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 January 9, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-7 were previously pending; no claims were cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1-7 are now pending in the application.
Pre-Brief Appeal Conference Decision
After deliberation, the panel has decided on January 21st, 2026 to reopen application 18/181,925 for prosecution. It is the opinion of the Examiner that the arguments brought forward by the Applicant in the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request dated January 9, 2026 were persuasive. Therefore, the Final Rejection mailed on October 27, 2025 is withdrawn and replaced with the currently presented Final Rejection in accordance with MPEP § 706.07(e).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 3, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 6 of Remarks) amends the drawing to include a new reference numeral for the “mating element”. The Examiner agrees with the Applicants amendment and makes the drawing objections moot; thus, the drawing objection is removed.
The Applicant's second point (page 7-8 of Remarks) amends claim 1 to include the new limitation, “wherein the rotor assembly is a shaftless rotor excluding a dedicated shaft connecting the pinion gear and the rotor body.” The Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the new limitation does overcome the current grounds of rejections. However, the newly amended limitation is not novel to the prior art, thus a new grounds of rejection will be shown below.
The Applicant's third point (page 8 of Remarks) argues that claims 2-7 depend upon claim 1 and do not teach the newly amended limitation. The examiner agrees with this reasoning; however, the independent claims new limitation is not novel to the prior art, thus a new grounds of rejection can be found.
The Applicant's third point (page 8-9 of Remarks) argues that AOYAMA does not teach, “the stator core 100 is a hybrid or composite body formed from multiple (e.g., a plurality of) materials, having different material properties, which may enhance the efficiency of a motor including the stator core 100.” The Applicant goes on to argue that AOYAMA only teaches a stator core comprising laminations made of steel. This reasoning is sound, however the claim language written does not describe the stator core as a hybrid or composite body formed from multiple materials, having different material properties, which may enhance the efficiency of a motor including the stator core. Claim 5 recites, “wherein the stator core is a composite body made from a plurality of materials.” A stator made of laminations would be a composite body, and steel would be an alloy made of a plurality of materials. Therefore, AOYAMA does teach the claim 5 limitation and the rejection is upheld.
The Applicant's fourth point (page 9-10 of Remarks) argues that’s the fan taught in AOYAMA is not integrally formed as written in claim 7. As discussed in the Applicant interview the limitation “integral” is extensively covered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The limitation of integral includes bodies connected by fastener; this includes press fitted bodies such as the one in AOYAMA. Therefore, AOYAMA does teach the claim 7 limitation and the rejection is upheld.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 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, “a shaftless rotor”, but it is unclearly defined in the specification. In paragraph [0024] of the specification the application states, “the rotor body 22 may exclude a dedicated shaft, thus classifying the rotor body 22 as a ‘shaftless rotor’.” However, Fig. 2 of the present application clearly shows transitional portion 28 serving as a main conduit for transmitting power axially. This could easily define the transitional portion 28 as a shaft; making the present invention not “shaftless”. Therefore, more definition of “shaftless rotor” is required to clearly define the claim.
In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the shaftless rotor is interpreted to mean, “the rotor assembly excludes a dedicated shaft connecting the pinion gear”
The Examiner recommends rewriting the shaftless rotor as stated above.
Claims 2-7 are rejected solely due to their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AOYAMA(US 20210091640 A1) in view of LEHMANN (US 20220021285 A1).
Regarding claim 1, AOYAMA teaches:
An electric motor (Fig 2; 20) comprising:
a stator(Fig 2; 22); and
a rotor assembly (Fig 2; 24)including a rotor body (Fig 2; 110)and a pinion gear(Fig 2; 37) integrally formed as a single piece with the rotor body [0100](it has been held that the term "integral" is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973)),
wherein the rotor assembly (Fig 2; 24) connects the pinion gear(Fig 2; 37) and the rotor body(Fig 2; 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AOYAMA does not teach:
wherein the rotor assembly is a shaftless rotor excluding a dedicated shaft connecting the pinion gear and the rotor body.
LEHMANN teaches:
An electric motor [abstract] comprising:
a stator[0003]; and
a rotor assembly including a rotor body (Fig 2; 2).
wherein the rotor assembly (Fig 2; 2) is a shaftless rotor excluding a dedicated shaft connecting the rotor body(Fig 2; 2)(LEHMANN does contain shaft 10, but it is not used for connecting to further components; instead, LEHMANN uses end components 11 for the connection of further components [0049]. Additionally, shaft 10 and end components 11 are interference fit [abstract], making them integral to the rotor assembly, avoiding a dedicated shaft).
PNG
media_image2.png
585
578
media_image2.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 remove the shaft of AOYAMA and press fit the end components of LEHMANN into the rotor assembly of AOYAMA, in order to transmit power axially while benefitting from the positive properties of a press fit/joint and to have a certain flexural stiffness for stable rotating even at high rotating speeds[0011 LEHMANN].
Regarding claim 2, AOYAMA, in view of LEHMANN, teaches the electric motor of claim 1:
wherein the rotor body (Fig 2; 110)and the pinion gear(Fig 2; 37) are formed by a powder metallurgy process(it is well known in the art to manufacture steel with powder metallurgy [0006]).
It should be noted by the Applicant, the Examiner points out the limitation of “powder metallurgy process” in claim 2, is 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.
Additionally, the Applicant should note 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 .
Regarding claim 3, AOYAMA, in view of LEHMANN, teaches the electric motor of claim 2:
wherein the powder metallurgy process (it is well known in the art to manufacture steel with powder metallurgy [0006])includes at least pressing and sintering(pressing and sintering are common methods used in powder metallurgy).
It should be noted by the Applicant, the Examiner points out the limitation of “pressing and sintering” in claim 3, 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.
Regarding claim 4, AOYAMA, in view of LEHMANN, teaches the electric motor of claim 2:
wherein the powder metallurgy process (it is well known in the art to manufacture steel with powder metallurgy [0006])includes a soft magnetic composite(steel is a soft magnetic composite).
Additionally, the Applicant should note 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 .
Regarding claim 5, AOYAMA, in view of LEHMANN, teaches the electric motor of claim 1:
wherein the stator (Fig 2; 22) includes a stator core(Fig 2; 60), and
wherein the stator core (Fig 2; 60)is a composite body made from a plurality of materials(the stator core is made up of a lamination stack [0080], the plurality of steel laminations make the core a composite body).
Additionally, the Applicant should note 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 .
Regarding claim 6, AOYAMA, in view of LEHMANN, teaches the electric motor of claim 1:
further comprising:
an impeller(Fig 2; 118), and
a mating element disposed on the rotor body(Fig 2; 110), the mating element configured to couple the impeller (Fig 2; 118)to the rotor body(Fig 2; 110)(the fan may be component different than the rotor [0100]; thus, they are fastened together by some mating element).
Additionally, the Applicant should note it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwih v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 7, AOYAMA, in view of LEHMANN, teaches the electric motor of claim 1:
wherein the rotor assembly (Fig 2; 24)includes an impeller (Fig 2; 118) integrally (it has been held that the term "integral" is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973))formed [0100] with the rotor body (Fig 2; 110)and the pinion gear(Fig 2; 37), the impeller (Fig 2; 118)configured to generate an airflow in response to rotation of the rotor body(Fig 2; 110)[0133].
Additionally, the Applicant should note, 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).
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Prior Art:
PAUL (US 20190103778 A1) shows another embodiment of a “shaftless rotor”, with threads (4.2) for transference of axial power instead of a pinion gear.
PNG
media_image3.png
431
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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