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 5-8, filed 05/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s)1, 3-10 under 35 U.S.C.103 respectively have been fully are not persuasive.
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
182
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kitaji teaches the sensor (241) positioned on a surface of the printed circuit board (24) facing the stator (321) and is separated from the rotor only by air as shown in figures 2 and 4.
In summary, the Examiner has taken the broadest and most reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations as written, in light of the specification. Although the specification may contain recitations of intended use, alternative points of view and subjective interpretative differences between the prior art of record and the present invention as premeditated, it is the claims themselves that are given patentable weight only inasmuch as they are constructed. Because the claimed invention has been painted with the broad stroke of petitioning for limitations that encompasses more than is asserted in the Applicant’s claims, the prior art of record continues to fully discloses the Applicant’s inventions as claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm (DE102014220201) in view of Kitaji et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0381017).
As to independent claim 1, Bohm teaches a brushless electric motor (1) comprising: a stator (4) with one or more electromagnets, each of which is formed by an iron core (31) and a wire coil (3), a rotor (see annotated figure 1) that rotates in the stator (2), and which has a circular multi-pole magnet or one or more permanent magnets (5), a printed circuit board (6) populated with electric and/or electronic components (37) and a connection (10) for electrically connecting the stator (4) to the printed circuit board (6), the connection including contacts (10) attached to the stator (4), which can be electrically connected to the printed circuit board (6), wherein the contacts (10) are attached to an outer circumference of the stator (4) and wherein the sensor (25) is positioned on a surface of the printed circuit board (6) facing the stator (4) as shown in figure 1 .
PNG
media_image2.png
430
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However Bohm teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except a sensor for determining at least one of a rotational angle and rotations of the rotor and is separated from the rotor only by air.
Kitaji et al. teaches a sensor (241) for determining at least one of a rotational angle and rotations of the rotor (32A) and is separated from the rotor (32A only by air as shown in figures 1-2 and 4, for the advantageous benefit of improving a torque characteristic of the motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm by using a sensor for determining at least one of a rotational angle and rotations of the rotor a sensor for determining at least one of a rotational angle and rotations of the rotor and is separated from the rotor only by air, as taught by Kitaji et al., to improve a torque characteristic of the motor.
As to claim 2/1, Bohm in view of Kitaji et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further including a sensor for determining a rotational angle and/or rotations of the rotor.
Kitaji et al. teaches including a sensor (241) for determining a rotational angle and/or rotations of the rotor (32A)as shown in figures 1 and 2, for the advantageous benefit of improving a torque characteristic of the motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm in view of KItaji et al. by using a sensor for determining a rotational angle and/or rotations of the rotor, as taught by Kitaji et al., to improve a torque characteristic of the motor.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm (DE102014220201) and Kitaji et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0381017) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (CN 101588089).
As to claim 3/1, Bohm in view of Kitaji et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the sensor comprises at least one Hall sensor.
However Kim teaches the sensor comprises at least one Hall sensor (see pages 11, lines 11-14) , for the advantageous benefit of providing a printed circuit board can be more easily, stably combined on the accurate position of the stator assembly of the motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm in view of Kitaji et al. by using the sensor comprises at least one Hall sensor, as taught by Kim, to provide a printed circuit board can be more easily, stably combined on the accurate position of the stator assembly of the motor.
Claim(s) 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm (DE102014220201) and Kitaji et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0381017) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernreuther (EP3340440).
As to claim 4/1, Bohm in view of Kitaji et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the contacts are insulation-piercing contacts.
However Bernreuther teaches the contacts are insulation-piercing contacts (11) s shown in figure 8, for the advantageous benefit of avoiding unnecessary wire lengths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm in view of Kitaji et al. by using the contacts are insulation-piercing contacts, as taught by Bernreuther, to avoid unnecessary wire lengths.
As to claim 7/1, Bohm and Kitaji et al. in view of Bernreuther teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further including press-in contacts for electrically connecting the contacts to the printed circuit board.
Bernreuther teaches further including press-in contacts for electrically connecting the contacts to the printed circuit board (see paragraph [0028]), for the advantageous benefit of avoiding unnecessary wire lengths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Iwai et al. and Bohm in view of Bernreuther by using press-in contacts for electrically connecting the contacts to the printed circuit board, as taught by Bernreuther, to avoid unnecessary wire lengths.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm (DE102014220201) and Kitaji et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0381017) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Blaser (EP2453557).
As to claim 5/1, However Bohm wherein the contacts (10) have sockets (26) as shown in figure 1, but Bohm in view of Kitaji et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except on an outer circumference of the stator.
However Blaser teaches on an outer circumference of the stator (4) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of improving a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
PNG
media_image3.png
353
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm in view of Kitaji et al. by using on an outer circumference of the stator, as taught by Blaser, to improve a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
As to claim 6/5, Bohm and Kitaji et al. in view of Blasér teaches wherein the sockets extend radially outward from the stator.
However Blaser teaches the sockets (see annotated figure 4) extend radially outward from the stator (4) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of improving a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm and Kitaji et al. in view of Blasér by using the sockets extend radially outward from the stator, as taught by Blaser, to improve a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
As to claim 8/1, Bohm in view of Kitaji et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the contacts have sockets that protrude radially outward beyond the outer circumference of the stator.
However Blaser teaches the contacts (38) have sockets (see annotated figure 5) that protrude radially outward beyond the outer circumference of the stator (4) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of improving a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm in view of Kitaji et al. by using the contacts have sockets that protrude radially outward beyond the outer circumference of the stator, as taught by Blaser, to improving a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
As to claim 9/8, Bohm and Kitaji et al. in view of Blaser teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further comprising a plastic cover positioned at an end of the stator facing the printed circuit board, wherein the sockets protrude radially outward from the plastic cover beyond the outer circumference of the stator.
However Blaser teaches a plastic cover (32) positioned at an end of the stator facing the printed circuit board (40), wherein the sockets (see annotated figure 5) protrude radially outward from the plastic cover (32) beyond the outer circumference of the stator (4) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of improving a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm and Kitaji et al. in view of Blaser by using a plastic cover positioned at an end of the stator facing the printed circuit board, wherein the sockets protrude radially outward from the plastic cover beyond the outer circumference of the stator, as taught by Blaser, to improve a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
As to claim 10/9, Bohm and Kitaji et al. in view of Blaser teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the sockets are formed integrally with the plastic cover as a one-piece unit.
However Blaser teaches the sockets (see annotated figure 5) are formed integrally with the plastic cover (32) as a one-piece unit as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of improving a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm and Kitaji et al. in view of Blaser by using the sockets are formed integrally with the plastic cover as a one-piece unit, as taught by Blaser, to improve a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm (DE102014220201) in view of Kitaji et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0381017) and Blaser (EP2453557).
As to independent claim 11, Bohm teaches a brushless electric motor (1) comprising: a stator (4) with one or more electromagnets, each of which is formed by an iron core (31) and a wire coil (3), a rotor (see annotated figure 1) that rotates in the stator (2), and which has a circular multi-pole magnet or one or more permanent magnets (5), a printed circuit board (6) populated with electric and/or electronic components (37) and a connection (10) for electrically connecting the stator (4) to the printed circuit board (6), the connection including contacts (10) attached to the stator (4), which can be electrically connected to the printed circuit board (6), wherein the contacts (10) are attached to an outer circumference of the stator (4) and wherein the sensor (25) is positioned on a surface of the printed circuit board (6) facing the stator (4) as shown in figure 1 .
However Bohm teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except a sensor for determining at least one of a rotational angle and rotations of the rotor and a plastic cover positioned at an end of the stator facing the printed circuit board, wherein the sockets protrude radially outward from the plastic cover beyond the outer circumference of the stator.
Kitaji et al. teaches a sensor (241) for determining at least one of a rotational angle and rotations of the rotor (32A) as shown in figures 1-2 and 4, for the advantageous benefit of improving a torque characteristic of the motor.
Blaser teaches a plastic cover (32) positioned at an end of the stator facing the printed circuit board (40), wherein the sockets (see annotated figure 5) protrude radially outward from the plastic cover (32) beyond the outer circumference of the stator (4) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of improving a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bohm and Kitaji et al. by using a sensor for determining at least one of a rotational angle and rotations of the rotor and a plastic cover positioned at an end of the stator facing the printed circuit board, wherein the sockets protrude radially outward from the plastic cover beyond the outer circumference of the stator, as taught by Kitaji et al. and Blaser, to improve a torque characteristic of the motor and improve a wet-running electric motor to the effect that the stator can be placed in a simple manner precisely close to the split tube.
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 JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 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.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights