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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-10 remained pending and claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
a rotor configured to rotate around the stator, wherein:
“the rotor further includes: a lamination stack, the lamination stack including an inner lamination portion and an outer lamination portion, anda plastic mold, wherein the plastic mold is configured to increase retention of the lamination stack” in claim 7
“the inner lamination portion includes a triangular groove portion configured to retain a first portion of the plastic mold to secure the plastic mold to the inner lamination portion” In claim 8
“the outer lamination portion includes an L-shaped portion configured to retain a second portion of the plastic mold to secure the outer lamination portion to the plastic mold” in claim 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recited: “the rotor further includes: a lamination stack, the lamination stack including an inner lamination portion and an outer lamination portion, and a plastic mold, wherein the plastic mold is configured to increase retention of the lamination stack”
However, according to Figure 13 of the instant application, the mold 1320 appeared to be direct to an inner rotor 1300 (see instant application Figs.11-13 and specification ¶ 47-50, 96).
Therefore, because claim 1 recited an outer rotor (“a rotor configured to rotate around the stator”) claim 7 direct to an inner rotor embodiment which contradicted with claim 1 and therefore which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art.
Claims 8-10 are rejected for the same reason as well as their dependency on claim 7.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2017/0077773 A1) in view of Xiao et al. (CN 109361281 A) and Hessenberger et al. (US 2011/0169351 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, Xiao teaches the length of the air slot (slot between magnet 200) being greater than a length of the first permanent magnet 200 or the second permanent magnet 200 (see Figs.1-3). This provides the increased flux density at the outer flat magnets 802 where it is most needed and yet allows for reduction in the thickness of steel (saving both weight and material).
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 (slot between magnet 200) being greater than a length of the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet, as taught by Xiao, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Li in view of Hessenberger and Ortt 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 4/1, as discussed above, Xiao teaches a consequent pole 120 positioned in the air slot (see Fig.3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Hessenberger and Xiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kislev et al. (US 2022/0094222 A1).
RE claim 3/1, Li in view of Hessenberger and Xiao has been discussed above. Li does not teach the first permanent magnet and the second permanent magnet are composed of a rare earth metal.
Kislev evidenced that permanent magnet can be composed of a rare earth metal or any suitable material (¶ 155). The choice of material can be adjusted base on magnetic performance requirement of rotor and/or cost.
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 Xiao by having the first permanent magnet and the second permanent magnet are composed of a rare earth metal, as taught by Kislev, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Hessenberger and Xiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 114069924 A).
RE claim 5/4, Li in view of Hessenberger and Xiao has been discussed above. Li does not teach the consequent pole is an iron pole.
Li teaches the consequent pole 1 is an iron pole (see translation page 10, 1-5th ¶ for rotor 110 is iron core). The iron core allows more magnetic flux conduction with rotor magnet which can improve output electromagnetic performance.
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 Xiao, as taught by Li, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 6/4, Li in view of Hessenberger and Xiao has been discussed above. Li does not teach the consequent pole includes a width of approximately 1 millimeter to 12 millimeters.
Li suggests that dimension of rotor core can be adjusted (see Fig.3) as to ensure the magnetic field strength, ensure the output performance of the motor (see translation page 4, 3-5th ¶).
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 Xiao by having the consequent pole includes a width of approximately 1 millimeter to 12 millimeters, as taught by Li, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Hessenberger and Xiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2014/0152135 A1).
RE claim 7/1, Li in view of Hessenberger and Xiao has been discussed above. Li further teaches the rotor 31 further includes: a lamination stack (Fig.3 and ¶ 16), the lamination stack 31 including an inner lamination portion (inner radial portion) and an outer lamination portion (outer radial portion).
Li does not teach a plastic mold, wherein the plastic mold is configured to increase retention of the lamination stack.
Jang teaches a plastic mold 14 (Fig.2 and ¶ 36), wherein the plastic mold 14 is configured to increase retention of the core 10, doing so can improve rigidity of the rotor which can improve reliability of the rotor.
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 Xiao by having a plastic mold, wherein the plastic mold is configured to increase retention of the lamination stack, as taught by Jang, for the same reasons as discussed above.
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