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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 4 March 2026.
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 and dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18, line 4 recites “the one or more magnets are positioned on a first side of the outer rotor facing the stator”, which is unclear because one or more magnets was not previously recited. Examiner will interpret as “the one or more magnet sets are positioned on a first side of the outer rotor facing the stator”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894).
Claim 1, Ballard teaches a hydraulic tool (10-fig.2), comprising:
an electric motor (35-fig.2) including an rotor and a stator (all electric motors have two mechanical parts, rotor and stator);
a hydraulic pump (40-fig.2); and
a gearbox (50-fig.2) coupled between the electric motor and the hydraulic pump (see fig. 2 showing 50 between 40 and 35; ¶[0024]);
the electric motor driving the hydraulic pump via the gearbox to pressurize hydraulic fluid within the hydraulic tool (¶[0024]-[0025]).
Ballard does not expressly teach an electric motor including an outer rotor and stator, the stator at least partially received within the outer rotor.
However, Mizuhara an electric motor (M-fig.1) including an outer rotor (6-fig.2) and stator (3-fig.2), the stator at least partially received within the outer rotor (see fig.2 showing the outer rotor 6 surrounding 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool of Ballard, by using an outer rotor electric motor, as taught by Mizuhara, so as to increase the amount of torque outputted from the motor at lower speeds. (Mizuhara ¶[0013]).
Claim 6, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 1, where the outer rotor includes a plurality of magnet sets (Mizuhara: 5-fig.3; see fig.3 showing sets of N/S magnets) arranged circumferentially around the outer rotor (Mizuhara: see fig.3 showing N and S magnets located circumferentially around 6).
Claim 12, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 1, wherein pressurized hydraulic fluid actuates a hydraulic ram (Ballard: 100-fig.3) to actuate a die (Ballard: 150-fig.2) mounted to an end of the hydraulic ram and positioned within an opening of the hydraulic tool (Ballard: ¶[0020]-[0021]).
Claim(s) 2-5, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894), further in view Beyerl (US 2021/0242731).
Claim 2, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 1.
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara does not teach a mounting bracket coupled to the electric motor, the mounting bracket including a protrusion defining a thru-channel; and a pin inserted though the thru-channel and a portion of the gearbox to couple the electric motor to the gearbox.
However, Beyerl teaches a mounting bracket (110-fig.12) coupled to the electric motor (14-fig.6), the mounting bracket including a protrusion defining a thru-channel (¶[0041]); and
a pin (114-fig.6) inserted though the thru-channel and a portion of the gearbox (92-fig.16) to couple the electric motor to the gearbox (¶[0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, by the mounting assembly between gearbox and motor, as taught by Beyerl, so the tool can be easily disassembled and reassembled for maintenance, and the pins ensure proper alignment between the parts.
Claim 3, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Beyerl teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 2, wherein the gearbox (Beyerl: 92-fig.16) includes a mounting tab (Beyerl: 108-fig.16) defining an opening (Beyerl: 122-fig.17A), and wherein when the thru-channel of the mounting bracket (Beyerl: 110-fig.12) and the opening of the mounting tab (Beyerl: 108-fig.16) are aligned, the pin (Beyerl: 114-fig.16) is inserted through the opening and the thru-channel to couple the electric motor to the gearbox (Beyerl: 114-fig.16).
PNG
media_image1.png
268
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Beyerl teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 3, wherein the pin (Beyerl: 114-fig.16) includes a first end (Beyerl: A-annotated fig.16) having a first diameter and a second end (Beyerl: B-annotated fig.16) having a second diameter larger than the first diameter.
Claim 5, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Beyerl teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 4, wherein the second diameter of the second end of the pin is larger than a first diameter of the opening and a third diameter of the thru-channel so that the second end of the pin cannot pass through the opening or the thru-channel (Beyerl: see fig.15 showing the second end not entering 110).
Claim 13, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara teaches the he hydraulic tool of claim 1.
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara does not expressly teach the electric motor is a brushless direct current electric motor.
However, Beyerl teaches an electric motor is a brushless direct current electric motor (14-fig.3; ¶[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool of Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, by having the motor be a brushless DC motor, as taught by Beyerl, as a well-known motor that is used in power tools that is known for higher efficiency and low maintenance.
Claim 15, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 1.
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara does not expressly teach an adapter plate to removably couple the electric motor to the gearbox, the adapter plate arranged between the stator and the gearbox.
However, Beyerl teaches an adapter plate (106-fig.16) to removably couple the electric motor to the gearbox, the adapter plate arranged between the stator and the gearbox (¶[0041]-[0042]; see fig.16 showing the plate between the motor and the gear case).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, by adding an adapter plate, as taught by Beyerl, so the tool can be disassembled and reassembled easily when the tool needs maintenance.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894), further in view of Ishii (US 4,417,167).
Claim 7, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 6.
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara does not expressly teach at least one of the plurality of the magnet sets includes a pair of magnets of a same polarity.
However, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara teaches at least one of the plurality of the magnet sets includes a pair of magnets of a same polarity (Ishii: 8:9-45; figs.5A&8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ballard and Mizuhara, by the outer rotor configuration, as taught by Ishii, as a known alternative outer rotor magnet configuration for use in a multiple-phase DC brushless motor, having the additional advantage of not needing balancing weights added to the rotor magnets. (Ishii 2:26-34 and 3:21-46)
Claim 8, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Ishii teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 7, wherein a first number of magnets within the outer rotor is double a second number of magnet sets within the outer rotor (Ishii: 10:67-11:12).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894), further in view of Kang (US 2023/0018260).
Claim 9, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 6.
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara does not expressly teach an outer rotor includes a frame having one or more retention ribs and one or more dividers, and wherein the one or more retention ribs and the one or more dividers together retain magnets within the outer rotor.
However, Kang teaches an outer rotor (100-fig.4) includes a frame (112,113-fig.5) having one or more retention ribs (112-fig.5) and one or more dividers (113-fig.5), and wherein the one or more retention ribs and the one or more dividers together retain magnets within the outer rotor (¶[0008]-[0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ballard and Mizuhara, by the rotor frame, as taught by Kang, so the magnets do not scatter when the rotor rotates. (Kang ¶[0009]).
Claim 10, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Kang teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 9, wherein the frame includes an integral fan (Kang:830,850-figs.24-26; ¶[0055],[0231]-[0233]).
Claim 11, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Kang teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 9, wherein the frame is a one-piece molded body (Kang: ¶[0010]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894) and Beyerl (US 2021/0242731) and Smith (US 2016/0149467).
Claim 14, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 1.
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara does not expressly teach an annular printed circuit board fixed to the stator, the annular printed circuit board including a position sensor to sense a position of the outer rotor.
However, Beyerl teaches an annular printed circuit board (46-fig.6) fixed to the stator (¶[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool of Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, by having an annular printed circuit board, as taught by Beyerl, to help with heat dissipation to prevent the PCB from overheating and for a more compact design.
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Beyerl does not teach a printed circuit board including a position sensor to sense a position of the outer rotor.
However, Smith teaches a printed circuit board (240-fig.2A) including a position sensor to sense a position of the outer rotor (¶[0035]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool of Ballard, Mizuhara, and Beyerl, by having a position sensor, as taught by Smith, to ensure proper operation of the tool by ensuring the correct phases are energized at the right time.
Claim(s) 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894), further in view of Ishii (US 4,417,167).
Claim 16, Ballard teaches a hydraulic tool (10-fig.2), comprising:
a hydraulic pump (40-fig.2);
an electric motor (35-fig.2), including:
a stator (all electric motors have two mechanical parts, rotor and stator);
a rotor (all electric motors have rotor); and
the electric motor driving the hydraulic pump via the rotor shaft to pressurize hydraulic fluid within the hydraulic tool (¶[0024]-[0025]).
Ballard does not expressly teach an electric motor, including: a stator including a stator mount and a stator core supported by the stator mount, the stator core defining a central bore; an outer rotor including a rotor shaft arranged within the central bore of the stator core, and the outer rotor circumferentially surrounding the stator; and one or more magnet sets arranged circumferentially around the outer rotor.
However, Mizuhara an electric motor (M-fig.1), including: a stator (3-fig.2) including a stator mount (1-fig.2) and a stator core (4-fig.2) supported by the stator mount (¶[0041]), the stator core defining a central bore (the central opening of B showing in figs.2-3);
an outer rotor (6-fig.2) including a rotor shaft (2-figs.2-3) arranged within the central bore of the stator core (see fig.3 showing 2 located within B and 4), and the outer rotor circumferentially surrounding the stator (see fig.2 showing the outer rotor 6 surrounding 3); and
one or more magnet sets (5-fig.3; see fig.3 showing sets of N/S magnets) arranged circumferentially around the outer rotor (see fig.3 showing N and S magnets located circumferentially around 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool of Ballard, by using an outer rotor electric motor, as taught by Mizuhara, so as to increase the amount of torque outputted from the motor at lower speeds. (Mizuhara ¶[0013]).
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara does not expressly teach one or more magnet sets includes a pair of magnets of a same polarity.
However, Ishii teaches one or more magnet sets includes a pair of magnets of a same polarity (8:9-45; figs.5A&8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ballard and Mizuhara, by the outer rotor configuration, as taught by Ishii, as a known alternative outer rotor magnet configuration for use in a multiple-phase DC brushless motor, having the additional advantage of not needing balancing weights added to the rotor magnets. (Ishii 2:26-34 and 3:21-46)
Claim 17, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Ishii teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 16, wherein a first number of magnets within the outer rotor is double a second number of magnet sets within the outer rotor (Ishii: fig.5A shows 8 individual magnets and 4 magnet sets of the same polarity).
Claim 20, Ballard as modified by Kang teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 16, wherein the hydraulic tool includes a gearbox (Ballard: 50-fig.2) mounted to the outer rotor shaft between the electric motor and the hydraulic pump (Ballard: see fig. 2 showing 50 between 40 and 35; ¶[0024]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894), further in view of Ishii (US 4,417,167) and Kang (US 2023/0018260).
Claim 18, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Ishii teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 16.
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Ishii does not expressly teach an outer rotor includes a frame having one or more retention ribs and one or more dividers, and wherein the one or more retention ribs and the one or more dividers together retain magnets within the outer rotor, and wherein the one or more magnets are positioned on a first side of the outer rotor facing the stator.
However, Kang teaches the outer rotor (100-fig.11) includes a frame (120 and 121-fig.11) having one or more retention ribs (121-fig.11) and one or more dividers (102-fig.11), and wherein the one or more retention ribs and the one or more dividers together retain the magnets within the outer rotor (¶[0188]-[0189]), and
wherein the one or more magnet sets (119-fig.1) are positioned on a first side of the outer rotor facing the stator (see fig.11 showing a magnet set 119 on a first side and facing the stator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, to modify the device of Ballard, Mizuhara, and Ishii, by the rotor frame, as taught by Kang, so the magnets do not scatter when the rotor rotates. (Kang ¶[0009]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894), further in view of Ishii (US 4,417,167), Kang (US 2023/0018260), and Beyerl (US 2021/0242731).
Claim 19, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, Ishii, and Kang teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 18, wherein the outer rotor (Mizuhara: 6-fig.2), including the rotor shaft (Mizuhara: 2-figs.2-3) and the frame (Kang:112,113-fig.5), rotates relative to the stator (Mizuhara: ¶[0040],[0042]).
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, Ishii, and Kang does not teach a stationary printed circuit board fixed to the stator.
However, Beyerl teaches a stationary printed circuit board (46-fig.6) fixed to the stator (¶[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool of Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, Ishii, and Kang, by having an annular printed circuit board, as taught by Beyerl, to help with heat dissipation to prevent the PCB from overheating and for a more compact design.
Claim(s) 21-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894), further in view of Ishii (US 4,417,167) and Beyerl (US 2021/0242731).
Claim 21, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Ishii teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 20.
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Ishii does not teach a mounting bracket coupled to the electric motor, the mounting bracket including a protrusion defining a thru-channel; and a pin inserted though the thru-channel and a portion of the gearbox to couple the electric motor to the gearbox.
However, Beyerl teaches a mounting bracket (110-fig.12) coupled to the electric motor (14-fig.6), the mounting bracket including a protrusion defining a thru-channel (¶[0041]); and
a pin (114-fig.6) inserted though the thru-channel and a portion of the gearbox (92-fig.16) to couple the electric motor to the gearbox (¶[0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Ishii, by the mounting assembly between gearbox and motor, as taught by Beyerl, so the tool can be easily disassembled and reassembled for maintenance, and the pins ensure proper alignment between the parts.
Claim 22, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, Ishii, and Beyerl teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 21, wherein the gearbox (Beyerl: 92-fig.16) includes a mounting tab (Beyerl: 108-fig.16) defining an opening (Beyerl: 122-fig.17A), and wherein when the thru-
PNG
media_image2.png
220
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
channel of the mounting bracket (Beyerl: 110-fig.12) and the opening of the mounting tab (Beyerl: 108-fig.16) are aligned, the pin (Beyerl: 114-fig.16) is inserted through the opening and the thru-channel to couple the electric motor to the gearbox (Beyerl: 114-fig.16).
Claim 23, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, Ishii, and Beyerl teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 22, wherein a second diameter of a second end of the pin is larger than a first diameter of the opening and a third diameter of the thru-channel so that the second end of the pin cannot pass through the opening or the thru-channel (Beyerl: see fig.15 showing the second end not entering 110).
Claim 24, Ballard teaches a hydraulic tool (10-fig.2), comprising:
an electric motor (35-fig.2), including:
a stator (all electric motors have two mechanical parts, rotor and stator);
a hydraulic pump (40-fig.2);
a gearbox (50-fig.2) between the electric motor and the hydraulic pump (see fig. 2 showing 50 between 40 and 35; ¶[0024]);
the electric motor driving the hydraulic pump via the gearbox to pressurize hydraulic fluid within the hydraulic tool (¶[0024]-[0025]).
Ballard does not expressly teach an electric motor, including: a stator including a stator mount and a stator core supported by the stator mount, the stator core defining a central bore; an outer rotor including a rotor shaft arranged within the central bore of the stator core, and the outer rotor arranged circumferentially around and radially outward from the stator; and one or more magnet sets arranged circumferentially around the outer rotor.
However, Mizuhara teaches an electric motor (M-fig.1), including: a stator (3-fig.2) including a stator mount (1-fig.1) and a stator core (4-fig.2) supported by the stator mount (¶[0041]), the stator core defining a central bore (the central opening of B showing in figs.2-3);
an outer rotor (6-fig.2) including a rotor shaft (2-figs.2-3) arranged within the central bore of the stator core (see fig.3 showing 2 located within B and 4), and the outer rotor arranged circumferentially around and radially outward from the stator (see fig.2 showing the outer rotor 6 surrounding 3, therefore circumferentially around and radially outward of 3); and
one or more magnet sets (5-fig.3; see fig.3 showing sets of N/S magnets) arranged circumferentially around the outer rotor (see fig.3 showing N and S magnets located circumferentially around 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, to modify the tool of Ballard, by using an outer rotor electric motor, as taught by Mizuhara, so as to increase the amount of torque outputted from the motor at lower speeds. (Mizuhara ¶[0013]).
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara does not expressly teach the one or more magnet sets including a pair of magnets of the same polarity with a first number of magnets within the outer rotor being double a second number of magnet sets within the outer rotor.
However, Ishii teaches one or more magnet sets including a pair of magnets of the same polarity (8:9-45; figs.5A&8) with a first number of magnets within the outer rotor being double a second number of magnet sets within the outer rotor (fig.5A shows 8 individual magnets and 4 magnet sets of the same polarity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, to modify the device of Ballard and Mizuhara, by the outer rotor configuration, as taught by Ishii, as a known alternative outer rotor magnet configuration for use in a multiple-phase DC brushless motor, having the additional advantage of not needing balancing weights added to the rotor magnets. (Ishii 2:26-34 and 3:21-46)
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Ishii does not expressly teach a mounting bracket coupled to the electric motor, the mounting bracket including a protrusion defining a thru-channel; and a pin inserted though the thru-channel and a portion of the gearbox to couple the electric motor to the gearbox.
However, Beyerl teaches a mounting bracket (110-fig.12) coupled to the electric motor (14-fig.6), the mounting bracket including a protrusion defining a thru-channel (¶[0041]); and
a pin (114-fig.6) inserted though the thru-channel and a portion of the gearbox (92-fig.16) to couple the electric motor to the gearbox (¶[0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, to modify the device of Ballard as modified by Mizuhara and Ishii, by the mounting assembly between gearbox and motor, as taught by Beyerl, so the tool can be easily disassembled and reassembled for maintenance, and the pins ensure proper alignment between the parts.
Claim 26, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, Ishii, and Beyerl teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 24, wherein the electric motor (Ballard: 35-fig.2) and the gearbox (Ballard: 50-fig.2) together define a powertrain assembly, and wherein the powertrain assembly defines a length of less than 90 mm (Ballard: ¶[0019]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894), further in view of Ishii (US 4,417,167), Beyerl (US 2021/0242731), and Smith (US 2016/0149467).
Claim 25, Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, Ishii, and Beyerl teaches the hydraulic tool of claim 24, further comprising: an annular printed circuit board (Beyerl: 46-fig.6) fixed to the stator (Beyerl: ¶[0034]).
Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, Ishii, and Beyerl does not teach a printed circuit board including a position sensor to sense a position of the outer rotor.
However, Smith teaches a printed circuit board (240-fig.2A) including a position sensor to sense a position of the outer rotor (¶[0035]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool of Ballard as modified by Mizuhara, Ishii, and Beyerl, by having a position sensor, as taught by Smith, to ensure proper operation of the tool by ensuring the correct phases are energized at the right time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
(1) “one of skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Ballard and Mizuhara, as alleged by the Office, because the Office relies on hindsight and Mizuhara teaches away from the proposed modification.” (Remarks p. 7). “[T]he alleged motivation to combine Ballard and Mizuhara to achieve higher torque originates from the Applicant's own disclosure, which is the very definition of improper hindsight reasoning.” (Remarks p. 8).
(2) “Mizuhara explicitly teaches that "[i]n case[s] of a brushless inner-rotor ... a relatively large speed reducer becomes necessary and consequently the electric impact tightening tool increases in weight by the weight of the speed reducer," and "this electric impulse wrench R does not have to have a speed reducer, and thereby can be reduced in size and weight." See Mizuhara, paragraphs [0008]-[0010] and [0069]. Mizuhara's entire purpose for using an outer rotor motor is to eliminate the need for a speed reducer (i.e., gearbox). However, claim 1 specifies "a gearbox coupled between the electric motor and the hydraulic pump." One of skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Mizuhara' s outer rotor motor-which is designed to eliminate the gearbox-with Ballard's hydraulic tool that requires a gearbox.” (Remarks p. 8)
(4) “Kang fails to teach that the magnets are positioned on a first side of the outer rotor facing the stator, as specified by claim 18.” (Remarks p. 10)
(5) “Ballard does not teach or suggest any such range. Paragraph [0019] simply states that "any suitable size, shape or type of elements or materials could be used." As noted in MPEP § 2144.05, for a prima facie case of obviousness based on ranges, the prior art must actually disclose a range-Ballard does not disclose any specific dimensional range whatsoever.” (Remarks p. 11)
Examiner’s Response:
(1) In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Mizuhara provides the motivation to combine and well known in the art, that the use of an outer-rotor electric motor provides higher torque output, therefore is not improper hindsight.
(2) Mizuhara teaches both having and not having a gearbox. Specifically, ¶[0089] recites “[t] he outer-rotor electric motor M can be used in an electric wrench of the type shown in FIG. 19. In this electric wrench, the rotation of the outer-rotor electric motor M is transmitted through a two-stage or three-stage planetary gear 75 .fwdarw. a pair of bevel gears 76 .fwdarw. an output shaft 77 and tightens a screw and the like. In this electric wrench, the outer-rotor electric motor M allows to reduce the number of stages of the planetary gear as stated above and consequently to reduce the weight of the whole wrench.” Therefore, Mizuhara does not teach away, but rather explicitly teaches the use of an outer rotor motor connected to a gear box.
(4) Claim 18 has been amended to add “wherein the one or more magnets are positioned on a first side of the outer rotor facing the stator.” Kang teaches this limitation in at least figures 11 and 14, where the magnet sets are not separated by a rib and on a first side facing the stator.
(5) Per Applicant’s specification “the length 23 of the powertrain assembly 21 may be less than 90 mm. In another example, the length 23 of the powertrain assembly 21 may be between 80 and 90 mm. In one example, the overall length 23 of the powertrain assembly 21 including the outer rotor electric motor 18 is less than a length of the powertrain assembly with an inner rotor electric motor.” (¶[0032]). Applicant does not provide any criticality for the range in the specification, instead the specification states that the gearbox and motor can be any size, therefore Ballard does teach the claim limitation. MPEP §2144.05(III)(A).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p.9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 24 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2016/0329674) in view of Mizuhara (US 2009/0133894), further in view of Ishii (US 4,417,167) and Beyerl (US 2021/0242731).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571)272-4524. 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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights