DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent Application NO. 18/835,732, filed on 4 August, 2024, were presented for examination. In the response filed 9 April, 2026, claim 2 was canceled. Claim 1 is currently pending in the application.
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 filed 9 April, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Li in view of Hippies and unpatentable over Li in view of Hippies, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Neither Hippies nor Li, nor any other single reference of record in the application, teaches 15 slots of the stator, 10 pole pairs on a rotor, 5 pole pairs for each phase winding of the stator, and 5 wire packets.
Consequently, the art-based rejections of claims 1-2 have been withdrawn (with claim 2 now canceled). However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) apropos the newly-added limitations in claim 1.
Applicant addresses the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) and the objection to the drawings, all more-or-less centered around the inability of the Examiner to find “wire packets” in the specification as filed. Applicant has amended the language around “wire packets” in claim 1 to give them better meaning and firmly establish them as the things shown in figs. 4A and 4B inside the slots. Applicant notes that the support for the newly added limitation (wherein each wire packet comprises two coil sides of a double-layer winding in one stator…) can be found in figs. 4A/B.
The Examiner believes the newly-added subject matter in claim 1 is adequately supported by figs. 4A and 4B to establish the wire packets as something definite and which can be counted.
Concerning formal matters, Applicant asserts that the amendments to the specification and claims overcome and/or render moot the drawing objection, claim objection, specification objections, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). The Examiner concurs and thanks the Applicant for such a detailed cleanup of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is 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 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.
Line 10 of the claim establishes that the (total) number of wire packets equals Z.
Line 11 of the claim establishes “k” as the number of wire packets.
Line 19 of the claim establishes Z = m x k.
The resulting arithmetic is Z = m x Z, which is not mathematically permissible.
Using the actual numbers in the last clause of claim 1:
In line 21, Z is specifically designated as Z = 15
In line 23, k is specifically designated as k = 5
This corresponds to m = 3, which is not in the claim, but makes sense (15 = 3 x 5).
However, this brings the point back to lines 10-11 wherein Z is the quantity of slots (from line 2) but is also the “total number” of wire packets, equal to 15, while the number of wire packets is listed as 5.
Therefore, one skilled in the art could not reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention upon filing because at least two limitations of claim 1 are mutually exclusive.
The designations of claim 1 are complicated and numerous, but for the most part they track with logic and an ordinary practitioner’s ability to compare them to a prior art and/or potentially-infringing device.
Although it might be difficult to do without introducing new matter, the Examiner believes that a better distinction needs to be made for “a total number” and “the number”. After all, when in line 11 “the number of the wire packets” is recited, the only “number of wire packets” that can be the basis for this is the antecedent basis for it, found in line 10, which is the “total number”. As currently amended, the “number” cannot be distinguished by a reader from the “total number”. However, in a more abstract sense, the total number itself is not defined in the claim in such a way that an ordinary practitioner could determine what it is exactly. So, any attempt to amend the claim further is simpler than separating out one “number” from another.
Although the Examiner cannot examine the claim on the merits, the recent amendment introduced subject matter that could not be found during the prior art search – specifically, Z=15, Pr = 10, Pm = 5, and k = 5. Although removal and/or reworking of the limitations that are causing rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) could lead in the direction of allowability, such an amendment would require a new search, as the prior art searches run by the Examiner so far in the prosecution have been centered around the equations of the penultimate clause of as-amended claim 1. Such an amendment would also require further consideration. Therefore, any after-final amendment should be made with the consideration that allowability of a claim in this application, even a very well-defined claim, will not be determined before the filing of an RCE.
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 DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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, Seye 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights