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 06 May 2024. In view of this communication, claims 1-25 are now pending in the application.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 07 May 2024 and 29 September 2025 was/were filed before mailing of the first action on the merits. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Double Patenting
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-25 is/are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,887,598 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Claim 1 of the application recites identical limitations to claim 1 of the prior patent, except that the claim of the prior patent also recites additional limitations (e.g. “a coil wound… such that an edge of the outer wall… terminates at an outer edge”, “a conical air gap”), making the claim of the prior patent a species of the genus recited in the application. Species claims always anticipate genus claims.
Claims 2-4 of the application are identical to claims 2-4 of the prior patent.
Claim 5 of the application recites identical limitations to claim 5 of the prior patent, except that the claim of the prior patent also recites additional limitations (i.e. “a conical air gap”), making the claim of the prior patent a species of the genus recited in the application. Species claims always anticipate genus claims.
Claims 6-13 of the application are identical to claims 6-13 of the prior patent.
Claim 14 of the application recites a limitation found in claim 1 of the prior patent.
Claim 15 of the application recites identical limitations to claim 1 of the prior patent, except that the claim of the prior patent also recites additional limitations (e.g. “a conical air gap”), making the claim of the prior patent a species of the genus recited in the application. Species claims always anticipate genus claims.
Claim 16 of the application recites identical limitations to claim 14 of the prior patent, except that the claim of the prior patent also recites additional limitations (e.g. “the outer wall positioned… such that an edge of the outer wall is… disposed on the at least one core”), making the claim of the prior patent a species of the genus recited in the application. Species claims always anticipate genus claims.
Claims 17-20 of the application are identical to claims 15-18 of the prior patent.
Claim 21 of the application recites identical limitations to claim 19 of the prior patent, except that the claim of the prior patent also recites additional limitations (e.g. “the outer wall positioned… such that an edge of the outer wall is… disposed on the at least one core”, “a conical air gap”), making the claim of the prior patent a species of the genus recited in the application. Species claims always anticipate genus claims.
Claims 22-25 of the application are identical to claims 20-23 of the prior patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia,
1. A motor, comprising:
a stator comprising at least one core and an outer wall, the outer wall extending in an axial direction;
a coil wound on the at least one core of the stator;
a rotor having a rotor pole and being rotatably mounted relative to the stator;
at least one magnet disposed between the rotor and the stator; and
an air gap between the stator and the at least one magnet;
wherein a separation plane normal to an axis of rotation extends through the stator and the rotor, and wherein a magnetic flux is formed between the stator and the rotor in a three-dimensional flux pattern such that a flux flow of the magnetic flux does not cross the separation plane.
Regarding claim 16, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, a motor, comprising:
a slotless stator comprising at least one core formed of a soft magnetic composite material, an outer wall positioned along a circumference of the at least one core, and coils respectively disposed on the at least one core;
a rotor rotatably mounted relative to the slotless stator;
at least one magnet mounted on the rotor between the rotor and the slotless stator; and
an air gap between the slotless stator and the at least one magnet;
wherein a separation plane normal to an axis of rotation extends through the slotless stator and the rotor, and wherein a flux flow is formed between the slotless stator and the rotor in a three-dimensional flux pattern such that the flux flow does not cross the separation plane.
Regarding claim 21, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, a slotless flux motor, comprising:
a stator defined by a continuous surface at which at least one core is disposed and a winding disposed on the at least one core, an outer wall circumferentially positioned around the at least one core;
a rotor having a rotor pole and being rotatably mounted in the stator; and
at least one magnet mounted between the stator and the rotor pole;
wherein an air gap is defined between the stator pole and the at least one magnet, wherein the air gap allows flux flow along radial, axial, and circumferential directions of the motor;
wherein a separation plane normal to an axis of rotation extends through the stator and the rotor, and wherein the flux flow is formed between the stator and the rotor in a three-dimensional flux pattern such that the flux flow does not cross the separation plane; and
wherein the at least one core comprises a soft magnetic composite material defined by iron-containing particles encapsulated in alumina.
While the prior art discloses various configurations of flux motors having the rotor and stator arrangements and air gaps as recited above, it does not disclose them configured to prevent flux from crossing the claimed separation plane. Thus, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed inventions.
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.”
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Hosek et al. (US 10,559,991 B2) discloses a slot-less flux motor comprising a stator core having an outer wall extending in the axial direction such that the outer wall terminates at an outer edge of the coil.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hosek et al. (US 9,887,598 B2) discloses a slot-less flux motor comprising a stator core having an outer wall extending in the axial direction such that the outer wall terminates at an outer edge of the coil.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yukitake (US 2010/0040488 A1) discloses a motor comprising a stator with at least one core and an outer wall extending in an axial direction, a rotor having a rotor pole, at least one magnet, wherein the core comprises a composite material defined by iron-containing particles.
PNG
media_image3.png
486
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wasson et al. (US 2006/0087186 A1) discloses a motor comprising a rotor and a stator having a conical air gap between the stator and at least one magnet.
PNG
media_image4.png
437
775
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kugimiya et al. (US 5,350,628 A) discloses a motor comprising a core having a composite material defined by iron-containing particles having an alumina layer disposed thereon.
PNG
media_image5.png
244
356
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ohnishi et al. (US 4,748,361 A) discloses a motor comprising a rotor and a stator having a conical air gap between the stator and at least one magnet.
PNG
media_image6.png
332
388
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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