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 19 May 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-10 and 12-19 were previously pending; claims 3 and 16 were canceled and claims 20-23 were added by the amendment; and thus, claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, and 17-23 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 19 May 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (page 6 of the Remarks) states that the indefinite phrases have been removed from the claims, thereby obviating the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As such, said grounds have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 6-7 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 19, that the “mold” of Yamasaki is not equivalent to the mold of the present invention because it does not meet various limitations disclosed in the specification. However, none of the features upon which the argument relies are recited in the claim. 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). Further, the general definition of a mold simply requires a “frame on or around which an object is constructed” (). Since the bobbin of Yamasaki provides a structure limiting the shape of the potting material during molding, it does meet this definition and Yamasaki does disclose a potting mold as recited in the claims. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection of claim 19 are maintained.
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 7-8 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1 and 12, that the previously-indicated allowable subject matter of claim 2 has been incorporated into claim 1, placing the claims in condition for allowance. The argument also alleges that claims “5-13 depend from amended claim 1” and are allowable by virtue of their dependency. However, claim 12 is independent, and claim 13 depends from claim 12. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive in regards to claims 12-13. Since no other argument has been made in relation to these claims, the previous grounds of rejection thereof have been 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki et al. (JP 2018-198521 A), hereinafter referred to as “Yamasaki”.
Regarding claim 19, Yamasaki discloses a method for using a water impermeable air gap-facing protective barrier [25] of a stator [2] suitable for an electric machine of a type that comprises a stator [2], a rotor [1] and an air gap in-between (fig. 5; ¶ 0020, 0028, 0055-0068), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
548
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
using an air gap-facing protective barrier [25] of a stator [2] as a potting material barrier structure [21] for defining a permanently bonded barrier [25] for the potting material [21] (fig. 5; ¶ 0020-0024, 0056-0057); and
using the air gap-facing protective barrier [25] of the stator [2] to prevent the potting material [21] from coming into contact with a potting mold [202] during a manufacturing and potting process for the stator [2] (fig. 5; ¶ 0021, 0033, 0039).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sustersic et al. (WO 2019/151956 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Sustersic”, in view of Yamasaki.
Regarding claim 12, Sustersic discloses a method of manufacturing a stator [1] for an electric machine of a type that comprises a stator [1], a rotor [2] and an air gap [6] in-between, in particular a method of manufacturing an inner stator [1] for an outer rotor [2] motor (fig. 1-3; pages 4-5; the “electric motor presented comprises at least a bearing (3), a rotor (2), and a stator (1)”, “electromagnetic air gap (6)”), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
378
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
providing an assembly comprising a stator housing [13] comprising in a recessed space [13r] a stator core [12] having core teeth (fig. 1; page 6, “a ferromagnetic core with slots (12) where the winding is inserted”; teeth are formed between slots) and electromagnetic windings [10] arranged around the core teeth (fig. 1; page 6, “a ferromagnetic core with slots (12) where the winding is inserted”), wherein the recessed space [13r] is open at an air gap-facing side of the stator [1] (fig. 2; page 7).
Sustersic does not disclose providing a water impermeable protective barrier and covering the recessed space at an open side; or permanently bonding the water impermeable protective barrier to the electromagnetic windings and the core teeth by introducing liquid potting material into the covered recessed space.
Yamasaki discloses a method of manufacturing an electric machine comprising an inner stator [2] and an outer rotor [1] with an air gap in-between (fig. 5; ¶ 0020, 0028, 0055-0068);
providing a water impermeable protective barrier [25] and covering the recessed space [slots] at an open side (fig. 5; ¶ 0028); and
PNG
media_image1.png
548
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
permanently bonding the water impermeable protective barrier [25] to the electromagnetic windings [203] and the core teeth by introducing liquid potting material [21] into the covered recessed space [slots] (fig. 5; ¶ 0020-0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover the outer surface of the stator of Sustersic, thereby sealing the recessed space, with a water impermeable protective barrier and a potting material as taught by Yamasaki, in order to improve the water- and dust-proof properties of the stator, thereby preventing deterioration (¶ 0038 of Yamasaki).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sustersic and Yamasaki as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Grubel et al. (US 2016/0156241 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Grubel”.
Regarding claim 13, Sustersic, in view of Yamasaki, discloses the method of claim 12, as stated above. Yamasaki further discloses the step of sealing the recessed space [slot] at the open side with the water impermeable protective barrier [25] in a fluid-tight manner, prior to introducing the potting material [21] (fig. 5; ¶ 0020-0024).
Yamasaki does not disclose using an adhesive.
Grubel discloses a method comprising the step of sealing a recessed space [20] at the open side with the water impermeable protective barrier [16] by using an adhesive (fig. 1, 3; ¶ 0043-0046; “adhesive joints”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the water impermeable protective barrier of Sustersic/Yamasaki using an adhesive as taught by Grubel, in order to provide a better connection between the components (¶ 0020 of Grubel).
PNG
media_image3.png
340
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 20-21 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 14-15, 17-18, and 22-23 is/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 claim 1, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, a stator for an electric machine of a type that comprises a stator, a rotor and an air gap in-between, in particular an inner stator for an outer rotor motor, the stator comprising:
a stator core having a plurality of core teeth;
electromagnetic windings arranged around the plurality of core teeth;
a stator housing comprising a recessed space which is open at an air gap-facing side of the stator, the recessed space accommodating the stator core and the electromagnetic windings; and
a water impermeable protective barrier sealing the recessed space at the air gap-facing side in a fluid-tight manner,
wherein the water impermeable protective barrier is permanently bonded to the electromagnetic windings and the plurality of core teeth by potting material provided in the recessed space,
wherein a bond-increasing mesh-like material permeated by the potting material is provided between the plurality of core teeth and the water impermeable protective barrier.
Regarding claim 14, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the method of claim 12, further comprising covering the core teeth with a bond-increasing mesh-like material, prior to the covering of the recessed space.
Regarding claim 15, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the method of claim 12, wherein the water impermeable protective barrier comprises a flexible sleeve, and wherein the flexible sleeve is pulled over the recessed space for covering the recessed space.
While the prior art discloses various arrangements for sealing stators, it does not disclose an arrangement comprising the combination of a water impermeable protective barrier, a potting material, and a mesh material disposed between the two. Likewise, the prior art does not disclose the barrier comprising a flexible sleeve that is pulled over the recessed space. Thus, the inventions recited above, and shown in figures 4-5, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
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:
Hopkins et al. (US 2019/0123620 A1) discloses a stator sealed with an encapsulating resin.
Carroll et al. (US 2018/0323674 A1) discloses a stator sealed with both an encapsulating resin and a water impermeable protective barrier between the stator and the rotor.
Calvert (US 2013/0069462 A1) discloses an inner stator opposed to an outer rotor across an air gap, a low friction coating provided in the air gap.
Hsieh et al. (US 2013/0020885 A1) discloses an inner stator opposed to an outer rotor across an air gap, the stator encapsulated in resin and separated from the rotor by a protective barrier.
Ueno et al. (US 2012/0062051 A1) discloses using roughened surfaces to improve contact between members.
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