DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 10 August 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-20 were previously pending, with claims 15-20 being withdrawn from further consideration; claims 2, 14, and 16 were canceled by the amendment; and thus, claims 1, 3-13, 15, and 17-20 are now pending in the application, with claims 15 and 17-20 being withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 10 August 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 7-8 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, that Kim does not disclose the sealant portion now recited in claim 1. This limitation, originally recited in claim 2, was originally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the Puterbaugh reference. In response to the Applicant's argument against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 8-9 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that the combination of Kim and Puterbaugh does not disclose the “static hermetic sealing structure” now recited in claim 1. However, while the claim recites “a sealant portion” that “seals a gap between the curled portion and the cover member”, no details of any “static hermetic” seal are recited in the claims. In fact, it is noted that these terms do not appear anywhere in the disclosure of the application. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive because the limitations being argued are not recited in the claims.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 9-10 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that the sealant portion and cover of Puterbaugh are not equivalent to those components of the present application because of various differences in their structures. However, the claim only recites “a sealant portion” that “seals a gap between the curled portion and the cover member”, which Puterbaugh does disclose, and does not recite any of the additional features discussed in the argument. In response to the Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies 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). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and said previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2023/017971 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kim”, in view of Puterbaugh et al. (US 2005/0073204 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Puterbaugh”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a motor [100] including a stator [20] and a rotor [30] disposed to be spaced apart from an inner circumferential surface of the stator [20] (fig. 1-3; ¶ 43-44), the motor [100] comprising:
a housing [11] in which the stator [20] and the rotor [30] are accommodated and an opening centered on a rotation axis [10] and exposing at least a portion of the rotor [30] is provided (fig. 3; ¶ 44-46); and
a cover member [15] fixed to the housing [11] and covering the opening of the housing [11] (fig. 3; ¶ 54),
PNG
media_image1.png
521
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in the housing [11], a curled portion [115A] is formed integrally with the housing [11], the curled portion [115A] being curvedly curled such that a wall of the housing [11] forming an edge portion of the opening faces the rotation axis [10], and the curled portion [115A] comes into contact with an edge portion [152] of the cover member [15] to seal the opening (fig. 3; ¶ 49, 54).
Kim does not disclose a sealant portion, wherein the sealant portion seals a gap between the curled portion [115A] and the cover member [15].
Puterbaugh discloses a motor [10] comprising a housing [20] with a cover member [92] covering an opening of the housing [20], wherein a curled portion [90] is formed at an edge portion of the opening (fig. 1, 5; ¶ 0034-0036), further comprising a sealant portion [82] sealing a gap between the curled portion [90] and the cover member [92] (fig. 5; ¶ 0035-0036).
PNG
media_image2.png
280
674
media_image2.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 implement the housing of Kim having a sealant portion between the curled portion and the cover member as taught by Puterbaugh, in order to prevent the ingress of moisture into the motor interior as well as insulating critical motor components from oxidative attack thereby increasing the life cycle of the motor (¶ 0001-0005 of Puterbaugh).
Regarding claim 3, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 1, as stated above, further comprising a bearing [14] to which at least a portion of the rotor [30] is coupled, wherein the housing [11] includes a bearing seating portion [116] so that the bearing [14] is disposed around the opening (fig. 3; ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 4, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 3, as stated above, wherein the edge portion [152] of the cover member [15] is sandwiched between the bearing [14] and the curled portion [115A] (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 4, as stated above, wherein: the bearing [14] includes an outer ring [14o] in fixed contact with the housing [11] and an inner ring [14i] disposed inside the outer ring [14o] and in fixed contact with the rotor [30]; and a protruding portion [151] of the cover member [15] is provided at a center of the rotation axis [10] and spaced a predetermined distance from the inner ring [14i] (fig. 3; the outer race of the bearing contacts the housing while the inner race contacts the hollow shaft [31] on which the rotor is mounted).
PNG
media_image3.png
203
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 3, as stated above, wherein the housing [11] includes: a sidewall portion [111] surrounding a radial outer side of the stator [20]; and an inclined portion [114] configured to connect the sidewall portion [111] and the bearing seating portion [116] and form a predetermined angle with a radial direction (fig. 3; ¶ 46-47).
Regarding claim 7, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 6, as stated above. Kim does not explicitly disclose that the inclined portion [114] forms an angle ranging from 20° to 60° with the radial direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the inclined portion of Kim at an angle ranging from 20° to 60° with the radial direction, for the purpose of allowing sufficient axial space for the bearing, and since the only difference between the inclined portion of Kim and the claimed inclined portion is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 8, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 6, as stated above, wherein the bearing seating portion [116] is provided to extend from the inclined portion [114], is bent two or more times, and comes into contact with an outer ring [14o] of the bearing [14] (fig. 3; ¶ 47-49).
Regarding claim 9, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 8, as stated above, wherein the bearing seating portion [116] includes: a first sidewall [sw1] formed by being bent from the inclined portion [114] inward from the housing [11] to be parallel to the rotation axis [10]; a first support wall [117] formed by being bent from the first sidewall [sw1] toward the rotation axis [10]; a second support wall [sw2] formed by being bent 180° from the first support wall [117] outward from the housing [11]; and a second sidewall [115] formed by being bent from the second support wall [sw2] outward from the housing [11] to be parallel to the rotation axis [10] (fig. 3; ¶ 46-47).
Regarding claim 10, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 9, as stated above, wherein the curled portion [115A] is formed by being curled from an end portion of the second sidewall [115] (fig. 3; ¶ 47-49).
Regarding claim 11, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 10, as stated above. Kim does not explicitly disclose that a length of the second sidewall [115] before the curled portion [115A] is formed by curling is 1.2 times or more and 1.4 times or less a thickness of the outer ring [14o] of the bearing [14].
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the second sidewall of Kim with a length 1.2 times or more and 1.4 times or less a thickness of the outer ring of the bearing, for the purpose of allowing sufficient space for both the bearing and the cover member, and since the only difference between the second sidewall of Kim and the claimed second sidewall is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 12, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 9, as stated above, wherein: the first support wall [117] is spaced a predetermined distance from the rotor [30]; and the second support wall [sw2] is in contact with the outer ring [14o] of the bearing [14] and spaced a predetermined distance from an inner ring [14i] of the bearing [14] (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Kim, in view of Puterbaugh, discloses the motor [100] of claim 3, as stated above. Kim does not explicitly disclose that an inner diameter of the curled portion [115A] curvedly formed to face the rotation axis is 0.9 times or less a diameter of an outer circumferential surface of the bearing [14].
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the curled portion of Kim with an inner diameter of 0.9 times or less a diameter of an outer circumferential surface of the bearing, for the purpose of providing sufficient overlap to securely hold the bearing, and since the only difference between the curled portion of Kim and the claimed curled portion is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Isogai et al. (US 2012/0061201 A1) discloses a motor comprising a bearing disposed within an opening in the housing, and provided with a sealant portion.
Niimi et al. (US 2001/0045784 A1) discloses a motor comprising a bearing disposed within an opening in the housing, and provided with a sealant portion.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights