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 filed 6 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that since JP 608 teaches a coreless motor, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to combine it with Nakamura to teach the engagement members of claims 1, 14, and 15. However, while the title of JP 608 is “Coreless Motor”, paragraph 0002 specifies that the invention merely does not have an “iron core”. Cylindrical magnetic member 4 of JP 608 serves the same purpose as the armature core in this case. Further, the instant invention does not require an iron core, only a “cylindrical” core, which cylindrical magnetic member 4 of JP 608 is cylindrical and at the core of the rotor. Thus, JP 608 both teaches the engagement members and would be obvious to combine with the cylindrical armature core of Nakamura.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (“Nakamura”; US 2009/0079277), in view of JP 52-76608 (“608”; included with English translation in IDS of 05/16/2024).
Regarding claim 1: Nakamura discloses an armature (Fig. 2) comprising:
a tubular armature core (4);
a coil assembly (12, 13) arranged along the armature core and having a band member (12), a coil (5) and the band member being formed of an electrically-insulative material into a band shape and rolled along a circumferential direction into an annular shape (paragraph 0033, 12 is an electroless copper plating), the coil being formed of an electroconductive material to the band member (as the coil must be conductive).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a first engagement portion, the first engagement portion being provided to the band member; and an engagement member mounted to the armature core, the engagement member having a second engagement portion that engages with the first engagement portion and thereby positions the coil assembly with respect to the armature core.
However, 608 discloses a first engagement portion (27C, Fig. 3 or arrow 3 in annotated Fig. 3 below), the first engagement portion being provided to the band member (2); and
an engagement member (3 or annotated arrow 1 below) mounted to the armature core (4), the engagement member having a second engagement portion (17C or arrow 2) that engages with the first engagement portion and thereby positions the coil assembly with respect to the armature core (as shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the band member of Nakamura to include the engagement member of 608 in order to provide further protection of the band.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3: Nakamura discloses the band member has a band member main body rolled into the annular shape (Fig. 2).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose the first engagement portion is a protrusion that protrudes from the band member main body; the engagement member has an engagement member main body formed in an annular shape; and the second engagement portion is a recess formed in the engagement member main body.
However, 608 discloses the first engagement portion is a protrusion that protrudes from the band member main body (see arrow 3, above);
the engagement member has an engagement member main body formed in an annular shape (when fully wrapped); and
the second engagement portion is a recess formed in the engagement member main body (see arrow 2, above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the band member of Nakamura to include the engagement member of 608 in order to provide further protection of the band.
Regarding claim 9: Nakamura discloses the armature core is formed, by laminating a plurality of core-forming sheets in an axial direction, into the cylindrical shape (paragraph 0023); and
at least one of the core-forming sheets (in this case 14) engages with the coil assembly (13).
Regarding claim 11: Nakamura modified by 608 disclose the coil assembly and armature core, 608 further discloses between the coil assembly and the armature core, there is provided an insulator (the rotor body is an insulator, see English translation included with the reference); and
the insulator is formed integrally with the engagement member (as the engagement member is formed on the body).
Regarding claim 15: Nakamura discloses an armature (Fig. 2) comprising:
a tubular armature core (4);
a coil assembly (7, 9) arranged along the armature core and having a band member (9), a coil (7) and the band member being formed of an electrically-insulative material into a band shape and rolled along a circumferential direction into an annular shape (paragraph 0034, 9 is an electroless copper plating), the coil being formed of an electroconductive material to the band member (as the coil must be conductive);
wherein: the armature core is arranged radially outside the coil assembly (shown in Fig. 2).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a first engagement portion, the first engagement portion being provided to the band member; and an engagement member mounted to the armature core, the engagement member having a second engagement portion that engages with the first engagement portion and thereby positions the coil assembly with respect to the armature core.
However, 608 discloses a first engagement portion (27C, Fig. 3 or arrow 3 in annotated Fig. 3 above), the first engagement portion being provided to the band member (2); and
an engagement member (3 or annotated arrow 1 above) mounted to the armature core (4), the engagement member having a second engagement portion (17C or arrow 2) that engages with the first engagement portion and thereby positions the coil assembly with respect to the armature core (as shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the band member of Nakamura to include the engagement member of 608 in order to provide further protection of the band.
Regarding claim 16: Nakamura discloses a rotating electric machine (Fig. 4) comprising:
a stator (26); and
a rotor (21),
wherein: one of the stator and the rotor includes the armature as set forth in Claim 1 (see claim 1 above), and the other of the stator and the rotor has magnets arranged to radially face the coil assembly (as shown in Fig. 4).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and 608 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hunstable (US 2021/0057973).
Regarding claim 2: Nakamura discloses the band member has a band member main body rolled into the annular shape (Fig. 2), but does not explicitly disclose the first engagement portion is a recess formed in the band member main body; the engagement member has an engagement member main body formed in an annular shape; and the second engagement portion is a protrusion that protrudes from the engagement member main body.
However, Hunstable discloses the first engagement portion is a recess (see circled portion in annotated Fig. 11 below) formed in the band member main body (1216);
the engagement member has an engagement member main body formed in an annular shape (1210); and
the second engagement portion is a protrusion that protrudes from the engagement member main body (see circled portion below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the band member body of Nakamura to include the engagement portions of Hunstable to better protect the armature.
PNG
media_image2.png
446
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12: Nakamura modified by 608 disclose the engagement member but do not explicitly disclose a sensor.
However, Hunstable discloses a sensor (paragraph 0115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the engagement member to include the sensor of Hunstable in order to control the armature using the rotor position.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of 608 and Hunstable.
Regarding claim 14: Nakamura discloses an armature (Fig. 2) comprising:
a tubular armature core (4);
a coil assembly (12, 13) arranged along the armature core and having a band member (12), a coil (5) and the band member being formed of an electrically-insulative material into a band shape and rolled along a circumferential direction into an annular shape (paragraph 0033, 12 is an electroless copper plating), the coil being formed of an electroconductive material to the band member (as the coil must be conductive).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a first engagement portion, the first engagement portion being provided to the band member; and an engagement member mounted to the armature core, the engagement member having a second engagement portion that engages with the first engagement portion and thereby positions the coil assembly with respect to the armature core, wherein: the engagement member and the armature core are arranged in alignment with each other in an axial direction.
However, 608 discloses a first engagement portion (27C, Fig. 3 or arrow 3 in annotated Fig. 3 above), the first engagement portion being provided to the band member (2); and
an engagement member (3 or annotated arrow 1 above) mounted to the armature core (4), the engagement member having a second engagement portion (17C or arrow 2) that engages with the first engagement portion and thereby positions the coil assembly with respect to the armature core (as shown in Fig. 3).
And, Hunstable discloses the engagement member (1210) and the armature core are arranged in alignment with each other in an axial direction (see the above circled portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the band member of Nakamura to include the engagement member of 608 in order to provide further protection of the band and to modify the engagement member to be axially aligned, as disclosed by Hunstable, in order to allow for a top cover of the armature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 10, and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 4-8: The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the armature of claim 4, specifically comprising:
the engagement member further has a third engagement portion; and the armature core has a fourth engagement portion that engages with the third engagement portion and thereby positions the engagement member with respect to the armature core, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Claims 5-8 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 4.
Regarding claim 10: The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the armature of claim 10, specifically comprising:
the coil assembly is arranged along a radially inner or radially outer surface of the armature core; and the engagement member is formed of a nonmagnetic material, arranged along an axial end face of the armature core, and located at a position not radially overlapping the vertical portion, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Regarding claim 13: The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the armature of claim 13, specifically comprising:
the circumferential intervals between the first engagement portions provided in one of the layers are set to be greater than the circumferential intervals between the first engagement portions provided in another of the layers which is located radially inside the one of the layers, so that the circumferential positions of the first engagement portions provided in the one of the layers respectively coincide with the circumferential positions of the first engagement portions provided in the another of the layers, in the context of the other components in the claim.
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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834