator supporting ring that is opposite the first side.
With respect to claim 6, and claim 7 which depends therefrom, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a stator for a disk motor, comprising a ring-shaped stator core comprising a plurality of ring-shaped or arc-shaped layers of magnetically conductive materials laminated on each other in a radial direction, wherein the stator core further comprises a stator yoke, and the stator yoke is provided with a radial mounting hole and the stator yoke and a stator supporting ring are fixedly connected by inserting a bolt or fin into the radial mounting hole,
wherein the stator core further comprises a stator tooth, and the stator yoke is fixedly connected at its outer side with the stator supporting ring, and
wherein the stator core comprises a plurality of arc-shaped modules, adjacent ones of the plurality of arc-shaped modules are circumferentially positioned and connected by inserting a bolt or fin on an inner flange into a radial mounting hole in the stator yoke,
wherein the stator supporting ring has a ring shape with lug structures unevenly distributed along a circumferential direction of the stator supporting ring,
each of the lug structures is provided with a first mounting hole for fixedly connecting the stator supporting ring to a support in the axial direction;
wherein a second mounting hole is provided at a position between two adjacent ones of the lug structures to cooperate with the bolt or fin to fix the stator supporting ring and the stator yoke together; and
wherein a distance between two lug structures on a first side of the stator supporting ring is larger than a distance between two lug structures on a second side of stator supporting ring that is opposite the first side.
As discussed in the prior Office action with respect to claim 23, and which now applies to claims 1 and 6 which, as currently amended, both contain the relevant limitations that were identified as allowable in claim 23 in the prior Office action, none of the prior art, either individually or in combination, teaches or suggests the combination of elements provided in claims 1 and 6.
As detailed in the prior Office action, although there is certainly prior art available showing mounting lugs on the perimeters of stator support rings or disk-stator outer perimeters, with axial holes in them for fasteners, and although some of these would lend or suggest themselves for combination with the invention of Kiso in view of Wei, further in view of Matsuda – for example, they would reduce the weight of the ring, this being often the primary reason for mounting-hole lugs, there being no reason to include the whole flange when lugs suffice – there is no obvious reason to further implement such a modification in the way described, wherein the distance between the lugs opposite the suction port is larger than the distance between the lugs in other areas. The Examiner believes that modifying Kiso in view of Wei and further in view of Matsuda, or Wei in view of Moore and further in view of Mihaila, to have irregularly mounted lugs, each with mounting holes, such that a distance between lugs on the suction port side is different than the distance between lugs on the other side, would require either hindsight reasoning, in light of the present application, or more-than-ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
An updated search resulted in a new reference being cited in PTO Form 892. However, it does not affect the prosecution.
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