.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 . Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Guangdong does not teach “the concave component” “the positioning component.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that Guangdong, specially fig.10, shows a concave component, which is shown as 112 in fig.10, furthermore, a positioning component (annotated fig.8, 1231 and other part of 123), and the positioning component (annotated fig.8) is axially opposite to the concave component (annotated fig.8) 123 are arms, which are positioning components hold the components in place, prevent winding form falling as described in Guangdong.
Therefore, the Guangdong as modified by Kitamura still teach the limitations as currently claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-6,8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guangdong (Chinese Patent Publication CN112366879 hereinafter “Guangdong”) in view of Kitamura et al. (US Patent 10530213 hereinafter “Kitamura”).
Re-claim 1, Guangdong discloses a motor (100), which comprises a stator (12) and a housing (11,15) for accommodating the stator (12), wherein the housing comprises a housing wall (annotated Fig.8) and a housing bottom (annotated fig.8), the stator comprises a stator core (121) and a resin [insulator] component (123) at least covering one side of the stator core (annotated fig.8) facing the housing bottom (annotated fig.8), one side of the resin component (123) facing the housing bottom (annotated fig.8) has a concave component (112); one side of the housing bottom (annotated fig.8, face facing 123) facing the resin component (123) has a positioning component (annotated fig.8, 1231 and other part of 123), and the positioning component (annotated fig.8) is axially opposite to the concave component (annotated fig.8).
Guangdong fails to explicitly calls the insulator component a resin component.
However, Kitamura teaches the insulator to be a resin component (202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the Guangdong Insulator where it is an insulator made of resin making it a resin component as suggested by Kitamura to make it insulating device for easily winding conductive wire around it and make sure environmental resistance is provided and good insulation is provided using resin material as it is known in the art for insulation of electrical components (Kitamura, Col.3, L.48-60).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
529
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
756
849
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
738
792
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Guangdong discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein, the positioning component is a through hole (25 is hole), and the through hole passes through the housing bottom (annotated fig.8, it is in housing bottom, though it).
Re-claim 3, Guangdong as modified discloses the motor according to claim 2, wherein, a distance between the stator and the housing bottom (annotated fig.8) is less than or equal to 0.5 mm (bottom of 11 is touching stator, therefore is less than .5mm or less).
Re-claim 4, Guangdong as modified discloses the motor according to claim 2.
Guangdong as modified teaches wherein, one side of the concave component (see annotated fig.8) facing the through hole (annotated fig.8) is a chamfered structure (it has chamfered smaller opening); an opening diameter of the chamfered structure (annotated fig.8) is larger than a diameter of the through hole. (annotated fig.8, thru hole where the component 24 is located is smaller than the opening, chamfered structure that is in 25)
Re-claim 5, Guangdong as modified discloses the motor according to claim 4, wherein, a diameter of at least a part of other components of the concave component (part at top of 112 where 25 is inserted) is equal to the diameter of the through hole (annotated fig.8, bottom of hole where 25 is inserted is same).
Re-claim 6, Guangdong as modified discloses the motor according to claim 2, wherein, a periphery of the through hole (hole of 25) on a axially lower surface of the housing bottom (at bottom of the surface towards stator surface) is an annular structure (it is round, see fig.8) that is recessed (the structure is recessed, if looking at different surface axially lower surface of housing, it is recessed down to the left, or up in fig.8) relative to other parts of the axially lower surface of the housing bottom (housing bottom is recessed to be hugging coils, or stator, or component 123 at left side of through hole where 25 and other components are inserted including 11 components) .
Re-claim8, Guangdong as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein the housing wall (annotated fig.8) and the housing bottom (annotated fig.8) are integrally defined (are both housing parts of 11, made together).
Re-claim 9, Guangdong as modified discloses the motor according to claim 1, wherein, the stator (12) further comprises a metal component (annotated fig.8 zoomed) disposed on the stator core (121), the resin component wraps the metal component (25, or end of 25), and the metal component (25) is not exposed from the concave component (122); a concave depth of the concave component is substantially less than or equal to 0.5mm (annotated fig.8).
Even though, Guangdong is silent about the range indicated for the concave component, however, the concave components thickness is a design choice and is based on thickness of housing needs and the structure of the component is shown in the primary reference Guangdong, see eMPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024], OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range), range of .5mm or less lie within the range shown in primary reference therefore its routine optimization of thickness or range of prior art. An dis considered a range within broad range in primary reference, therefore is obvious to show such thicknesses or more or less.
Re-claim 10, Guangdong as modified discloses electrical product (Abstract, electrical equipment), comprising the motor according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, combined with claims 6,2 and 1 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re-claim 7 recites “inter alia”, claims 1. A motor, which comprises a stator and a housing for accommodating the stator, wherein the housing comprises a housing wall and a housing bottom, the stator comprises a stator core and a resin component at least covering one side of the stator core facing the housing bottom, one side of the resin component facing the housing bottom has a concave component; one side of the housing bottom facing the resin component has a positioning component, and the positioning component is axially opposite to the concave component. 2. The motor according to claim 1, wherein, the positioning component is a through hole, and the through hole passes through the housing bottom. 6. The motor according to claim 2, wherein, a periphery of the through hole on a axially lower surface of the housing bottom is an annular structure that is recessed relative to other parts of the axially lower surface of the housing bottom.7. The motor according to claim 6, wherein, a surface smoothness of the annular structure is greater than a surface smoothness of the other parts of the axially lower surface of the housing bottom.”
PNG
media_image5.png
294
536
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
313
272
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The combination of limitations of claims 7, 6, 2 and 1 together are unique and are found allowable as indicted above exactly, the prior art of record, ip.com search nor any combination of references alone or combined fail to teach or suggest the smoothness of the parts as detailed where the parts have recessed structure and have concave and through hole that are all combined to form a unique structural limitation that is unique and is therefore allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834