Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/272,433

MOTOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 14, 2023
Examiner
SCHLAK, DANIEL KEITH
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
LG Innotek Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
29 granted / 40 resolved
+4.5% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
71
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.8%
-0.2% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 40 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/272,433, filed on 14 July, 2023, were presented for examination. In a preliminary amendment also filed on 14 July, 2023, claims 1-10 were canceled and new claims 11-20 were added. In the response filed 2 September, 2025, new claim 21 was added. Claims 11-21 are currently pending in the application. 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, filed 2 September, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamamura, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant asserts that Yamamura does not teach, inter alia, wherein each of the flat parts has a straight end portion. For instance, Applicant points out that Yamamura’s end portions are hook shaped and not straight. The Examiner concurs. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ryu (US 2014/0001896 A1). With respect to formal matters, Applicant asserts that the various amendments to the specification and claims overcome all objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Examiner concurs. With the exception of the objection to the title as being insufficiently descriptive, the objections and rejections have been removed. It is noted that the title objection is outstanding as “motor” does not distinguish the application in any way from the vast amount of other electric motor publications. The amendments introduced new limitations into the claims resulting in new minor objections being raised herein. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections Claims 1, 14, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 15, the limitation “each of the flat parts have…” should be changed to “each of the flat parts has…” In claim 14, lines 1-2, the limitation “an outer end of the flat parts are disposed” should be changed to “outer ends of the flat parts are disposed” or “an outer end of each flat part is disposed” or something similar. In claim 17, lines 1-2, the limitation “the hole include” should be changed to “the hole includes…” In claim 20, similarly to the above objections, the limitation “one surface of the plurality of phase busbars are coplanar” should be corrected to match the subject to the verb, but the Examiner cannot tell exactly what needs to be done. Appropriate correction is required. 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 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura (US 2003/0201688 A1) in view of Ryu (US 2014/0001896 A1). With respect to claim 11, Yamamura teaches a motor comprising: a shaft [5]; a rotor [4] coupled to the shaft [5]; a stator [3] disposed to correspond to the rotor [4] (see 2nd half of ¶ 0063 and all of ¶ 0064); busbars [split phase conductive members 17] disposed on the stator [3] (they are on holder 15 which is “on” bobbin 11 of the stator – they are also “on” the stator by each being connected to a coil end of the stator); and a busbar holder [15] which supports the busbars [17] (see joint annotated excerpts of figs. 1 and 4A, wherein the Examiner has shaded the holder 15 gray in fig. 4A to correspond with its heavier hatch pattern in fig. 1 and labeled the individual busbars 17, which are unshaded in fig. 4A to correspond to the lighter hatch pattern they have in fig. 1), PNG media_image1.png 556 1107 media_image1.png Greyscale wherein the stator [3] includes a stator core [10], an insulator [bobbin 11] coupled to the stator core [10] (still referring to ¶ 0064), and a plurality of coils [12] disposed on the insulator [11], each of the busbars [17] includes a curved part [strip conductive portion 24] and a plurality of flat parts [arms 22] bent from the curved part [24] (see ¶ 0067 and also joint annotated excerpts of figs. 7A, 7B, 8A, and 8B, attached below, wherein the Examiner has labeled the bends), and PNG media_image2.png 428 1163 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein each of the curved parts [24] includes a body and a plurality of protrusions branched off from the body in an axial direction (body, protrusions, and axial direction have been labeled in the excerpt of figs. 7A and 7B above) and the flat parts [22] are formed to be bent outward (via bends, see figs. 8A and 8B above) from the protrusions, wherein each of the flat parts [22] has an end portion [25] (shown in fig. 8A excerpt above). wherein the end portion [25] of one of the flat parts contacts a coil [13] of the plurality of coils (see fig. 1 – ¶ 0067 recites “coil connector 14 has the coil connecting terminal portion 25 like the hook radially on the outer circumferential side, which is bent in the almost same direction as the circumferential direction, corresponding to the coil terminal 13”). Yamamura does not teach wherein the end portion(s) is/are a straight end portion, wherein the straight end portion of one of the flat parts contacts a coil of the plurality of coils. Ryu discloses a motor including a housing [10], a stator [20] mounted inside the motor housing and including a stator core [21] and a coil [22] wound on the stator core, a rotor [30] rotatably installed at a center of the stator, and a busbar [100] provided with a plurality of terminals [110] mounted at an upper surface of the stator (see title, ¶ 0042-0044), wherein the stator is further provided with a busbar holder [body 101]. PNG media_image3.png 380 849 media_image3.png Greyscale Ryu further discloses wherein each of the busbars includes a curved part and a plurality of flat parts [110] bent from the curved part, and wherein each of the curved parts includes a body and a plurality of protrusions branched off from the body in an axial direction and the flat parts are formed to be bent outward from the protrusions (see ¶ 0026, 0029, 0050-0053 and annotated excerpts of figs. 6 and 7 below). PNG media_image4.png 336 742 media_image4.png Greyscale Ryu teaches wherein the end portion(s) is/are a straight end portion (see last 3 lines of the abstract and ¶ 0019 wherein the features are described as “straightly protruded busbar terminals”), wherein the straight end portion of one of the flat parts contacts a coil of the plurality of coils [22] (see annotated excerpt of fig. 11 attached below, wherein the coil is represented by coil terminal 25 – see ¶ 0043 and ¶ 0056 which recites “as illustrated in fig. 11, the coil terminal (25) is bent in a U shape to be accommodated into the hook groove (111) formed on the busbar terminal (110). The coil terminal (25) accommodated into the hook groove (111) may be soldered… whereby the assembly can be finished.”) PNG media_image5.png 391 376 media_image5.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the motor of Yamamura, while incorporating straight end portions where the busbars contact the coil, as taught by Ryu, in order to provide a busbar excellent in connectivity with the coil, while the amount of scraps generated in the course of manufacturing the busbar terminal can be minimized (Ryu, ¶ 0057), and further in order to avoid the disadvantage of the prior art that each busbar terminal must be bent at a predetermined size, such that it is complicated to insert and fuse the coil into the busbar terminal which frequently generates faulty works (Ryu ¶ 0015). With respect to claim 12/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches motor of claim 11, Yamamura further teaches wherein: the busbar holder [15] includes a hole [27] through which the coil [13] of the plurality of coils passes; the end portion [25] of the one of the flat parts [22] is exposed from the busbar holder [15] and is in contact with the coil [13] which passes through the hole [27] (see ¶ 0082-0083 and the annotated joint excerpts of figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B attached below – it is noted that figs. 13A-14B represent a 5th embodiment of the reference – however, the 5th embodiment is different from the first embodiment of figs. 1 and 4a only in the shape of the holder and how the coil comes up into it, and absent extant statements to the contrary, this 5th embodiment naturally contains all the relevant elements of figs. 1 and 4a that formed the basis of the rejection of claim 1, particularly the curved, bent, and flat portions of 17 shown in figs. 13A and 13B). PNG media_image6.png 497 907 media_image6.png Greyscale Ryu teaches wherein the end portion is a straight end portion (see rejection of claim 1 above). With respect to claim 13/12/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches the motor of claim 12, Yamamura further teaches wherein the busbar holder [15] includes a holder body to which the busbars [17] are fixed and an extension extending outward from an outer surface of the holder body (the holder body and extension have been labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 13A-14B excerpts above); the hole [27] is disposed to pass through one surface and another surface of the extension (one surface and other surface have been labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 14B excerpt); and the flat parts [22] are disposed to protrude further than the outer surface of the holder body (see bottom-left corner of fig. 13B excerpt, wherein outward is leftward on the left-hand side and rightward on the right-hand side – it is noted that figs. 13A-14B represent a 5th embodiment of the reference – however, the 5th embodiment is different from the first embodiment of figs. 1 and 4a only in the shape of the holder and how the coil comes up into it, and absent extant statements to the contrary, this 5th embodiment naturally contains all the relevant elements of figs. 1 and 4a that formed the basis of the rejection of claim 1, particularly the curved, bent, and flat portions of 17 shown in figs. 13A and 13B). With respect to claim 14/12/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches the motor of claim 12, Yamamura further teaches wherein an outer end of the flat parts [22] are disposed outside the hole [27] and disposed inside an outer edge of the busbar holder [15] (the Examiner has labeled the outer end of 22 and the outer edge of 15 in the new annotated excerpts of figs. 13A-13B attached below). PNG media_image7.png 662 824 media_image7.png Greyscale With respect to claim 15/12/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches the motor of claim 12, Yamamura further teaches wherein the busbars [17 including flat portion 22, and shaded gray in fig. 13A below] are disposed not to overlap the hole [27] in an axial direction (axial direction into the page in the enlarged fig. 13A excerpt below, and also labeled by the Examiner along with elements 27 and 22 – it is noted that this feature can also be seen in fig. 13B, attached above). PNG media_image8.png 271 538 media_image8.png Greyscale With respect to claim 16/12/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches the motor of claim 12, Yamamura further teaches wherein the flat parts [22] are formed to be bent outward from the protrusions (see abstract and ¶ 0067). PNG media_image9.png 471 1104 media_image9.png Greyscale With respect to claim 17/12/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches the motor of claim 12, Yamamura further teaches wherein the hole [27] includes a curved portion (in the new annotated excerpt of fig. 13B attached below, the holes on each side are clearly curved outward away from the coil 13 at the bottom – this is most visible on the left side where the inner diameter of the hole tapers away from the coil 13). PNG media_image10.png 338 1009 media_image10.png Greyscale With respect to claim 18/13/12/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches the motor of claim 13, Yamamura further teaches wherein the flat parts [22] of the busbars are exposed from the holder body and positioned over the extension. With respect to claim 19/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches the motor of claim 11, Yamamura further teaches wherein all of the protrusions (shaded gray by the Examiner in the fig. 12/13A excerpts attached below) disposed on the busbars are disposed not to overlap each other in a radial direction (the Examiner has drawn sectors representative of the overlap/swath of each of the protrusions as they correspond from fig. 12B onto fig. 13A – they are clearly disjunct, separated by an angle of approximately 8o. The Examiner only shaded, marked-up, and labeled the ones at the top so that the ones on the right, left, and bottom can be viewed without markings – this feature is not discussed in the specification of the reference, so fig. 13 best represents that there is obviously no point at which any protrusion overlaps another looking outward from the axis along a straight line). PNG media_image11.png 733 763 media_image11.png Greyscale With respect to claim 20/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches the motor of claim 11, Yamamura further teaches said motor comprising a plurality of phase busbars [17] (¶ 0066 calls them “split phase conductive members) in which at least some of the busbars [17] overlap each other in a radial direction (see new annotated excerpt of fig. 13B attached below, wherein the Examiner has drawn the radial direction as an arrow, and since all the busbars overlap the arrow, they overlap each other in the radial direction), PNG media_image12.png 313 771 media_image12.png Greyscale wherein one surface [the upper surfaces, labeled “coplanar surfaces” by the Examiner] of the plurality of phase busbars [17] are coplanar with each other in an axial direction (it is noted that the bottom surfaces are also coplanar). With respect to claim 21/11, Yamamura in view of Ryu teaches the motor of claim 11, Yamamura further teaches wherein the body and the flat parts are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the axial direction (see excerpts of figs. 7A-7B used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein one surface of each of the protrusions is disposed to be coplanar with one surface of the flat parts (as the protrusions lead to and connect with the flat parts, they will be coplanar where they merge). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2023
Application Filed
May 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 02, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597835
ROTOR HAVING A SQUIRREL CAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580432
ELECTRIC MACHINE AND MOTOR VEHICLE WITH WALL ELEMENT AND TOOTH HEAD RING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567787
ELECTRIC MOTOR ROTOR INCLUDING END RING RESTRAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12556054
STATOR WITH IMPROVED BUSBARS AND MOTOR INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12549056
Electric Machine Frame Fastenerless Covers
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 40 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