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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to teach a frame including apertures for introducing airflow to a rotor assembly during use. However, Barnes disclose a frame (18) comprising apertures (92) through which airflow I introduced during operation (see Fig. 9). As described in Barnes, air enters through the apertures (92), flows past the stator windings, and proceeds axially to the impeller of the rotor assembly, thereby introducing airflow to the rotor assembly in use as recited.
Barnes does not explicitly disclose that the frame is overmoulded to the stator assembly. However, Griffith teaches overmoulding stator structures to improve structural integrity and reduce assembly complexity. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply Griffith’s overmoulding technique to the frame of Barnes in order to enhance durability and increase manufacturing efficiency, thereby resulting in a frame overmoulded to the stator assembly as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the function of apertures in Griffith are not persuasive, as the rejection does not rely on Griffith for teaching airflow apertures, but instead on Barnes, which clearly discloses such features. Accordingly, the combination of Barnes and Griffith teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (GB2586844A) in view of Griffith (US 20020135263 A1).
Claim 1
Barnes teaches: A brushless motor (10) comprising a stator assembly (12), a rotor assembly (14), and a frame (18) within which the stator assembly (12) is housed, wherein the stator assembly (12) comprises a plurality of stator core (30) sub-assemblies (22, 24, 26, 28) each comprising a stator core (30), a bobbin (32) attached to the stator core (30), and a winding (34) wound about the bobbin (32); the frame (18) comprises a plurality of apertures (92) for introducing airflow to the rotor assembly (14) in use.
PNG
media_image1.png
926
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
910
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Barnes is silent to:
wherein the frame is overmoulded to the stator assembly;
Griffith conversely teaches a stator assembly (40), wherein the stator assembly (200) comprises of a overmolded frame (42). The frame (42) is also designed to have a plurality of apertures. While the apertures are used for mounting pins (44) to be inserted to attach to the stator assembly (40), it is important to note Griffith’s inclusion of a means of providing apertures to the overmolded frame irrespective of its use.
PNG
media_image3.png
376
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stafford’s brushless motor such that the frame is overmoulded to the stator assembly. Using a process of overmoulding for the stator would be advantageous in enhancing durability of the stator by creating a strong, and it also lowers costs by reducing manufacturing steps and reducing requirements for assembly labor.
Claim 2/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of apertures (92) comprises an inlet aperture (92) located at an inlet of the frame (18) and an outlet aperture (98) located at an outlet end of the frame (18) .
Claim 3/2/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 2, wherein the inlet aperture is located downstream of a first bearing (44) and the outlet aperture is located upstream of a second bearing (46).
Claim 7/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless magnet motor (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frame (18) comprises a turbulator (100).
Barnes as modified by Griffith is silent to a plurality of turbulators being employed on the frame in the main embodiment of the invention. However, Barnes discloses that employing a plurality of turbulators (100) may be implemented to give increased cooling (Detailed description, para. 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barnes’s brushless motor as modified by Griffith in order to employ a plurality of turbulators (100) to the frame (18) in order to increase cooling efficiency.
Claim 8/7/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 7, wherein the turbulators (100) are formed during a process of over-moulding (with Griffith’s overmolding method) the frame (18) to the stator assembly (12).
Claim 9/7/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 7, wherein the plurality of turbulators (100) overlie (as seen in Fig. 1) the backs of the stator cores (30).
Claim 10/7/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 7, wherein the plurality of turbulators (100) are obliquely angled relative to an axis (axis corresponding to 102 and 104, Brief description of drawings, para. 13) substantially parallel to a central longitudinal axis (axis of shaft of Barnes as modified by Griffith).
Claim 11/10/7/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the plurality of turbulators (100) are angled between 45-75 degrees (may be angled greater than 45 deg and greater than 60 deg, summary of invention, para. 7) relative to the axis (axis corresponding to 102 and 104) substantially parallel to a central longitudinal axis (axis of shaft of Barnes as modified by Griffith).
Claim 12/11/10/7/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 11, wherein the plurality of turbulators (100) are angled at around 60 degrees (may be angled greater than 45 deg and greater than 60 deg, summary of invention, para. 7) relative to the axis (axis corresponding to 102 and 104).
Claim 13/10/7/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 10, wherein the trailing end (114) of each turbulator (100) is closer to the axis substantially parallel to a central longitudinal axis (axis of shaft of Barnes as modified by Griffith) than a leading end of the turbulator (100).
Claim 17/7/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 7, wherein the plurality of turbulators (100) comprise a plurality of pairs of turbulators (100), each pair of turbulators (100) arranged in a generally V-shaped formation (as seen in Fig. 1 due to oblique configuration).
Claim 18/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frame (18) comprises a main body (MB) having protrusions (P), each protrusion (P) overlying a respective stator core (30), and each protrusion (P) comprising a region of increased radius (from bottom to towards top as viewed in Fig. 1) relative to regions of the main body between adjacent stator cores (30) of the stator assembly (12).
PNG
media_image4.png
926
565
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 21/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frame (18) comprises a plurality of grooves (110) formed in an outer surface of the frame (18) for guiding airflow into the plurality of apertures (92).
Claim 22/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: A vacuum cleaner (200) comprising Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 1.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes as modified by Griffith in view of Stafford (GB 2571553 A).
Claim 4/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 1, but is silent to: wherein each stator core comprises a back and first and second arms extending from the back, such that at least a portion of the back and the first and second arms of each stator core is exposed through the frame.
Stafford conversely teaches a brushless motor (10) similar to that of Barnes, wherein a stator core (52) comprises a back (58) and first and second arms (60, 62) extending from the back (58).
PNG
media_image5.png
458
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Noting the visible exposure of Barnes stator core (30) through the frame (18), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barnes’s brushless motor as modified by Griffith such that each stator core comprises a back and first and second arms extending from the back, such that at least a portion of the back and the first and second arms of each stator core is exposed through the frame. An advantage of this C-shaped composition is it would make it easier to remove or replace windings without dismantling the entire motor.
Claim 5/4/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith and Stafford teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 4, wherein at least 10% (given perspective view through inlet 92) of each stator core (30) is exposed through the frame (18) .
Claim 6/4/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith and Stafford teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 4, wherein no more than 30% (given perspective view through inlet 92) of each stator core (30) is exposed through the frame (18) .
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes as modified by Griffith in view of Wagner (US 20130039783 A1).
Claim 16/7/1
Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches: The brushless motor (10) as claimed in claim 7, but is silent to: wherein a height of each turbulator is in the region of 0.3-0.9 mm.
Wagner teaches a method of overmolding a stator (20) on all sides with a plastic material (62), including a thin layer on the order of 0.4 mm for example (para. 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barnes’s brushless motor as modified by Griffith such that a height of each turbulator is in the region of 0.3-0.9 mm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 are 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.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As for Claim 14, Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches the brushless motor of claim 10.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, alone or in obvious combination, inter alia:
wherein a pitch to height ratio of each turbulator is in the region of 6:1 to 12:1.
Claims 15 stands allowed over all prior art based on their virtue of depending on claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 19
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As for Claim 19, Barnes as modified by Griffith teaches the brushless motor of claim 1.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, alone or in obvious combination, inter alia:
wherein the frame comprises a plurality of struts, each strut extending from a respective region of the frame overlying a core back to a shroud of the frame.
Claims 20 stands allowed over all prior art based on their virtue of depending on claim 19.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 AHMED F SECK whose telephone number is (571)272-4638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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 Koehler can be reached at (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.
/AHMED F SECK/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights