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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed July 22, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-7 and 26-27 were previously pending; no claims were cancelled and claims 28-29 were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1-7 and 26-29 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 4-6 of Remarks) amends claim 1 to include new limitations. The new limitations overcome the previously presented rejection filed on May 7, 2026. The amendment necessitates a new grounds of rejection. This rejection is presented below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHILL (DE 102013105964 A1) in view of JEONG (KR 20150104735 A).
Regarding claim 1, SCHILL teaches:
An electric motor (Fig 1A; 2) comprising:
a stator(Fig 1A; 3); and
a rotor assembly (Fig 1A; 1)including a rotor body (Fig 5; 30) and a pinion gear (Fig 5; 18)integrally formed as a single piece with the rotor body (Fig 5; 30) from a single contiguous material[0010],
wherein the rotor body (Fig 5; 30) includes a hollow core (Fig 5; 36)positioned on a radially inner side of the rotor body(Fig 5; 30)[0028].
PNG
media_image1.png
281
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SCHILL does not teach:
a bearing mount surface disposed on an outer surface of the rotor body; and
a bearing supported on the bearing mount surface.
JEONG teaches
a bearing mount surface (Fig 9; 150) disposed on an outer surface of the rotor body(Fig 9; 100); and
a bearing (Fig 9; 125)supported on the bearing mount surface(Fig 9; 150).
PNG
media_image3.png
354
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, SCHILL in view of JEONG, teaches the electric motor of claim 1:
wherein the stator (Fig 1A; 3)includes a stator core, and
wherein the stator core is a composite body(stacked ferromagnetic metal sheets [0026]) made from a plurality of materials(includes soft metals and insulations [0026]).
Regarding claim 26, SCHILL in view of JEONG, teaches the electric motor of claim 1:
wherein the rotor assembly (Fig 5; 1)includes a transition portion (Fig 5; 42)extending between the pinion gear (Fig 5; 18)and the rotor body(Fig 5; 30), and wherein the transition portion (Fig 5; 42) is integrally formed as a single piece with the rotor body (Fig 5; 30) and the pinion gear (Fig 5; 18)from a single contiguous material(the transitional portion 42 of SCHILL is referred to as a “shaft” however structurally resembles the present inventions and functionally connects the pinon 18 top the rotor body 30 integrally).
Regarding claim 27, SCHILL in view of JEONG, teaches the electric motor of claim 26:
wherein the hollow core (Fig 5; 36) extends through the transition portion(Fig 5; 42) and the pinion gear(Fig 5; 18).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHILL (DE 102013105964 A1), in view of JEONG (KR 20150104735 A), in further view of LOUBIER (US 3872334 A).
In regards to claim 2, SCHILL in view of JEONG, teaches the electric motor of claim 1.
Combination SCHILL/JEONG does not teach:
wherein the rotor body and the pinion gear are formed by a powder metallurgy process.
LOUBIER teaches:
wherein the rotor body(Fig 3; 10) and the pinion gear (Fig 3; 20)are formed by a powder metallurgy process(mixture of thermoplastic powder and barium ferrite particles [abstract]).
PNG
media_image4.png
308
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SCHILL by using the metallurgic method of manufactory taught by LOUBIER, in order to obtain the necessary magnetic and physical strengths [LOUBIER Col 4; 53-56].
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 .
The Applicant should also note, the limitation of a powder metallurgy process in claim 2 (and subsequent claims 3-4), are considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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 re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
In regards to claim 3, SCHILL in view of JEONG, in further view of LOUBIER, teaches the electric motor of claim 2.
SCHILL does not teach:
wherein the powder metallurgy process includes at least pressing and sintering.
LOUBIER teaches:
wherein the powder metallurgy process includes at least pressing and sintering[Col 3; 65 – Col 4; 30].
In regards to claim 4, SCHILL in view of JEONG, in further view of LOUBIER, teaches the electric motor of claim 2.
Combination SCHILL/JEONG does not teach:
wherein the powder metallurgy process includes a soft magnetic composite.
LOUBIER teaches:
wherein the powder metallurgy process includes a soft magnetic composite (ceramic magnet [Col 1; 6-37]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHILL (DE 102013105964 A1), in view of JEONG (KR 20150104735 A), in further view of RAPANT(US 20220014055 A1).
In regards to claim 6, SCHILL in view of JEONG, teaches the electric motor of claim 1.
Combination SCHILL/JEONG does not teach:
an impeller, and
a mating element disposed on the rotor body, the mating element configured to couple the impeller to the rotor body.
RAPANT teaches:
an impeller(Fig 2; 126), and
a mating element (Fig 2; 226)disposed on the rotor body(Fig 2; 122), the mating element (Fig 2; 226)configured to couple the impeller (Fig 2; 126)to the rotor body(Fig 2; 122)[0052].
PNG
media_image5.png
563
712
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SCHILL by adding the impeller and mating element taught by RAPANT, in order to provide cooling air to the electric motor[0041 RAPANT], thus improving efficiency of the motor.
In regards to claim 7, SCHILL in view of JEONG, teaches the electric motor of claim 1:
a rotor body (Fig 5; 30) and a pinion gear (Fig 5; 18)integrally formed
Combination SCHILL/JEONG does not teach:
wherein the rotor assembly includes an impeller integrally formed with the rotor body and the pinion gear, the impeller configured to generate an airflow in response to rotation of the rotor body.
RAPANT teaches:
wherein the rotor assembly (Fig 2; 100) includes an impeller(Fig 2; 126) with the rotor body (Fig 2; 122), the impeller (Fig 2; 126) configured to generate an airflow in response to rotation of the rotor body(Fig 2; 122)[0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SCHILL by adding the impeller and mating element taught by RAPANT, in order to provide cooling air to the electric motor[0041 RAPANT], thus improving efficiency of the motor.
Combination SCHILL and RAPNT discloses the claimed invention except for an impeller integral to the rotor body and pinion gear. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make these parts integrally formed in one piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howarli v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Additionally, SCHILL shows the pinion gear and rotor body integrally formed into one piece [SCHILL abstract]; this method could similarly be used for the impeller structure taught in RAPANT.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28-29 is 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.
Regarding claim 28, The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art teaches:
The electric motor of claim 1,
further comprising a ring gear surrounding the pinion gear, the ring gear having a hub that extends from the pinion towards the bearing.
However, the prior art does not teach: wherein the bearing is radially positioned between the bearing mount surface and the hub.(The underlined is allowable subject matter.)
Claim 28 is objected to, and not rejected, because the limitation of the bearing being radially positioned between the bearing mount surface and the hub is too specific which makes it novel.
Claims 28-29 are objected to, and not rejected, because they depend from a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm 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, Oluseye 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights