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 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“But Applicant contends that Chen does not disclose or render obvious that the "first and second arms define a winding channel for locating a winding relative to the stator core, and the winding channel comprises a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape." As illustrated below, Chen teaches a stator core that is most accurately described as rectangular in shape (see left hand side annotated example). Or if the perimeter of the stator core is interpreted more specifically, the shape is some form of hexagonal shape. Applicant contends, that in either interpretation, the stator core of Chen is not generally trapezoidal in shape as the claims recite.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Chen discloses the back and the first and second arms define a winding channel for locating a winding relative to the stator core (125; Fig. 2 of Chen), and the winding channel comprises a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (Fig. 2 of Chen).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
425
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN
211630057), and in view of Yu (GB 2577546).
As to claim 1, Chen discloses a stator core, the stator core comprising a back, and first and
second arms extending from the back, each of the first and second arms comprising a first portion
extending substantially orthogonally relative to the back, and a second portion obliquely angled relative
to the first portion, wherein the back and the first and second arms define a winding channel for locating a winding relative to the stator core (125; Fig. 2), and the winding channel comprises a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
479
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
486
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen fails to disclose a brushless permanent magnet motor.
Yu, however, discloses a brushless permanent magnet motor (“The permanent magnet motor
100 is a single-phase brushless permanent magnet motor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the stator core of Chen with a brushless permanent
magnet motor, as disclosed by Yu, to achieve higher levels of efficiency and to reduce the size of the
motor.
As to claim 2, the combination of Chen and Yu discloses the stator core as claimed in Claim 1,
wherein the second portions of the first and second arms are angled toward one another (Fig. 6 of
Chen).
PNG
media_image3.png
371
541
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, the combination of Chen and Yu discloses the stator core as claimed in Claim 1,
wherein the second portions of the first and second arms are angled (Fig. 2 of Chen).
Chen fails to disclose around 20 to 40 degrees relative to the respective first portions of the first
and second arms.
However, those skilled in the art would recognize that the above limitations do not involve any
inventive concept. They would merely depend on how one decides to design the angle of the first and
second arms. Furthermore, the instant specification fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained
from the fact that the second portions of the first and second arms are angled around 20 to 40 degrees
relative to the respective first portions of the first and second arms.
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 modify the stator core of Chen, such that the
second portions of the first and second arms are angled around 20 to 40 degrees relative to the
respective first portions of the first and second arms, in order to reduce the volume and make the
structure compact.
As to claim 20, the combination of Chen and Yu discloses a brushless permanent magnet motor
comprising the stator core as claimed in Claim 1 (Yu states, “The permanent magnet motor 100 is a
single-phase brushless permanent magnet motor”).
As to claim 21, the combination of Chen and Yu discloses a vacuum cleaner (Fig. 13 of Yu)
comprising the brushless permanent magnet motor as claimed in Claim 20.
PNG
media_image4.png
505
287
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Yu, and in view of
Weng (CN 110556997)
As to claim 5, the combination of Chen and Yu discloses the stator core as claimed in Claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose a length of each second portion is in the region of 1.5 to 2.5 times a length
of the respective first portion.
Weng, however, discloses a length of each second portion is larger than the length of the first
portion (Fig. 7b).
PNG
media_image5.png
394
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Weng fails to disclose in the region of 1.5 to 2.5 times a length of the respective first portion.
However, those skilled in the art would recognize that the above limitations do not involve any
inventive concept. They would merely depend on how one decides how much longer the second portion
is than the first portion. Furthermore, the instant specification fails to disclose any unexpected results
obtained from the fact a length of each second portion is in the region of 1.5 to 2.5 times a length of the
respective first portion.
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 modify the stator core of Chen, such that a length
of each second portion is in the region of 1.5 to 2.5 times a length of the respective first portion, in
order to optimize space for the windings.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Yu, and in view
of Horiuchi (US 2020/0204015).
As to claim 6, the combination of Chen and Yu discloses the stator core as claimed in Claim 1,
wherein each second portion comprises a respective pole face (Fig. 2 of Chen).
PNG
media_image6.png
272
452
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chen fails to disclose the pole faces of the first and second arms are asymmetric.
Horiuchi, however, discloses the pole faces of the first and second arms are asymmetric (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image7.png
419
483
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 provide the stator core of Chen with the pole faces of the first and
second arms are asymmetric, as disclosed by Horiuchi, to achieve higher levels of torque (Para 0057).
As to claim 7, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Horiuchi discloses the stator core as claimed in
Claim 6, wherein the pole faces are curved (Fig. 2 of Chen), and a center of curvature of the pole face of
the first arm is different to a center of curvature of the pole face of the second arm (Fig. 2 of Chen).
PNG
media_image8.png
361
413
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Horiuchi discloses the stator core as claimed in
Claim 6, wherein the pole face of the first arm is a different shape to the pole face of the second arm
(Fig. 2 of Horiuchi), the pole face of the first arm is asymmetric about a center line of the pole face of the
first arm (Fig. 2 of Chen), and the pole face of the second arm is asymmetric about a center line of the
pole face of the second arm (Fig. 2 of Chen).
PNG
media_image9.png
758
548
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Horiuchi discloses the stator core as claimed in
Claim 6, wherein the pole faces of the first and second arms are spaced apart to define a slot gap (Fig. 2
of Chen).
PNG
media_image10.png
268
327
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Chen fails to disclose a ratio of a combined width of the pole faces to the width of the slot gap is
in the region of 3:1 to 7:1.
However, those skilled in the art would recognize that the above limitations do not involve any
inventive concept. They would merely depend on how large one decides to design the slot gap.
Furthermore, the instant specification fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact
that a ratio of a combined width of the pole faces to the width of the slot gap is in the region of 3:1 to
7:1.
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 modify the stator core of Chen, such that a ratio of
a combined width of the pole faces to the width of the slot gap is in the region of 3:1 to 7:1, in order to
optimize space for the windings.
As to claim 10, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Horiuchi discloses the stator core as claimed in
Claim 9, a distance from the pole face of the first arm to a centre line of the slot gap and a distance from
the pole face of the second arm to the centre line of the slot gap (Fig. 2 of Chen).
PNG
media_image11.png
266
453
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Chen fails to disclose a distance from the pole face of the first arm to a centre line of the slot gap
is different to a distance from the pole face of the second arm to the centre line of the slot gap.
However, those skilled in the art would recognize that the above limitations do not involve any
inventive concept. They would merely depend on how one decides to design the pole faces of the arms
and their distances from the centre line of the slot gap. Furthermore, the instant specification fails to
disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact that a distance from the pole face of the first
arm to a centre line of the slot gap is different to a distance from the pole face of the second arm to the
centre line of the slot gap.
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 modify the stator core of Chen, such that a distance
from the pole face of the first arm to a centre line of the slot gap is different to a distance from the pole
face of the second arm to the centre line of the slot gap, in optimize space for the windings.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Yu, and in view
of Gary (GB 2500580).
As to claim 11, the combination of Chen and Yu discloses the stator core as claimed in Claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose the stator core comprises a plurality of laminations connected together,
and the second portions of the first and second arms comprise protrusions for facilitating connection of
the plurality of laminations.
Gary, however, discloses the stator core comprises a plurality of laminations connected
together, and the second portions of the first and second arms comprise protrusions for facilitating
connection of the plurality of laminations (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image12.png
626
438
media_image12.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 provide the stator core of Chen with the stator core comprises a
plurality of laminations connected together, and the second portions of the first and second arms
comprise protrusions for facilitating connection of the plurality of laminations, as disclosed by Gary, to
properly secure the lamination together.
As to claim 12, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Gary discloses the stator core as claimed in
Claim 11, wherein the protrusions are located on outwardly facing surfaces of the second portions (Fig.
1).
PNG
media_image13.png
638
431
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Yu, and in view of
Dymond (WO 2017098202).
As to claim 13, the combination of Chen and Yu discloses the stator core as claimed in Claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose wherein the back is asymmetric about a centre line of the stator core.
Dymond, however, discloses the back is asymmetric about a centre line of the stator core (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image14.png
368
575
media_image14.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 provide the stator core of Chen with the back is asymmetric about
a centre line of the stator core, as disclosed by Dymond, in order to reduce core losses leading to better
efficiency.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Yu, and in view
of Thomas (GB 2571553).
As to claim 14, the combination of Chen and Yu discloses a stator core as claimed in Claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose the stator core sub-assembly, and a bobbin overmoulded to the stator
core.
Thomas, however, discloses the stator core sub-assembly (Fig. 5), and a bobbin (54, 56; Fig. 3)
overmoulded to the stator core.
PNG
media_image15.png
628
407
media_image15.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 provide the stator core of Chen with the stator core sub-assembly,
and a bobbin overmoulded to the stator core, as disclosed by Thomas, to properly insulate the stator
core.
As to claim 15, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Thomas discloses the stator core sub-assembly
as claimed in Claim 14, wherein the bobbin comprises a winding guide for guiding a winding relative to
the bobbin (44; Fig. 9 of Yu), the winding guide located within a channel on a portion of the bobbin that
overlies the back of the stator core (Fig. 9 of Yu).
PNG
media_image16.png
525
303
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Yu, Thomas,
and in view of Kim (US 20140009022).
As to claim 16, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Thomas discloses the stator core sub-assembly
as claimed in Claim 14.
Chen fails to disclose wherein the bobbin comprises a connection portion for connecting to a
further bobbin of a further stator core sub-assembly.
Kim, however, discloses the bobbin comprises a connection portion (45; Fig. 6) for connecting to
a further bobbin of a further stator core sub-assembly (Para 0082).
PNG
media_image17.png
290
259
media_image17.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 provide the subassembly of Chen with the bobbin comprises a
connection portion for connecting to a further bobbin of a further stator core sub-assembly, as disclosed
by Kim, in order to properly secure the bobbins together.
As to claim 17, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Thomas discloses the stator core sub-assembly
as claimed in claim 14, wherein the stator core sub-assembly comprises a winding wound about the
bobbin such that the winding is wound about the back of the stator core (Fig. 5 of Thomas), and the
winding defines a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape on an inner surface of the back (Fig. 2 of
Chen).
PNG
media_image18.png
645
422
media_image18.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Thomas discloses the stator core sub-assembly
as claimed in claim 17, wherein the winding defines a different cross-sectional shape on an outer surface
of the back (Fig. 9 of Yu).
PNG
media_image19.png
449
268
media_image19.png
Greyscale
As to claim 19, the combination of Chen, Yu, and Thomas discloses a stator assembly (Fig. 5 of
Thomas) comprising a plurality of the stator core sub-assemblies as claimed in Claim 14.
PNG
media_image20.png
355
407
media_image20.png
Greyscale
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
should be directed to ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner
can 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