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 .
Drawings
Applicant’s amendment cancelling of claims 7-9), see Remark/Amendment, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to drawing objection of claims 7-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous drawing objection of claims 7-9 have been withdrawn.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (US 2013/0313938 A1).
RE claim 21, Yamada teaches an outer rotor motor (M) (Figs.49, 50) comprising: a stator 607 including a plurality of stator teeth 611 configured to receive a plurality of stator coils 615; and a rotor 608 configured to rotate around the stator 607, the rotor including: a first permanent magnet 624 positioned on an inner surface of the rotor 608, a second permanent magnet 624 positioned on the inner surface of the rotor 608, and an air slot (slot between magnets 624, the slot with length Ao) located between the first permanent magnet 624 and the second permanent magnet 624 on the inner surface of the rotor 608, the air slot having a length (Ao) and a width, the length (Ao) of the air slot being greater than a length (Bo) of the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet 624 (see ¶ 364).
RE claim 22/21, Yamada teaches the stator 607 includes at least twelve stator slots (Fig.49).
RE claim 23/21, Yamada teaches the rotor 608 includes at least five rotor poles (Fig.49).
RE claim 25/21, Yamada teaches comprising a consequent pole 622 positioned in the air slot, wherein the consequent pole 622 is an iron pole (¶ 343).
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.
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2013/0313938 A1).
RE claim 24/21, Yamada has been discussed above. In embodiment of Figure 48-50, Yamada does not teach the magnets are composed of a rare earth metal,
However, Yamada further suggests that rare earth metal is well-known in the arts and the type of material is not limited and can be any suitable material (¶ 434). The rare-earth material is well-known for providing high flux density which can improve efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada by having the magnets to be composed of a rare earth metal, as taught by Yamada, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada as in view of Chen et al. (WO 2020098345 A1).
RE claim 26/25, Yamada has been discussed above. Yamada does not teach the consequent pole includes a width of approximately 1 millimeter to 12 millimeters.
Chen suggests that the dimension of pole (e.g.: length L2, width L1) are result effective variables whose value can be adjusted to optimize motor magnetization (see translation page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada by having the consequent pole includes a width of approximately 1 millimeter to 12 millimeters, as suggested by Chen, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2017/0077773 A1) in Hessenberger et al. (US 2011/0169351 A1) and Yamada et al. (US 2013/0313938 A1).
RE claim 1, Li teaches a power tool (Fig.1) comprising: a battery pack interface (where battery arranged, see Fig.1) configured to receive battery pack 19 (Fig.1); and an outer rotor motor 20 (Figs.1, 2) including: a stator (51, 53) (see Fig.2 and ¶ 29) including a plurality of stator teeth 551 configured to receive a plurality of stator coils 51, and a rotor 31 configured to rotate around the stator (51, 53), the rotor including: a first permanent magnet 35 positioned on an inner surface of the rotor 31, a second permanent magnet 35 positioned on the inner surface of the rotor 31, and an air slot 38 located between the first permanent magnet 35 and the second permanent magnet 35 on the inner surface of the rotor 31
Li does not teach:
The battery pack is removable and rechargeable
the air slot having a length and a width, the length of the air slot being greater than a length of the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet.
RE (i) above, Hessenberger teaches the battery pack is removable and rechargeable (¶ 29). As it is well-known that removable and rechargeable are cost-effective and portable solution for power tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by having the battery pack to be removable and rechargeable, as taught by Hessenberger, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE (ii) above, Yamada teaches the length of the air slot (slot where salient pole 622) being greater than a length (Bo) of the first permanent magnet 624 or the second permanent magnet 624 (Fig.50 and ¶ 364). Accordingly, even more favorable magnetic balance can be achieved (¶ 365)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Hessenberger by having the length of the air slot being greater than a length of the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet, as taught by Yamada, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Li in view of Hessenberger and Yamada has been discussed above. Li further teaches the stator (51, 53) includes at least twelve stator slots (see Fig.2); and the rotor 31 includes at least five rotor poles (Fig.2).
RE claim 3/1, Li in view of Hessenberger and Yamada has been discussed above. Li does not teach the first permanent magnet and the second permanent magnet are composed of a rare earth metal.
However, Yamada further suggests that rare earth metal is well-known in the arts and the type of material is not limited and can be any suitable material (¶ 434). The rare-earth material is well-known for providing high flux density which can improve efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Hessenberger by having the first permanent magnet and the second permanent magnet are composed of a rare earth metal, as taught by Yamada, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 4/1, as discussed above, Yamada teaches a consequent pole 622 positioned in the air slot (see Fig.50).
RE claim 5/4, as discussed above, Yamada teaches the consequent pole is an iron pole (¶ 343).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Hessenberger and Yamada as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (WO 2020098345 A1).
RE claim 6/4, Li in view of Hessenberger and Yamada has been discussed above. Li does not teach the consequent pole includes a width of approximately 1 millimeter to 12 millimeters.
Chen suggests that the dimension of pole (e.g.: length L2, width L1) are result effective variables whose value can be adjusted to optimize motor magnetization (see translation page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li in view of Hessenberger and Yamada by having the consequent pole includes a width of approximately 1 millimeter to 12 millimeters, as suggested by Chen, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights