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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 06/10/2024, 02/28/2025,05/05/2025, 11/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1,11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20150188376) in view of Kimura (US 20200373794).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi et al. teach:
A motor (title) comprising:
a housing (21) internally formed with a cavity (Fig1), and provided with a wire passing hole (Figs 1-2) communicated to the cavity (Fig 5);
a stator assembly (22) disposed in the cavity (Fig 1); and
a busbar assembly (23) disposed in the cavity and mounted at one end of the stator assembly in an axial direction (Fig 1), and
provided with a three-phase (paras 42-43) connection terminal (51) that penetrates through the wire passing hole to be connected to a power supply (see annotated Fig 1 below),
wherein a resin material (231, Fig 5) is filled between the stator assembly (22, Fig 1) and the housing (21), and
the busbar assembly (23, Fig 5) is further provided with a boss base (232) mounted in the wire passing hole in a sealing manner (since 23 is fitted on top as seen in Fig 3), and
the three-phase connection terminal (51) is mounted on the boss base (see annotated Fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
764
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
770
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yamaguchi et al. do not teach the stator assembly interference-connected to an inner wall of the housing.
Kimura teaches an apparatus having the stator assembly interference-connected to an inner wall of the housing (paras 5,10,61, 75, Fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. to have the stator assembly interference-connected to an inner wall of the housing, as taught by Kimura.
The motivation to do so is it would reduce stress and forces acting on components and improve productivity (para 68 of Kimura).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi et al. teach:
A power assembly comprising a motor (abstract), the motor comprising:
a housing (21) internally formed with a cavity (Fig1), and provided with a wire passing hole (Figs 1-2) communicated to the cavity (Fig 5);
a stator assembly (22) disposed in the cavity (Fig 1); and
a busbar assembly (23) disposed in the cavity and mounted at one end of the stator assembly in an axial direction (Fig 1), and
provided with a three-phase (paras 42-43) connection terminal (51) that penetrates through the wire passing hole to be connected to a power supply (see annotated Fig 1 above),
wherein a resin material (231, Fig 5) is filled between the stator assembly (22, Fig 1) and the housing (21), and
the busbar assembly (23, Fig 5) is further provided with a boss base (232) mounted in the wire passing hole in a sealing manner (since 23 is fitted on top as seen in Fig 3), and
the three-phase connection terminal (51) is mounted on the boss base (see annotated Fig 5 above).
Yamaguchi et al. do not teach the stator assembly interference-connected to an inner wall of the housing.
Kimura teaches an apparatus having the stator assembly interference-connected to an inner wall of the housing (paras 5,10,61, 75, Fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. to have the stator assembly interference-connected to an inner wall of the housing, as taught by Kimura.
The motivation to do so is it would reduce stress and forces acting on components and improve productivity (para 68 of Kimura).
Regarding claim 12, Yamaguchi et al. teach:
A power-assisted bicycle (pre-amble, patentable weight not given) comprising
a power assembly comprising a motor (abstract), the motor comprising:
a housing (21) internally formed with a cavity (Fig 1), and provided with a wire passing hole (Figs 1-2) communicated to the cavity (Fig 5);
a stator assembly (22) disposed in the cavity (Fig 1); and
a busbar assembly (23) disposed in the cavity and mounted at one end of the stator assembly in an axial direction (Fig 1), and
provided with a three-phase (paras 42-43) connection terminal (51) that penetrates through the wire passing hole to be connected to a power supply (see annotated Fig 1 above),
wherein a resin material (231, Fig 5) is filled between the stator assembly (22, Fig 1) and the housing (21), and
the busbar assembly (23, Fig 5) is further provided with a boss base (232) mounted in the wire passing hole in a sealing manner (since 23 is fitted on top as seen in Fig 3), and
the three-phase connection terminal (51) is mounted on the boss base (see annotated Fig 5 above).
Yamaguchi et al. do not teach the stator assembly interference-connected to an inner wall of the housing.
Kimura teaches an apparatus having the stator assembly interference-connected to an inner wall of the housing (paras 5,10,61, 75, Fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. to have the stator assembly interference-connected to an inner wall of the housing, as taught by Kimura.
The motivation to do so is it would reduce stress and forces acting on components and improve productivity (para 68 of Kimura).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20150188376) in view of Kimura (US 20200373794), further in view of Chou (US 20120183680).
Regarding claim 2/1, Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the resin material is a thermosetting resin material.
Chou teaches a device wherein the resin material is a thermosetting resin material (claim 8, para 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura wherein the resin material is a thermosetting resin material, as Chou teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to provide a waterproof structure (para 6 of Chou).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20150188376) in view of Kimura (US 20200373794), further in view of Nakagawa (US 20120319512).
Regarding claim 7/1, Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the stator assembly comprises: a plurality of segmented stator cores; and a plurality of segmented stator windings wound around the plurality of segmented stator cores, respectively.
Nakagawa teaches a machine wherein the stator assembly comprises (Figs 2 and 21): a plurality of segmented stator cores (Fig 2); and a plurality of segmented stator windings wound around the plurality of segmented stator cores (para 128), respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura wherein the stator assembly comprises: a plurality of segmented stator cores; and a plurality of segmented stator windings wound around the plurality of segmented stator cores, respectively, as Nakagawa teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would allow reduced production cost (para 73 of Nakagawa).
Regarding claim 9/7, Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura, further in view of Nakagawa teach the invention as discussed above. Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura do not teach wherein the cross-section of the winding wire of the segmented stator winding is square or waist-circular.
Nakagawa teaches a machine wherein the cross-section of the winding wire of the segmented stator winding is square or waist-circular (para 128 and Figs 21,27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura wherein the cross-section of the winding wire of the segmented stator winding is square or waist-circular, as Nakagawa teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would allow reduced production cost (para 73 of Nakagawa).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20150188376) in view of Kimura (US 20200373794), further in view of Nakagawa (US 20120319512), further in view of Wani et al. (US 20220014064).
Regarding claim 8/7, Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura, further in view of Nakagawa teach the invention as discussed above. Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura do not teach wherein at least two of the segmented stator windings between adjacent slots of in-phase windings are single-wire windings.
Nakagawa teaches a machine wherein at least two of the segmented stator windings between adjacent slots of in-phase windings are single-wire windings (para 128 and Figs 21,27).
Nakagawa does not teach them to be single wire series windings.
Wani et al. teaches the use of single wire series windings (para 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura wherein at least two of the segmented stator windings between adjacent slots of in-phase windings are single-wire windings, as Nakagawa teaches and to use single wire series windings, as taught by Wani et al.
The motivation to do so is it would allow reduced production cost (para 73 of Nakagawa) and may help with space efficiency and/or ease of manufacture (para 21 of Wani et al.).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20150188376) in view of Kimura (US 20200373794), further in view of Takashima et al. (US 20070205678).
Regarding claim 10/1, Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura teach the invention as discussed above, except wherein the number of poles of the motor is 2p, and the number of slots is Z, wherein the number of poles and the number of slots satisfy: |Z−2p|=2.
Takashima et al. teaches an apparatus wherein the number of poles of the motor is 2p, and the number of slots is Z, wherein the number of poles and the number of slots satisfy: |Z−2p|=2 (para 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura wherein the number of poles of the motor is 2p, and the number of slots is Z, wherein the number of poles and the number of slots satisfy: |Z−2p|=2, as Takashima et al. teaches.
The motivation to do so is it would permit advantageous in the points of the fabrication and supply of components owing to the common use of the components (paras 7, 82 of Takashima et al.).
If the “acts” of a claimed process manipulate only numbers, abstract concepts or ideas, or signals representing any of the foregoing, the acts are not being applied to appropriate subject matter. Schrader, 22F.3d at 294-95, 30USPQ2d at 1458-59. Thus, a process consisting solely of mathematical operations, i.e., converting one set of numbers into another set of numbers, does not manipulate appropriate subject matter and thus cannot constitute a statutory process. MPEP 2106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Yamaguchi et al. in view of Kimura wherein the number of poles of the motor is 2p, and the number of slots is Z, wherein the number of poles and the number of slots satisfy: |Z−2p|=2.
The motivation to do so is it would permit advantageous in the points of the fabrication and supply of components owing to the common use of the components (paras 7, 82 of Takashima et al.) and depend on desired cost for the machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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: In claim 3/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the busbar assembly comprises: an annular support frame; a first bus bar provided with a first main body portion embedded in the annular support frame, wherein the first main body portion extends in a circumferential direction of the annular support frame and has a first opening; a second bus bar provided with a second main body portion embedded in the annular support frame, wherein the second main body portion extends in the circumferential direction of the annular support frame and has a second opening; and a third bus bar provided with a third main body portion and a fourth main body portion that are embedded in the annular support frame and electrically connected, wherein a clearance is provided between the fourth main body portion and the third main body portion in an axial direction of the annular support frame, wherein the first main body portion and the second main body portion are spaced apart in the axial direction of the annular support frame, the first opening and the second opening are staggered in the circumferential direction of the annular support frame, the third main body portion is located at the first opening, and the fourth main body portion is located at the second opening….”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 4-6 are also allowable for depending on claim 3.
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.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834