DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 04 February 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently file: claims 1-20 were previously pending, with claims 8-20 being withdrawn from consideration; claim 7 was canceled by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-6 and 8-20 are now pending in the application, with claims 8-20 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 04 February 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 6 of the Remarks) alleges that the title has been amended as suggested by the examiner. However, no amendment to the title was submitted with the most recent response. The argument appears to confuse the preamble of claim 1, which has been amended to recite a “stator assembly with snapping holes engaged to hooks”, with the title of the invention. As such, the previous objection to the title is maintained.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 6-7 of the Remarks) alleges that Hori does not disclose the “guiding rib” recited in original claim 7, now incorporated into independent claim 1. In response to the Applicant's argument against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Since Kingman, not Hori, was cited as disclosing these limitations in the previous grounds of rejection, this argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 7-8 of the Remarks) alleges that the teachings of Kingman cannot be combined with those of Hori because Kingman does not disclose the “technical context” or “problem of stator rotation, vibration, or positional instability” as referenced in the present application. While not explicitly stated, it appears that this argument is alleging that Kingman is not analogous art. However, no explanation or evidence is provided in support of any of the allegations made, which are clearly untrue. Kingman relates to an electric motor used in vehicles (¶ 0002-0003), and is thus in the same field of endeavor. Kingman also addresses various problems in the art including both stator vibration (¶ 0003) and positional instability (¶ 0016). Thus, since Kingman meets both of the criteria required of analogous art, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Hori and Kingman are maintained.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (page 8 of the Remarks) alleges that the proposed combination, of Hori and Kingman, relies on impermissible hindsight. However, the only explanation of this allegation appears to be the statement that there “is no teaching or suggestion in Kingman to apply its alignment features to the stator-housing interface of Hori”, apparently suggesting that the secondary reference must explicitly mention the primary reference with which it is to be combined. Since this is not a requirement of obviousness, under any known patent law, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Hori and Kingman are maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
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.
The following title is suggested:
Stator Assembly with Snapping Holes Engaged to Hooks.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2023/0208240 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Hori”, in view of Kingman et al. (US 2009/0212649 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kingman”.
Regarding claim 1, Hori discloses a stator assembly [10] (fig. 1; ¶ 0083-0084) with snapping holes [360] engaged to hooks [440] (fig. 4, 17; ¶ 0250), comprising:
a shell seat [400], comprising an inner side wall [430] and a plurality of hooks [440] disposed on the inner side wall [430] (fig. 15-17; ¶ 0084, 0249-0254); and
a stator component [100,200,300], comprising a bobbin [300], a silicon lamination set [100] and a wiring set [130] (fig. 1-4; ¶ 0084-0085; the “electromagnetic steel sheets” are well-known to commonly be made from silicon steel), the bobbin [300] covering the silicon lamination set [100] and exposing an outer peripheral surface [100B] of the silicon lamination set [100] (fig. 2-4; ¶ 0086, 0110-0112), the wiring set [130] arranged on the bobbin [300], and the bobbin [300] comprising a plurality of snapping holes [360] defined on a bottom side thereof (fig. 4, 17; ¶ 0249-0254);
PNG
media_image1.png
549
1220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, the inner side wall [430] is attached to the outer peripheral surface [100B] (fig. 1-4), and the plurality of hooks [440] are engaged to the plurality of snapping holes [360] respectively (fig. 4, 17; ¶ 0250).
Hori does not disclose a guiding rib disposed on one of the inner side wall [430] and the outer peripheral surface [100B], and a guiding groove disposed on another one of the outer peripheral surface [100B] and the inner side wall [430] corresponding to the guiding rib.
Kingman discloses a stator assembly [212] comprising a shell seat [214] having an inner side wall [238] and a stator component [216] having an outer peripheral surface [236] (fig. 4; ¶ 0021), the stator assembly [212] comprising a guiding rib [240] disposed on one of the inner side wall [238] and the outer peripheral surface [236], and a guiding groove [244] disposed on another one of the outer peripheral surface [236] and the inner side wall [238] corresponding to the guiding rib [240] (fig. 4; ¶ 0021-0023), such that the stator component [216] is circumferentially positioned relative to the shell seat [214] during assembly (fig. 4; ¶ 0016; “to prevent relative rotation”).
PNG
media_image2.png
466
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the stator assembly of Hori having complementary guiding ribs and guiding grooves as taught by Kingman, in order to properly align and prevent relative motion between the stator and the shell seat (¶ 0004-0006 of Kingman).
Regarding claim 2, Hori, in view of Kingman, discloses the stator assembly [10] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the shell seat [400] comprises a receiving space surrounded by the inner side wall [430] (fig. 15; the receiving space is bounded by walls 410, 420, and 430), and the hooks [440] are arranged oppositely on a bottom side of the receiving space (fig. 15-17; ¶ 0249-0254).
Regarding claim 3, Hori, in view of Kingman, discloses the stator assembly [10] according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein each of the hooks [440] comprises a bottom plate [441a] and a pair of stopping plates [441b,441c], the bottom plate [441a] is buckled to each of the snapping holes [360] (fig. 16-17; ¶ 0250), and
PNG
media_image3.png
382
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the pair of stopping plates [441b,441c] are connected to the bottom plate [441a] and respectively comprise a first guiding slope (fig. 16-17; the stopping plates are formed by the circumferential end surfaces of the hooks, connected by an inclined top surface).
Regarding claim 4, Hori, in view of Kingman, discloses the stator assembly [10] according to claim 1, as stated above, wherein the shell seat [400] comprises a shut-off [430s] defined on one side of each of the hooks [440] (fig. 16; openings are formed in the bottom surface, extending to either circumferential side of the hooks; these are, as best interpreted, the same elements as those labelled as the “shut-off” in figure 2 of the application).
Regarding claim 5, Hori, in view of Kingman, discloses the stator assembly [10] according to claim 2, as stated above, wherein the bobbin [300] comprises a retaining wall [310] protruding from the silicon lamination set [100], the snapping holes [360] are arranged spacedly on the retaining wall [310], and two cutouts [316A,316B] are defined on two sides of each of the snapping holes [360] respectively (fig. 4; ¶ 0190-0191).
Regarding claim 6, Hori, in view of Kingman, discloses the stator assembly [10] according to claim 5, as stated above, wherein the retaining wall [310] comprises a second guiding slope [361s] disposed on one side of each of the snapping holes [360] (fig. 17; the inner surface of each hole is inclined away from the hooks).
PNG
media_image4.png
483
530
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Suzuki et al. (US 2023/0208242 A1) discloses a similar device to Hori.
Chuang (US 2011/0254397 A1) discloses a stator assembly with an insulator having hooks for forming a snap connection to matching hooks on a shell seat.
Chang et al. (US 2004/0227422 A1) discloses a stator assembly, with a stator core formed from silicon steel laminations, held in place by matching hooks for forming a snap connection.
McDonald (US 4,603,273) discloses a stator assembly having a stator core with grooves on its outer peripheral surface fit with guiding ribs to align the stator within the housing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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 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.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834