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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 8 June 2026 required the new reference shown below.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickes (US 2009/0218900), in view of Galmiche et al. (“Galmiche”; US 2020/0112215).
Regarding claim 1: Dickes discloses a rotor (166, Fig. 16) for an external rotor motor (paragraph 0085), comprising:
a stack of ring-shaped steel sheets (168),
permanent magnets (32) fixed to an inner side of the stack of sheets (Fig. 16), and
a carrier (24, Fig. 1) which has a hub for a shaft (18) and is fastened to the stack of sheets, wherein tie rods (74) are pines that each project axially within a channel through the carrier and the stack of sheets and pull the stack of sheets against the carrier (Fig. 2, paragraph 0055).
Dickes does not explicitly disclose at only one end of the pins a removable end piece has a width that is greater than a width of the channel.
However, Galmiche discloses at only one end of the pins (27, Fig. 5) a removable end piece (30) has a width that is greater than a width of the channel (as shown in Fig. 5, paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pin of Dickes to have only one removable end piece, as disclosed by Galmiche, in order to reduce the complexity by reducing the number of removable pieces.
Regarding claim 6: Dickes discloses the tie rods are threaded pins and the end pieces are screwed onto the pins (as a nut is screwed onto the pin, paragraph 0060).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickes and Galmiche, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Mongeau et al. (“Mongeau”; US 2022/0069649).
Regarding claim 7: Dickes discloses the stack sheets and the carrier, but does not explicitly disclose the stack of sheets carries an end ring at its end facing away from the carrier, which end ring forms an axial stop for the permanent magnets, and the tie rods also project through the end ring.
However, Mongeau discloses the stack of sheets (42, Fig. 6) carries an end ring (52) at its end facing away from the carrier (58, shown best in Fig. 5), which end ring forms an axial stop for the permanent magnets, and the tie rods (54) also project through the end ring (as shown in Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the stack sheets to include the end ring of Mongeau in order to better secure the magnets to the carrier.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickes and Galmiche, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Semken et al. (“Semken”; US 2015/0222151).
Regarding claim 8: Dickes discloses the stack of sheets is formed from sheets which have a plurality of openings (58) for the tie rods, the openings each having a round main area (58), but does not explicitly disclose a slot extending from the main area.
However, Semken discloses the sheets have an opening (148) having a round main area and a slot extending from the main area (Fig. 5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the openings of Dickes to include the slot of Semken in order to better align the sheets.
Regarding claim 9: Dickes modified by Semken disclose the slot, Semken further discloses the slot is directed radially inwards (paragraph 0159, other configurations can be used, and when combined with the outward rotor of Dickes, the slot would be directed radially inward, towards the stator).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.C. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights