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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of the remarks, filed July 13, 2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-12 of the remarks regarding claims 1 and 2 that, “the Examiner has not sufficiently defined what is considered the first and second patterns in the induction motor of Gillen” and “the teeth of Gillen are not “an extension of one of the first or second patterns.””
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the outer ring (9) and the inner ring (10) is indicated as the two stator parts. Claim 1 recites the stator parts having a first and second pattern respectively in a plane perpendicular to the stator axis. Paragraph 0058 of the Applicant’s specification states the stator parts are cut according to a first and second pattern. The Examiner interprets the first and second pattern as how the stator parts are cut which can be seen in the figures. Since each stator part is considered a first and second pattern then anything extending from the stator part is interpreted as an extension of the pattern.
Applicant argues on pages 8-12 of the remarks regarding claim 1 that, “the poles clearly do not have "a front end engaging with a receiving region of the other of the first or second patterns to form a unique point of contact that is constrained within the plane," as recite in claim 1. Gillen expressly teaches that, "[t] confine the pole sections closely together the outer ring member is shown as having seats 14 to receive the end of the pole sections 12 and the meeting edges of which may be curved or otherwise shaped to effect a wedging engagement for forcing the sections tightly together.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the Applicant’s argument is contradictory arguing the pole doesn’t have a front end engaging with a receiving region of the other pattern to form a unique point of contact. Then arguing the pole has an end section that engages a seat of the other pattern to form a wedging engagement for forcing the sections together. It is clear that Gillen teaches the teeth (11) has a front end (the end of (12)) engaging with a receiving region (14) of the other pattern forming a unique point of contact.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 of the remarks regarding claim 2 that Gillen does not disclose the feature "the first and second patterns have at least one overlapping area at a point of engagement between the front end and the receiving region, the overlapping area being able to be absorbed by an elastic deformation, greater than manufacturing tolerances, of at least one or the other of the two stator parts linked to movement of the front end." And also arguing the, “Examiner alleges that Gillen teaches this feature without any citation or explanation whatsoever.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the overlapping area of the point of engagement can be seen in figures 1 and 3 between the front end (the end of (12)) overlapping and engaging with a receiving region (14) of the other pattern to form the unique point of contact. This feature is cited in the Non-Final office action at lines 128-129 identifying the front end (12) and receiving region (14) and line 139 citing to see figures 1 and 3 to see the point of engagement between the front end (12) and receiving region (14) creating the overlapping area being able to be absorbed by an elastic deformation of at least one of the stator parts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gillen (US 2,251,674).
Regarding claim 1, Gillen discloses a slotted, electric radial flux machine (see Figures 1-3) comprising
a stator (see Figure 1) having a stator axis and comprising two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1) connected by a plurality of teeth (11 of Figure 1-3), some or all of which are surrounded by coils (15 of Figure 1-3), the two stator parts having a first pattern and a second pattern (see Figures; the cutting pattern of the stator parts and the stacking of the laminations in a direction parallel to the axis), respectively, in a plane perpendicular to the stator axis, wherein:
each of the teeth surrounded by the coils is an extension of one of the first or second patterns and has a front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) engaging with a receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) of the other of the first or second patterns to form a unique point of contact that is constrained within the plane.
Regarding claim 2, Gillen discloses a slotted, electric radial flux machine (see Figures 1-3) comprising
a stator (see Figure 1) having a stator axis and comprising two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1) connected by a plurality of teeth (11 of Figure 1-3), some or all of which are surrounded by the coils (15 of Figure 1-3), the two stator parts having a first pattern and a second pattern (see Figures; the cutting pattern of the stator parts and the stacking of the laminations in a direction parallel to the axis), respectively, in a plane perpendicular to the stator axis,
each of the teeth surrounded by coils being an extension of one of the first or second patterns and having a front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) engaging with a receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) of the other of the first or second patterns, wherein:
the first and second patterns have at least one overlapping area at a point of engagement between the front end and the receiving region (see Figures 1, 3), the overlapping area being able to be absorbed by an elastic deformation, greater than manufacturing tolerances, of at least one or the other of the two stator parts linked to movement of the front end.
Regarding claim 3, Gillen discloses wherein lines normal to contact surfaces between the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) and said corresponding receiving regions (14 of Figure 1, 3) pass through the unique points of contact, are not concurrent at a single point coinciding with the stator axis (see Figure 1, the contact region is round and therefore has a plurality of normal which do not cross).
Regarding claim 4, Gillen discloses wherein the plurality of teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) comprises at least three teeth surrounded by the coils (15 of Figure 1-3), each of the at least three teeth producing a constrained point of contact (see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 6, 20, Gillen discloses wherein all of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) consist of extensions of only one of the two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Gillen discloses wherein the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) consist partly of extensions of one of the two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1) and partly of extensions of the other of the two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Gillen discloses wherein the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of at least one of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) is convex, and wherein the corresponding receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) is flat.
Regarding claim 11, Gillen discloses wherein the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of at least one of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) and the corresponding receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) are convex (Page 1, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 12, Gillen discloses wherein the two stator parts (9, 10 of Figure 1) consist of stacked laminations, one of the first or second patterns fitting into the other of the first or second patterns (see Figures; the cutting pattern of the stator parts and the stacking of the laminations in a direction parallel to the axis).
Regarding claim 14, Gillen discloses further comprising a rotor (5 of Figure 1) internal to the stator (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Gillen discloses wherein the stator (see Figure 1) has at least three teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) surrounded by the coils (15 of Figure 1-3), each of the at least three teeth producing a constrained point of contact (see Figure 1).
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.
Claims 5, 8, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen (US 2,251,674).
Regarding claims 5, 19, Gillen discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein an extent of a region of the unique point of contact that is constrained is less than 5% of a periphery of the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of the tooth (11 of Figure 1-3) (claim 5);
wherein an extent of a region of the constrained point of contact that is less than 5% of a periphery of the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of the tooth (11 of Figure 1-3) (claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the point of contact is less than 5% of a periphery of the front end of the tooth in the electrical machine of Gillen to confine the pole sections closely together to effect a wedging engagement for forcing the sections tightly together [Gillen: Page 1, lines 1-6] since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Gillen discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of at least one of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) is convex, and wherein the corresponding receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) is concave, with a greater radius of curvature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the point of contact at the receiving region have a greater radius of curvature in the electrical machine of Gillen to confine the pole sections closely together to effect a wedging engagement for forcing the sections tightly together [Gillen: Page 1, lines 1-6] since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Gillen discloses wherein the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of at least one of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) is concave (Page 1, lines 1-6), and wherein the corresponding receiving region (14 of Figure 1, 3) is convex (Page 1, lines 1-6), with a smaller radius of curvature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the point of contact at the receiving region have a smaller radius of curvature in the electrical machine of Gillen to confine the pole sections closely together to effect a wedging engagement for forcing the sections tightly together [Gillen: Page 1, lines 1-6] since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen (US 2,251,674), in view of Prudham (US 2012/0104905).
Regarding claim 13, Gillen discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose further comprising a rotor (5 of Figure 1) external to the stator (see Figure 1).
Prudham discloses further comprising a rotor (202 of Figure 19) external to the stator (201 of Figure 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the rotor external to the stator of the electrical machine of Gillen, as taught by Prudham, since it was known in the art that outer rotor motors provide high torque and power density.
Regarding claim 15, Gillen discloses wherein the stator (see Figure 1) alternates between wide teeth and narrow teeth (11 of Figure 1-3; see Figures 1, 3), only three teeth configured for receiving the coils (15 of Figure 1-3).
Gillen does not explicitly disclose being located in an angular sector α of angular extent less than 180ᵒ.
Prudham discloses teeth (31, 35, 36 of Figure 4; 11, 15, 16 of Figure 17) being located in an angular sector α of angular extent less than 180ᵒ.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the teeth configured for receiving coils in the electrical machine of Gillen be located in an angular sector α of angular extent less than 180ᵒ, as taught by Prudham, to allow for a more compact motor design and a higher torque-to-weight ratio since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen (US 2,251,674), in view of Biwersi (US 2016/0233734).
Regarding claim 16, Gillen discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein a first stator part (10 of Figure 1) is overmolded with a plastic body forming a coil body on each of the teeth (11 of Figure 1-3) surrounded by the coils (15 of Figure 1-3), the coil body axially extending the front end (12 of Figure 1, 3) of the teeth by a flared groove (claim 16);
wherein the flared grooves of the plastic body have sufficient rigidity to withstand the elastic deformation stresses of the first or second stator part (9, 10 of Figure 1) exerted during assembly by axial insertion of the first and second stator parts (claim 17).
Biwersi discloses wherein a first stator part (Para. 0040, stator) is overmolded with a plastic body forming a coil body (4 of Figure 1; Para. 0052) on each of the teeth surrounded by the coils (5a, 5b, 5c of Figure 1), the coil body axially extending the front end of the teeth by a flared groove (Para. 0046) (claim 16);
wherein the flared grooves (Para. 0046) of the plastic body (Para. 0052) have sufficient rigidity to withstand the elastic deformation stresses of the first or second stator part (Para. 0040, stator) exerted during assembly by axial insertion of the first and second stator parts (claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the coil body of Gillen overmolded with a plastic body and grooves, as taught by Biwersi, to make implementation of the assembly easy, precise, and sure [Biwersi: Para. 0046].
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 CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 PM.
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, Tulsidas 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.
/Charles Reid Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
