DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08 February 2026. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 depends from claim 3, which was canceled by amendment 08 February 2026. It will be presumed for examination purposes the claim depends from claim 1.
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, 4 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 6,359,354).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a stator arrangement 1 for a radial flux motor having an axis of rotation, comprising: a stator housing 18, the stator housing defining a circumferential portion (bearing supporting section) 17 for receiving the stator,
a stator (including iron core 2), which is arranged with an inner circumferential surface (not numbered) of the stator on a radially outer surface of the circumferential portion 17 of the stator housing (Fig.1), and
an encapsulation body (epoxy resin molded part) 24, wherein the stator is encapsulated in the stator housing and the encapsulation body is “form-fittingly connected to the stator housing in such a manner that the stator is secured at least in the axial direction in the stator housing by the encapsulation body” [sic] 1 (i.e., the stator 1…and the plurality of lead wires 21 are integrally molded with an epoxy resin by one pour; c.3:62-c.4:29; Fig.1),
wherein the encapsulation body 24 is form-fittingly connected to the stator housing 17/18 via one or more undercuts (not numbered, at RH axial end of bearing supporting section 17) in order to secure the stator 1 in the axial direction (Fig.1),
wherein the stator housing 17/18 comprises an axial end wall (web) 20 which extends away from the circumferential portion 17 in the radial direction, and wherein the encapsulation body 24 extends in the axial direction from the stator 1 to the axial end wall 20 (Fig.1),
and wherein at least one of the one or more undercuts is formed in the circumferential portion 17 (i.e., at RH axial end, circled in annotated Fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
812
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the circumferential portion 17 is a first circumferential portion, wherein the stator housing furthermore comprises a second circumferential portion 18 which is arranged spaced apart in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion 17, and wherein the encapsulation body 24 extends in the radial direction from the first circumferential portion 17 to the second circumferential portion 18 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, the encapsulation body 24 comprises a resin material (epoxy resin, c.4:1-16).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Weber et al. (US 8,192,815).
Watanabe does not teach that at least one of the one or more undercuts (not numbered, at RH axial end of bearing supporting section 17) is formed by a surface “which is inclined with respect to the axis of rotation” in the first circumferential portion and/or the second circumferential portion.
But, Weber teaches an injection molding process whereby a resin molded piece 208 is injected into undercuts 216 in a metal piece 204 (Fig.2B). The undercuts have angled binding portions 224 that enable the molded piece to effectively grab onto the metal piece (c.6:29-39; Fig.2B).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to form the one or more undercuts in the first circumferential portion of Watanabe with a surface which is inclined with respect to the axis of rotation since Weber teaches that angled undercuts provide binding portions that enable the molded encapsulation body to effectively grab onto the circumferential portion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Baumeister et al. (US 6,924,575).
Watanabe does not further teach “a rotation lock which is formed by engagement of the stator and/or of the encapsulation body in the stator housing.”
But, Baumeister teaches an electric machine including a stator 12 comprising stacked sheet metal stampings 19, a stator housing including hub 36a, and a rotation lock (undercut anchoring elements) 42, 42a which is formed by engagement of the stator stampings 19…in the stator housing 36a, to tightly connect the hub and laminated core together (c.2:29-31; Fig.2c).
PNG
media_image2.png
538
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Watanabe with a rotation lock which is formed by engagement of the stator and/or of the encapsulation body in the stator housing since Baumeister teaches a rotation lock would have tightly connect the hub and laminated core together.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hein et al. (US 6,583,532).
Watanabe teaches a resin encapsulation, but not a “synthetic” resin, per se.
But, Hein teaches a cast-resin body 94 for a stator of a rotating electrical machine comprising a synthetic resin with inorganic fillers with high intrinsic thermal conductivity, to thereby increase thermal conductivity, reduce the thermal coefficient of expansion and increase resistance to temperature changes (abstract; c.3:20-39; Fig.2).
PNG
media_image3.png
603
878
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Watanabe with a synthetic resin since Hein teaches a synthetic resin would have increased thermal conductivity, reduced the thermal coefficient of expansion and increased the resistance to temperature changes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12-14 & 19-20 are allowed. The prior art does not teach the claimed stator including, inter alia, “wherein the circumferential portion (30) comprises two axially spaced-apart webs (35,37) for receiving the stator, and wherein a depression (34) into which the encapsulation body (50) projects and forms an undercut (54) is formed between the two webs (35, 37), and wherein the depression (34) extends in the axial direction (2) over at least 25% of an entire axial width of a stator laminated core (42) of the stator (40)” (claim 7); or
“…wherein the circumferential portion (30) is a radially inner circumferential portion (30), wherein the stator housing (20) furthermore comprises a radially outer circumferential portion (24) which is arranged spaced apart in the radial direction (4) from the radially inner circumferential portion (30), and wherein the encapsulation body (50) extends in the radial direction (4) from the radially inner circumferential portion (30) to the radially outer circumferential portion (24), wherein at least one of the one or more undercuts (52, 53, 54, 55, 56) is formed in the radially outer circumferential portion (24)…” (claim 12).
Claims 5, 9 & 16 2 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.
The prior art does not further teach “…at least one of the one or more undercuts (52, 53, 54, 55, 56) is formed in the second circumferential portion (24)” (claim 5); or
“the stator (40) is arranged in contact in the axial direction (2) with a radially protruding offset (33) of the circumferential portion (30)” (claim 9); or
“at least one of the one or more undercuts (52, 53, 54, 55, 56) is formed in the axial end wall (22)” (claim 16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
Regarding Watanabe as applied to claim 1,Watanabe teaches an encapsulation body (epoxy resin molded part) 24…wherein the encapsulation body 24 is form-fittingly connected to the stator housing 17/18 via one or more undercuts (not numbered, at RH axial end of bearing supporting section 17) in order to secure the stator 1 in the axial direction (Fig.1)…and wherein at least one of the one or more undercuts is formed in the [radially outer surface of] circumferential portion 17 (Fig.1).
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 BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
2 Claim 16 is understood to depend from claim 1, as noted in Section 3.