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 filed 5/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“The Applicant submits that Kataoka does not expressly or inherently describe at least, for example, the newly presented feature of "the stator base includes a plate- shaped portion that covers an opening of the rotor base," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Kataoka discloses that the stator base includes a plate-shaped portion that covers an opening of the rotor base (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
705
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 9, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Applicant further asserts that:
“However, the Applicant's Specification describes "[t]he present disclosure proposes a brushless motor that can be downsized," See Applicant's Specification at ¶ [0004]. A person of ordinary skill in the field of the Applicant's invention would not look at the disclosure of Lee at the time the invention was made, to combine it with the other references as suggested in the Office Action. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that the rationale proffered to combine the teachings of Kataoka, Furuse, Ohno, and Lee is based on hindsight, and is thus improper.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a brushless motor that can be downsized) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, it is discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kataoka (US
2015/0015104).
As to claim 1, Kataoka discloses a brushless motor (Paragraph 0151), comprising: a stator core (30; Fig. 2) that faces a magnet in a radial direction (Fig. 2); a rotor base (53; Fig. 2) configured to support the magnet ((51; Fig. 2), wherein the rotor base surrounds the stator core (Fig. 2); a first bearing and a second bearing (62 and 63; Fig. 2), wherein the first bearing is configured to rotatably support the rotor base (62; Fig. 2), the second bearing is configured to rotatably support the rotor base (63; Fig. 2), the stator core is between the first bearing and the second bearing in an axial direction (Fig. 2); and a stator base configured to support the stator core (Fig. 2), wherein the stator base includes a plate-shaped portion that covers an opening of the rotor base (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
705
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries 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 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka and further
in view of Furuse (US 2003/0048034) and Ohno (US 2022/0170507).
As to claim 3, Kataoka discloses the brushless motor according to claim 1, further comprising:
the stator base (35; Fig. 2) includes a cylindrical portion, the shaft is in the cylindrical portion, an outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports the first bearing, and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports the second bearing, and the second bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft.
PNG
media_image2.png
519
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kataoka fails to disclose a shaft integrated with the rotor base; an outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports the first bearing, and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports the second bearing, and the second bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft.
Furuse, however, discloses a shaft formed to be integrated with the rotor base (Paragraph 0037;
Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
642
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka with a
shaft formed to be integrated with the rotor base, as disclosed by Furuse, in order to improve efficiency
and simplify assembly.
Ohno, however, discloses an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports the second bearing (Fig. 3 of Ohno), and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports the second bearing, and the second bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft (Fig. 3 of Ohno).
PNG
media_image4.png
610
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka with an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports the second bearing, and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports the second bearing, and the second bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft, as disclosed by Ohno in order to improve the reliability of bearings in a motor (Paragraph 0007 of Ohno).
As to claim 9, Kataoka discloses the brushless motor according to claim 1, further comprising;
the stator base (35; Fig. 2) includes a cylindrical portion, the shaft is in the cylindrical portion, an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports each of the first bearing and the second bearing, the first bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft, and the second bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft.
Kataoka fails to disclose a shaft integrated with the rotor base; and an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports each of the first bearing and the second bearing, the first bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft, and the second bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft.
Furuse, however, discloses a shaft integrated with the rotor base (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
641
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka with a
shaft formed to be integrated with the rotor base, as disclosed by Furuse, in order to improve efficiency
and simplify assembly.
Ohno, however, discloses an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports each of the first bearing and the second bearing (Fig. 3 of Ohno), the first bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft (Fig. 3 of Ohno), and the second bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft (Fig. 3 of Ohno).
PNG
media_image6.png
617
595
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka with an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion supports each of the first bearing and the second bearing, the first bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft, and the second bearing is further configured to rotatably support the shaft, as disclosed by Ohno in order to improve the
reliability of bearings in a motor (Paragraph 0007 of Ohno).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka, Furuse, Ohno as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2022/0135179).
As to claim 4, the combination of Kataoka, Furuse, and Ohno disclose the brushless motor
according to claim 3.
Kataoka fails to disclose the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion includes a first
portion, a second portion, and a first step portion, the first portion has an outer diameter larger than an inner diameter of the stator core, the second portion has an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the stator core, and the first step portion is located between the first portion and the second portion, and the stator core is in contact with the first step portion.
Lee, however, discloses the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion includes a first
Portion (Fig. 3a of Lee), a second portion (Fig. 3a of Lee), and a first step portion (Fig. 3a of Lee), the first portion has an outer diameter larger than an inner diameter of the stator core (Fig. 3a of Lee), the second portion has an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the stator core (Fig. 3a of Lee), and the first step portion is located between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 3a of Lee), and the stator core is in contact with the first step portion (Fig. 3a of Lee).
PNG
media_image7.png
354
686
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka with the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion includes a first portion, a second portion, and a first step portion, the first portion has an outer diameter larger than an inner diameter of the stator core, the second portion has an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the stator core, and the first step portion is located between the first portion and the second portion, and the stator core is in contact with the first step portion, as disclosed by Lee, in order to maximize space efficiency while supporting the stator core.
As to claim 5, the combination of Kataoka, Furuse, Ohno, and Lee disclose the brushless motor
according to 4.
Kataoka fails to disclose the outer diameter of the second portion is larger than an inner
diameter of the first bearing.
Lee, however, discloses the outer diameter of the second portion is larger than an inner
diameter of the first bearing (Fig. 3a of Lee).
PNG
media_image8.png
475
610
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka, Furuse, and Ohno with the outer diameter of the second portion is larger than an inner diameter of the first bearing, as disclosed by Lee, in order to improve space management.
Kataoka fails to disclose the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion includes a third
portion and a second step portion, the third portion has an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the first bearing, and the second step portion is located between the second portion and the third portion, and the first bearing is in contact with the second step portion.
Ohno, however, discloses the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion includes a third portion and a second step portion (Fig. 3 of Ohno), the third portion has an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the first bearing (Fig. 3 of Ohno), and the second step portion is located between the second portion and the third portion (Fig. 3 of Ohno), and the first bearing is in contact with the second step portion (Fig. 3 of Ohno).
PNG
media_image9.png
659
624
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka, Furuse, and Lee with the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion includes a third portion and a second step portion, the third portion has an outer diameter smaller than the inner diameter of the first bearing, and the second step portion is located between the second portion and the third portion, and the first bearing is in contact with the second step portion, as disclosed by Ohno, in order to allow for a bearing to rest against for better stability.
As the combination of Kataoka, Furuse, Ohno, and Lee is made, it would result in a second step
portion located between the second portion and the third portion.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka, Furuse, Ohno,
as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Iwata (US 2022/0316487).
As to claim 6, the combination of Kataoka, Furuse and Ohno disclose the brushless motor
according to claim 3.
Kataoka fails to disclose a retaining member located on a surface of the second bearing, wherein the surface of the second bearing is located opposite the first bearing, and the retaining member is configured to prevent removal of the shaft from the cylindrical portion.
Iwata, however, discloses a retaining member located on a surface of the second bearing (Fig. 1
of Iwata), wherein the surface of the second bearing is located opposite the first bearing, and the retaining member is configured to prevent removal of the shaft from the cylindrical portion (Fig. 1 of Iwata).
PNG
media_image10.png
609
567
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka, Furuse,
and Ohno with a retaining member located on a surface of the second bearing, wherein the surface of the second bearing is located opposite the first bearing, and the retaining member is configured to prevent removal of the shaft from the cylindrical portion, as disclosed by Iwata, in order to prevent shaft displacement and maintain alignment.
As to claim 7, the combination of Kataoka, Furuse, Ohno and Iwata disclose the brushless motor
according to claim 6.
Kataoka fails to disclose the retaining member is further configured to apply a preload to each of the first bearing and the second bearing.
Ohno, however, discloses the retaining member is further configured to apply a preload to each of the first bearing and the second bearing (Paragraph 0075-0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka and
Furuse with the retaining member is further configured to apply a preload to each of the first bearing and the second bearing, as disclosed by Ohno, in order to prevent misalignment and enhance life of the bearings.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in view of Iwata (US
2022/0316487).
As to claim 8, the combination of Kataoka disclose the brushless motor according to claim 1.
Kataoka fails to disclose the rotor base includes a plurality of through holes, and the plurality of through holes exposes a part of the first bearing in the axial direction.
Iwata, however, discloses the rotor base includes a plurality of through holes, and the plurality of through holes exposes a part of the first bearing in the axial direction (Fig. 1 of Iwata).
PNG
media_image11.png
548
588
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brushless motor of Kataoka with the rotor base includes a plurality of through holes, and the plurality of through holes exposes a part of the first bearing in the axial direction, as disclosed by Iwata, in order to improve heat dissipation and weight reduction.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5pm.
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,
Christopher M Koehler can be reached on 571 272 3560. 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.
/ETHAN NGUYEN VO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834