DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10, 15-19 of U.S. Application No. 18733549 filed on 06/04/2024 are presented for examination. Claims 11-14, and 20 have been withdrawn.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2024, and 07/19/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-14, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/29/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han Ji Hoon et al. (KR 2019-2227183; Hereinafter, “Han”) in view of Hauser et al. (US 2010/0109458; Hereinafter, “Hauser”).
Regarding claim 1: Han discloses a brushless electric machine (motor; fig. 1) comprising:
a stator (300); and a rotor (200) arranged within the stator (300) so as to be rotatable relative thereto, the rotor having a cylindrical base body (fig. 2) which is connected to a machine shaft (100) in a rotationally fixed manner and which carries a plurality of permanent magnets (220) on its outer circumference, and
wherein the plurality of windings (of the stator 300) are configured to drive the rotor via an electrically generated magnetic field (page 2 of the attached translation, last 5 lines) , and wherein the plurality of permanent magnets (220) of the rotor (200) are fixed via a thin-walled reinforcement (can member 230) radially surrounding (fig. 2-5) the plurality of permanent magnets (220), the reinforcement (can 230) being connected to the permanent magnets (230) in a materially and/or positively locking manner (by the virtue of the weld in grooves 231a, 232a; fig. 2) via a plurality of welding points (10, 20; fig. 5).
Han does not specifically show the stator having winding with a plurality of single-tooth windings.
Hauser discloses a stator (1) having winding (3) with a plurality of single-tooth windings (one winding 3 on each tooth 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have configured the stator of the motor of Han with the stator having winding with a plurality of single-tooth windings as disclosed by Hauser since concentrated windings are known for providing highly compact motor footprint, reduced copper usage, shorter end windings for improved efficiency, and lower manufacturing costs due to the ease of automated assembly.
Regarding claim 2/1: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Han further discloses the reinforcement (can 230) includes at least one hollow cylindrical sleeve (cup-like shape), and a number, shape and distribution of the welding points (10, 20) is dependent on operating parameters of the brushless electric machine (common sense to guarantee the prevention of the can detachment) and/or the hollow cylindrical sleeve (230).
Regarding claim 5/1: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Han further discloses each of the plurality of welding points (10, 20) is arranged in a center of one of the plurality of permanent magnets relative to a circumferential direction of the rotor and/or close to or above a pole gap (at tooth 211; fig. 2) between two adjacent permanent magnets (220) of the plurality of permanent magnets (220).
Regarding claim 6/2/1: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 2 and Han further discloses the at least one hollow cylindrical sleeve (230) has a seam (between 1st and 2nd cans 231, 232; fig. 2) which runs essentially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the machine shaft (fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15/1: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 2 and Hauser further discloses the brushless electric machine is a brushless DC motor (title).
Claims 3, 16, and 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Hauser and in further view of Tanaka et a. (JPS63-154050; Hereinafter, “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 3/1, and 16/3: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically disclose the plurality of welding points includes from 1 to 10 welding points for each permanent magnet of the plurality of permanent magnets; the plurality of welding points includes from 2 to 4 welding points for each permanent magnet of the plurality of permanent magnets.
Tanaka shows the plurality of welding points (5) includes from 1 to 10 welding points for each permanent magnet (2) of the plurality of permanent magnets (Tanaka show 5 welds 5 in each of the dents caused by die 6, thus 5 welds X 4 dents = 20 welds total. i.e. 5 welds per magnet which is close value of the claimed 4 welds per magnet, thus the difference is not critical; MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have configured the rotor of Han in view of Hauser with the plurality of welding points includes from 1 to 10 welding points for each permanent magnet of the plurality of permanent magnets; the plurality of welding points includes from 2 to 4 welding points for each permanent magnet of the plurality of permanent magnets as disclosed by Tanaka to provide further weld points assuring the rotor’s robustness and mechanical integrity.
Regarding claim 7/1, and 17/7: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically disclose the reinforcement consists of a paramagnetic metal; the reinforcement comprises aluminum, brass, stainless steel, or the like.
Tanaka discloses that the reinforcement (4) consists of a paramagnetic metal (non-magnetic reinforcing cylinder; abstract); the reinforcement (4) comprises aluminum, brass, stainless steel (non-magnetic steel).
it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have configured the rotor of Han in view of Hauser with the reinforcement consists of a non-magnetic steel metal as disclosed by Tanaka to sufficiently enhance the attracting strength of a permanent magnet and to improve the productivity (abstract).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Hauser.
Regarding claim 4/1: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically disclose that each of the plurality of welding points has a diameter of approximately 0.2 to 2 mm.
The size of the weld is a result effective variable since increasing or decreasing the size of the weld, increases or decreases its strength, thus it is within the level of ordinarily skilled artisan to find the optimum workable values of the weld diameter (MPEP 2144.05(II).B).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have formed the welds of Han in view of Hauser with each of the plurality of welding points has a diameter of approximately 0.2 to 2 mm to ensure the rotor’s mechanical integrity.
Claims 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Hauser and in further view of Dohogne (US 4973872; Hereinafter, “Dohogne”).
Regarding claim 8/1,and 18/8: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically disclose that the reinforcement consists of a plastic with a permeability number of at most 15 or of a composite material formed from the plastic and a paramagnetic metal; the permeability number of the plastic is at most 2.
Dohogne discloses a reinforcement (8) consists of a plastic (col. 4, line 29) with a permeability number of at most 15 (plastics has permeability of 1) or of a composite material formed from the plastic and a paramagnetic metal; the permeability number of the plastic is at most 2 (plastics has permeability of 1).
it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have configured the rotor of Han in view of Hauser with the reinforcement consists of a plastic with a permeability number of at most 15 or of a composite material formed from the plastic and a paramagnetic metal; the permeability number of the plastic is at most 2 as disclosed by Dohogne to sufficiently enhance the attracting strength of a permanent magnet and to improve the productivity.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Hauser and in further view of Yamamura (US 9184637; Hereinafter, “Yamamura”).
Regarding claim 9/1: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically disclose the at least one hollow cylindrical sleeve has, at an open end, an insertion phase which widens with respect to an inside diameter of the sleeve, the insertion phase having an inside diameter that is larger than an outside diameter of the rotor with the mounted permanent magnets.
Yamamura shows the at least one hollow cylindrical sleeve (4) has, at an open end (fig. 6), an insertion phase (23) which widens with respect to an inside diameter of the sleeve (4), the insertion phase having an inside diameter that is larger than an outside diameter of the rotor with the mounted permanent magnets (D>D0; col.7 Lines 43-54).
it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have configured the rotor of Han in view of Hauser with the at least one hollow cylindrical sleeve has, at an open end, an insertion phase which widens with respect to an inside diameter of the sleeve, the insertion phase having an inside diameter that is larger than an outside diameter of the rotor with the mounted permanent magnets as disclosed by Yamamura to obtain the rotor of the rotary electric machine capable of achieving reduction in size and cost (abstract).
Claims 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Hauser and in further view of Mihalko (US 4733118; Hereinafter, “Mihalko”).
Regarding claim 10/1, and 19/10: Han in view of Hauser disclose the limitations of claim 1 but does not specifically disclose An electric motor-driven processing device comprising: the brushless electric machine according to claim 1, and the electric motor-driven processing device according to claim 10, wherein the electric motor-driven processing device is a hand-held electric machine tool.
Mihalko discloses an electric motor-driven processing device (handheld tool 1) comprising: the brushless electric machine (3), and the electric motor-driven processing device (1), wherein the electric motor-driven processing device (1) is a hand-held electric machine tool (col. 1, last paragraph).
it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to have configured the rotor of Han in view of Hauser with An electric motor-driven processing device comprising: the brushless electric machine, and the electric motor-driven processing device, wherein the electric motor-driven processing device is a hand-held electric machine tool as disclosed by Mihalko to take advantage of the high efficiency motor in a hand held device application
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, 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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights