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 . Claims 1-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 19 by adding the limitation “the stator core is C-shaped.” However, as evidenced by Leaver et al. (US 20140319955 A1), it’s known to those having ordinary skills in the art that C-shaped cores result in a relatively high fill factor, that makes the modification obvious.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20100156231 A1) in view of Leaver et al. (US 20140319955 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
657
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a brushless motor (1, fig. 3) comprising
PNG
media_image2.png
347
491
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
361
341
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a stator assembly (2, fig. 7), and
a frame (52, fig. 11A) within which the stator assembly is housed, wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
363
788
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the stator assembly comprises a plurality of stator core sub-assemblies (fig. 6) each comprising a stator core (53, figs. 5B and 6), a bobbin attached to the stator core (54, fig. 6), and a winding (59, fig. 3) wound about the bobbin,
each bobbin comprising a connection portion (recess A and protrusion B, fig. 6) for connecting to an adjacent bobbin in the stator assembly, and
the frame being overmoulded to the stator assembly (para [0137, “The slim type motor 1 according to this invention includes: a stator 50 that is integrally formed by an annular stator holder 52”; see also para [0171]: “The division stator core assembly 2 whose connected has been completed as aforesaid, is molded by an insert molding method, to complete a stator holder 52 of FIG. 11A.”).
Lee does not disclose each stator core sub-assembly comprise a C-shaped stator core. Leaver teaches using C-shaped stator core sub-assembly results in a relatively high fill factor (see para [0025]: “The core 8 is generally c-shaped” and [0032]: “As a result, a relatively high fill factor may be achieved for each stator element 6,7.”)
To achieve a high fill factor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify stator core sub-assemblies in such a way that each comprising a C-shaped stator core.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 discloses the brushless motor as claimed in Claim 1, wherein each bobbin is overmoulded to a respective stator core (see abstract: “bobbins that are molded on respective outer circumferences of a number of division cores”; see also para [0081]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 discloses the brushless motor as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the bobbins comprise a first material (thermosetting resin), and the frame comprises a second material (thermosetting resin).
Lee does not disclose the second material is different to the first material. However, since the functions of the two molds are different (first one for electrical insulation, and the second one for mechanical strength) and the two molds are formed at different times, it is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art to choose two different mold materials to minimize cost and optimize functionality.
For minimizing cost and optimizing functionality, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second material different to the first material.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 discloses the brushless motor as claimed in Claim 1, wherein
each bobbin is overmoulded to a respective stator core in a respective first overmoulding process (para [0081]: “a number of bobbins that forms an annular division stator core assembly wherein each bobbin comprises first and second flanges formed at one side of the bobbin and the other side thereof; respectively, and is molded on the outer circumference of the respective division stator cores”), and
the frame is overmoulded to the stator assembly in a second overmoulding process different to the first overmoulding process (para [0083]: “a stator holder that molds the division stator core assembly that is formed by winding the coils on the bobbins, by an insert molding method using a thermosetting resin.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 discloses the brushless motor as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the stator assembly comprises first and second terminals to which the windings are attached (implied for any electrical circuit), and a sleeve overmoulded (81, fig. 10A) to the first terminal.
PNG
media_image5.png
350
392
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Lee is silent about a sleeve overmould for the second terminal because Lee is using a three phase electrical input whereas in the instant case, a single phase is used. Using a similar sleeve overmould for a single phase drive for the stator is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
In the case of a single phase drive for the stator, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that there would have been a second terminal that had a sleeve overmould.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 discloses the brushless motor as claimed in Claim 5, wherein the first and second terminals are exposed through apertures in the sleeve, and the windings are attached to the first and second terminals through the apertures (see 10A wherein 59a from a coil is connected to the terminal via an aperture in the sleeve 81).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 discloses the brushless motor as claimed in Claim 5, wherein the sleeve and the frame comprise the same material (thermosetting resin implied; Lee talks only about a thermosetting resin for molds).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 discloses the brushless motor as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the brushless motor comprises a rotor assembly (60, fig. 3), the rotor assembly comprises a shaft (70, fig. 3), a rotor core (61 and 64, fig. 3), a first bearing (71, fig. 3) attached to a first end of the shaft, and a second bearing (73, fig. 3) attached to a second end of the shaft opposite to the first end of the shaft, and first and second bearing seats for the respective first and second bearings.
Lee does not disclose: the frame defines first and second bearing seats for the respective first and second bearings, and a channel within which the rotor core is located. This is because Lee is disclosing a motor with an outer double-rotor. For a single inner rotor, it is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art to extend the frame to include the seats for the bearings. With this change, a channel within rotor core is created.
To create an inner rotor version of the motor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame in such a way that the frame defines first and second bearing seats for the respective first and second bearings, and a channel within which the rotor core is located.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 discloses the brushless motor as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the frame is overmoulded to the stator assembly such that portions of the stator cores are exposed through the frame (see para [0056]: “a stator holder that molds a division stator core assembly that is formed by winding the coils on the bobbins by an insert molding that uses a thermosetting resin, excepting inner and outer side surfaces of each division core in the division stator core assembly.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 does not disclose a vacuum cleaner comprising the brushless motor as claimed in claim 1. However, this is an intended application for the motor and does not narrow the scope of the motor in any ways. Furthermore, it’s within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art to utilize the motor in a vacuum cleaner.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee, as discussed and modified by Leaver in claim 1, discloses the method of manufacturing a brushless motor, the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of stator core sub-assemblies, each comprising a C-shaped stator core, a bobbin attached to the stator core, and a winding wound about the bobbin, each bobbin comprising a connection portion for connecting to an adjacent bobbin in the stator assembly (see discussion regarding claim 1);
connecting adjacent stator core sub-assemblies, via the connection portions of the bobbin, to form a stator assembly (see discussion regarding claim 1);
overmoulding the stator assembly to define a frame within which the stator assembly is housed (see discussion regarding claim 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 and discussed regarding claim 19 discloses the method as claimed in Claim 19, wherein each bobbin is overmoulded to a respective stator core in a respective first overmoulding process, and the frame is overmoulded to the stator assembly in a second overmoulding process different to the first overmoulding process (implied because windings need to be wound around bobbing and then bobbins to be connected to each other, it is after this step that the frame can be formed).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 and discussed regarding claim 19 discloses the method as claimed in Claim 19 wherein the method comprises overmoulding a sleeve to first and second terminals (the need for a second terminal and overmoulding it for a single phase electricity discussed regarding claim 5), and attaching the windings to the terminals to form the stator assembly (see fig. 10A wherein one end of a coil 59a is attached to terminal 81).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee as modified by Leaver in claim 1 and discussed regarding claim 19 discloses the method as claimed Claim 21, wherein the sleeve comprises a same material as the frame, and the sleeve and the frame are formed in separate overmoulding processes (discussed regarding claim 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834