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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 16-20, in the reply filed on 20 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims allegedly are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because the claims ARE mutually exclusive as indicated in the Restriction Requirement. Applicant further opines that the claims of Group I in D06F37/264 and the claims of Group II in H02K1/146 are incorrect, alleging that D06F37/264 is directed to laundry tubs with reinforcing structures not claimed. Examiner disagrees and points out that claim 1 recites a “laundry appliance” which is classified at both USPTO and EPO under D06F37/264, and the associated overmold with reinforcing features are part of the reinforcement of the laundry tub back wall (whether implicit or explicit). Notwithstanding this fact, the laundry appliance motor details of the overmold could be classified in other laundry appliance subclasses of D06F, such as D06F37/304 under “Arrangements or adaptations of electric motors” of a laundry appliance. Therefore, based on different classification and mutually exclusive features as indicated in the Restriction Requirement, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the aforementioned reply.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A Motor for a Laundry Appliance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1 and 16 recite an “overmold” around the stator core and at least a portion of the stator teeth. However, the only “overmold” disclosed in the original disclosure as filed of this continuation application are overmolds 250,258 which are around the rotor, as described in Figs. 13-14 and associated text. It is believed Applicant intended to claim “plastic insulating material” 310, which is formed around the stator core and stator teeth, as described in Figs. 15-17 and associated text, and the claims will be examined accordingly. However, clarification and correction is still required (particularly with respect to proper antecedent basis of the claims to the specification).
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.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100587297 to LG in view of US 2014/0102151 to Yoon et al. (“Yoon”).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-8, LG (in Figs. 1-8b and associated text) discloses a motor for a laundry appliance (1), the motor comprising:
a drive shaft (4, see Fig. 1);
a rotor (5) coupled to the drive shaft and defining a rotational axis;
a stator (6) concentrically positioned about the rotational axis, the stator having a core (150) and a plurality of stator teeth (151) that are attached to the core; and
an overmold (143/144) that is disposed around the core and at least partially around the plurality of stator teeth (see Figs. 6-8b), wherein
the core includes recesses (arc-shaped recessed grooves 152); and
the recesses are configured to receive a portion of the overmold to maintain engagement of the overmold with an outer surface of the stator (see Figs. 6-8b and associated text).
wherein the recesses are aligned with respective teeth of the plurality of stator teeth (see Figs. 6-8b),
wherein the core is an inner core and the plurality of stator teeth extend outward from the inner core (see Figs. 6-8b),
wherein the recesses are defined within an inner surface of the inner core,
wherein the overmold is injection molded into the recesses of the core (see abstract and associated text of Figs. 6-8b),
wherein the recesses extend along a height of the core (note stacked stator core in Figs. 3 and 5, and associated recesses therethrough).
LG discloses the claimed laundry appliance motor including stator core recesses. LG does not expressly disclose recesses having a narrowed opening and a widened inner recess as recited in claim 1. Yoon teaches an art-related motor core having inwardly facing recesses (263) having a narrowed opening (263a) and a widened inner recess (263b) for receiving an insert molded insulator (260) for the purpose of coupling a core to the molding and preventing separation (see Yoon at Fig. 13 and ¶ [0079]-[0086]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to modify the recess shape in the stator core of LG with the recess shape taught in Yoon to yield the same and predictable results of coupling molding to a stator core and preventing separation.
Regarding claims 3-4, LG discloses use of a rivet (153) to fasten the spiral core together but does not expressly disclose plural rivets. However, duplicating the rivet would predictably provide increased fastening of the stator core and would be a prima facie obvious modification. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100587297 to LG in view of US 2014/0102151 to Yoon et al. (“Yoon”) and US 2007/0205682 to Choi et al. (“Choi”).
Regarding claims 16-18, LG (in Figs. 1-8b and associated text) discloses a stator (6) for an appliance motor, the stator (6) comprising:
a stator core (150);
stator teeth (150) that extend from the stator core;
an overmold (143/144) that extends around the stator core and at least a portion of the stator teeth; and
a winding that is disposed around the stator teeth (see abstract, as well as Fig. 7 and associated text), wherein
the stator core includes recesses having an inner space that are configured to receive a portion of the overmold to maintain engagement of the overmold with an outer surface of the stator (see Figs. 6-8b and associated text),
wherein the recesses are aligned with respective teeth of the plurality of stator teeth (see Figs. 6-8b),
wherein the overmold is injection molded into the recesses of the core (see abstract and associated text of Figs. 6-8b).
LG discloses the claimed laundry appliance motor including stator core recesses. LG does not expressly disclose recesses having a narrowed opening and a widened inner recess as recited in claim 16. Yoon teaches an art-related motor core having inwardly facing recesses (263) having a narrowed opening (263a) and a widened inner recess (263b) for receiving an insert molded insulator (260) for the purpose of coupling a core to the molding and preventing separation (see Yoon at Fig. 13 and ¶ [0079]-[0086]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to modify the recess shape in the stator core of LG with the recess shape taught in Yoon to yield the same and predictable results of coupling molding to a stator core and preventing separation.
Further regarding claim 16, LG and Yoon (above) disclose the claimed invention including an overmold over the stator core and at least a portion of the stator teeth. However, neither disclose the overmold is positioned between the winding and an outer surface of the stator teeth, wherein the overmold forms flared portions at respective ends of the stator teeth to define an outwardly flared winding space that widens away from the respective ends of the stator teeth. However, such overmold configuration covering the stator teeth between the teeth and the winding are old and known. Choi teaches a stator core and teeth having an insert-molded insulator (32a/32b; see ¶ [0080] for insert-molded feature) with flared portions at respective ends of the stator teeth that define an outwardly flared winding space that widens away from the respective ends of the teeth (see Choi at Figs. 9-11 and associated text).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to substitute one known stator overmold for the other to achieve the same and predictable results of providing an overmold insulator over a stator of an appliance motor.
Regarding claim 19, Choi further discloses wherein the flared portions extend at least along a top edge and a bottom edge of the respective ends of the stator teeth (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 20, Choi further discloses wherein the flared portions each include an angled surface that extends away from the stator core to define the outwardly flared winding space (see Figs. 9-11; note that the flared portions are at an approximate 90 degree angle and extend away from the stator core).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Michael E. Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights