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 arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hu et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0368181).
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.
Claim(s)1, 4, 7-8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo (JP2010114952) in view of Suzuki et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0238845) and Hu et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0368181).
As to independent claim 1, Nigo teahes a stator comprising: a stator core (1) including a back yoke (2) provided around an axis and surrounding a rotor (300) , and teeth (3) provided at intervals in a circumferential direction of the axis; and a coil wound (inherent to provide the magnetic field to the stator) around each of the teeth (2); wherein each of the teeth (2) has an inner circumferential surface facing the rotor (300) and includes a tip portion (4) projecting forward and backward in a rotational direction of the rotor (300) and a base portion (see annotated figure 15) facing the back yoke (2), the inner circumferential surface includes a first region (4a) positioned forward in the rotational direction and a second region (4b) positioned backward in the rotational direction with respect to the first region (4a), and an average interval between the second region (4b) and an outermost locus of the rotor (300) is larger than an average interval between the first region (4a) and the outermost locus of the rotor (300) as shown in figure 15.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However Nigo teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except a teeth attached to the back yoke and an average interval along the rotational direction between the second region and an outermost locus of the rotor is larger than an average interval along the rotational direction between the first region and the outermost locus of the rotor.
Suzuki et al. teaches a teeth (13A) attached to the back yoke (14) as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of reducing eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil.
Hu et al. teaches an average interval along the rotational direction between the second region and an outermost locus of the rotor is larger than an average interval along the rotational direction between the first region and the outermost locus of the rotor (see paragraph [0059], g3>g4) as shown in figure 5, for the advantageous benefit of providing a single-phase permanent magnet synchronous motor and a dust collector to solve the problem of a start-up dead point in starting of a motor in the related art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nigo by using a teeth attached to the back yoke and an average interval along the rotational direction between the second region and an outermost locus of the rotor is larger than an average interval along the rotational direction between the first region and the outermost locus of the rotor, as taught by Suzuki et al. and Hu et al., to reduce eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil and provide a single-phase permanent magnet synchronous motor and a dust collector to solve the problem of a start-up dead point in starting of a motor in the related art.
As to claim 4/1, Nigo teaches wherein the tip portion of each of the teeth (2) is formed in a flared shape toward the rotor (300) as shown in figure 15.
As to claim 7/1, Nigo in view of Suzuki et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the coil is formed of an electric wire having a rectangular cross section.
However Suzuki et al. teaches wherein the coil (20A) is formed of an electric wire having a rectangular cross section as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of reducing eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nigo in view of Suzuki et al. by using a teeth attached to the back yoke, as taught by Suzuki et al., to reduce eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil.
As to claims 8/1, 11/4 and 14/7, Nigo in view of Suzuki et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the back yoke is provided with a groove into which the base portion of each of the teeth is inserted.
However Suzuki et al. teaches the back yoke (14) is provided with a groove (see annotated figure 1) into which the base portion (see annotated figure 1) of each of the teeth (13A) is inserted as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of reducing eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nigo in view of Suzuki et al. by using the back yoke is provided with a groove into which the base portion of each of the teeth is inserted, as taught by Suzuki et al., to reduce eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo (JP2010114952), Suzuki et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0238845) and Hu et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0368181).
as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Horng et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0193445).
As to claim 2/1, Nigo in view of Suzuki et al. and Hu et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except teaches wherein the first region of the inner circumferential surface includes a first curved surface having a center of curvature located radially inward from the inner circumferential surface; and the second region of the inner circumferential surface includes a second curved surface having a center of curvature located radially outward from the inner circumferential surface.
However Horng et al. teaches the first region (35) of the inner circumferential surface includes a first curved surface having a center of curvature located radially inward from the inner circumferential surface; and the second region (333) of the inner circumferential surface includes a second curved surface having a center of curvature located radially outward from the inner circumferential surface as shown in figure 7, for the advantageous benefit of avoiding the dead angle of starting the inner-rotor-type motors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nigo in view of Suzuki et al. and Hu et al. by using the first region of the inner circumferential surface includes a first curved surface having a center of curvature located radially inward from the inner circumferential surface; and the second region of the inner circumferential surface includes a second curved surface having a center of curvature located radially outward from the inner circumferential surface, as taught by Horng et al., to avoid the dead angle of starting the inner-rotor-type motors.
As to claim 5/2, Nigo teaches wherein the tip portion of each of the teeth (2) is formed in a flared shape toward the rotor (300) as shown in figure 15.
As to claims 9/2 and 12/5, Nigo, Suzuki et al. and Hu et al. in view of Horng et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the back yoke is provided with a groove into which the base portion of each of the teeth is inserted.
However Suzuki et al. teaches the back yoke (14) is provided with a groove (see annotated figure 1) into which the base portion (see annotated figure 1) of each of the teeth (13A) is inserted as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of reducing eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nigo, Suzuki et al. and Hu et al. in view of Horng et al. by using the back yoke is provided with a groove into which the base portion of each of the teeth is inserted, as taught by Suzuki et al., to reduce eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigo (JP2010114952), Suzuki et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0238845), Hu et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0368181)and Horng et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0193445)as applied in claim 2 above and further in view of Junak (DE102009048116).
As to claim 3/2, Nigo, Suzuki et al. and Hu et al. in view of Horng et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the inner circumferential surface includes a portion orthogonal to a radial direction.
However Junak teaches the inner circumferential surface includes a portion orthogonal (see annotated figure 2) to a radial direction as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of achieving powerful torque.
PNG
media_image2.png
708
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nigo, Suzuki et al. and Hu et al. in view of Horng et al. by using the inner circumferential surface includes a portion orthogonal to a radial direction, as taught by Junak, to achieving powerful torque.
As to claim 6/3, Nigo teaches wherein the tip portion of each of the teeth (2) is formed in a flared shape toward the rotor (300) as shown in figure 15.
As to claims 10/3 and 13/6, Nigo, Suzuki et al., Hu et al. and Horng et al. in view of Junak teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the back yoke is provided with a groove into which the base portion of each of the teeth is inserted.
However Suzuki et al. teaches the back yoke (14) is provided with a groove (see annotated figure 1) into which the base portion (see annotated figure 1) of each of the teeth (13A) is inserted as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of reducing eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nigo, Suzuki et al., Hu et al. and Horng et al. in view of Junak by using the back yoke is provided with a groove into which the base portion of each of the teeth is inserted, as taught by Suzuki et al., to reduce eddy current loss generated in a flat angle coil.
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 JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 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, OLUSEYE IWARERE can be reached at (571)270-5112. 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.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights