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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the Drawing Objections, and Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112b of Claims 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objections, and Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112b of Claims 1-6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant argues Maeda alone nor by virtue of any supplementary prior art teaches that the overmolding that forms the jacket also forms a bearing. Kombowski however teaches a concept of overmolding a both stator jacket and a bearing. This concept can be implemented in Maeda in order to heighten higher power density, lower costs, and better reliability in an electric motor as outlined in the Office Action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (EP3474431A1) in view of Kombowski (FR 3079897 A1) and Watrin (US2019252944A1).
Claim 1
Maeda teaches: An electric motor (10) for an actuator (Fig. 1), the electric motor (10) comprising: a stator (24) including at least two electromagnets (42), each of the at least two electromagnets (42) being formed from an iron core (32) and a wire coil (30), the stator comprising a jacket;
a rotor (22) rotatably supported in the stator (24), the rotor (22) comprising a multipole ring magnet or a plurality of permanent magnets (26), with a drive-side end of the rotor (22) formed as a pinion (16a); a gearing (16a) having a wheel assigned to and drivable by the pinion (16a);
a printed circuit board (50) including electrical and/or electronic components, the printed circuit board (50) being electrically connectable to the stator (24);
PNG
media_image1.png
734
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maeda is silent to:
the stator being at least partially overmolded with a jacket made from plastic;
the gearing having a toothed wheel;
at least one bearing being arranged on the jacket of the stator.
As for limitation I, the concept of partially overmolding a stator jacket from plastic is a well-known concept within the art of the claimed invention. Kombowski for example, notably teaches a stator 2 being overmolded with a jacket 10 made from plastic material (see Kombowski’s claim 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
582
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of the claimed invention to have used a method of overmolding a stator jacket with plastic as that taught by Kombowski. Overmolding a stator with a plastic material contributes to improving performance and manufacturing by enhancing thermal management, providing superior electrical insulation, and reducing noise/vibration, leading to higher power density, lower costs, and better reliability in an electric motor.
Furthermore, as for limitation III, by implementing said overmolding to the stator, Maeda’s bearing 50 may also be formed on the plastic overmolded stator jacket. Kombowski also teaches a bearing support 4 that maybe integrated in the overmolding of the stator jacket 10 (see Kombowski’s claim 3). It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of the claimed invention to have also arranged a bearing on the stator jacket. Such an integration would be advantageous in improving the efficiency of manufacturing the electric motor as both the stator jacket and the bearing may be designed in a singular step of overmolding.
As for limitation II, while Maeda is silent to the gearing 16a being toothed, they do illustrated the gearing as sharing a rotational relationship relative to adjacent gearings 16a as illustrated in Maeda’s Fig. 1. Gear teeth are essential on electric motor gears because they inherently interlock to reliably transmit rotational power (torque) and motion between shafts (such as shafts 18 and 20 of Maeda), allowing for speed reduction and torque multiplication. Gear teeth are inherent features of gear wheels and are essential in order meshing to take place as illustrated in Maeda’s Fig. 1. For example, Watrin Mathieu illustrates a stator 40 similar to that of Maeda’s wherein gearing 300 comprises toothed wheels as illustrated in Watrin’s Fig. 5.
PNG
media_image3.png
606
856
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to have inferred that Maeda’s gearing must have toothed wheels. Toothed wheels are critical features of gears that turn the simple concept of meshing wheels into a robust, efficient system for controlling mechanical power, making electric motors such as Maeda’s more versatile in operation.
Claim 2/1
Maeda as modified by Kombowski and Watrin teaches: The electric motor (10) according to claim 1, wherein the at least one bearing (14d) includes a bearing (14d) that supports the toothed wheel (of 16a modified by Watrin) assigned to and drivable by the pinion (16a).
Claim 3/2/1
Maeda as modified by Kombowski and Watrin teaches: The electric motor (10) according to claim 2, wherein the one bearing (14d) that supports the toothed wheel (of 16a modified by Watrin) assigned to and drivable by the pinion (16a) is formed via overmolding (see Kombowski’s claim 3).
Claim 4/1
Maeda as modified by Kombowski and Watrin teaches: The electric motor (10) according to claim 1, wherein a second shaft (46) of the toothed wheel (16a) assigned to and drivable by the pinion (16a) is fastened in a ring (created by 14d) of the stator (24).
Claim 5/1
Maeda as modified by Kombowski and Watrin teaches: The electric motor (10) according to claim 1, wherein the at least one bearing (14d) includes two or more of the bearings (14d) arranged on the stator (stator housing 14 of stator 24).
Claim 6/1
Maeda as modified by Kombowski and Watrin teaches: The electric motor (10) according to claim 1, wherein the stator (24), the rotor (22), and the gearing (16) are arranged in a shared housing (14).
Claim 7/3/2/1
Maeda as modified by Kombowski and Watrin teaches: The electric motor according to claim 3, wherein the bearing (14d) that supports the toothed wheel (of 16a modified by Watrin) assigned to and drivable by the pinion (16a) is formed via the overmolding (see Kombowski’s claim 3), such that the bearing (14d) protrudes (inherently as 14d would have to facilitate the meshing of gearing as illustrated in Maeda’s Fig. 1) from an upper surface of the jacket (overmolded jacket as taught by Kombowski) of the stator (24).
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 AHMED F SECK whose telephone number is (571)272-4638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
/AHMED F SECK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights