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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the motor provision of 4 poles and 4 slots or 6 poles and 6 slots and the motor being a three-phase motor provided with 4 poles and 6 slots or 8 poles and 6 slots must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 recites the limitation " An air pump system for a vehicle seat, the air pump system comprising: an air pump arranged in the vehicle seat and a brushless motor for driving the air pump according to claim 17" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this case, there was no air pump introduced in claim 17, rather claim 26/27 discusses the incorporation of an air pump into the brushless motor of claim 17. Perhaps Applicant meant to reference “the brushless motor according to claim 17” for driving the air pump. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feng (CN 103208897 A).
Claim 17
Feng teaches: A brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) comprising:
a stator assembly (stator assembly, see para. 18);
a rotor assembly (comprised of 110 and 113);
a housing (comprised of 110, 111, and 112);
an end cover (111, 112); and
a circuit board assembly (30) provided with a brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) control chip (control circuit chip, see para. 12 and 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
696
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng.
Claim 18/17
Feng teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control chip is integrated with a switch circuit, a soft start circuit, a drive circuit and a Hall signal detection circuit.
Feng does however disclose “the motor controller comprises a Hall sensor, a control circuit chip, a driving circuit chip and an inverter circuit.” Feng also discloses the “motor of the invention adopts the soft starting…” Thus, Feng teaches a control circuit chip, a Hall signal detection function (Hall sensor), a drive circuit (driving circuit chip), a switching function (inverter circuit containing switching devices), and a soft-start function. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was claimed to integrate these functions into a single brushless motor control IC in order to reduce component count, reduce PCB area, simplify assembly, improve reliability, and reduce manufacturing cost.
Claim 19/18/17
Feng teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 18, wherein the circuit board assembly (30) is disposed in the housing (comprised of 110, 111, and 112).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Wang (US 20140184034 A1).
Claim 20/19/18/17
Feng teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 19, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the housing is integrally formed by stretching.
Wang conversely teaches a brushless motor housing “formed by stretching and suitable for mass production” (para. 24) noting that such construction reduces manufacturing cost.
PNG
media_image3.png
558
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the housing of Feng by the stretching process taught by Wang in order to reduce manufacturing cost, simplify manufacturing, improve dimensional consistency, and facilitate mass production.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as modified by Wang in view of Ochiai (US 20080048517 A1).
Claim 21/20/19/18/17
Feng as modified by Wang teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 20, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the housing is provided with a slot on which an elastic plug is arranged, and wherein a power cord of the circuit board assembly is led out from the elastic plug.
Ochiai conversely teaches a brushless motor including a bracket (14) forming part of the motor housing structure, a printed circuit board (24), a power supply cable (26), and a rubber grommet (27). Specifically, Ochiai discloses that “the power supply cable 26 is lead out of the motor by way of a rubber grommet 27 fitted to the lateral side of the bracket 14” (100). Thus, the Ochiai teaches a housing member (14) provided with an opening receiving an elastic member in the form of a rubber grommet (27), through which a power cable (26) is routed to the exterior of the motor.
PNG
media_image4.png
856
1012
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the brushless motor of Feng by providing an opening in the housing and arranging an elastic plug/rubber grommet (27) therein through which the power lead connected to the motor control board (30) is routed, as taught by Ochiai. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because routing electrical conductors through an elastic grommet protects the conductor f7tom abrasion and damage caused by contact with housing edges, improves strain relief, reduces transmission of vibration to the conductor, improves sealing against dust and moisture ingress, and enhances the reliability and service life of the electrical connection.
Claim 22/21/20/19/18/17
Feng as modified by Wang teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the elastic plug includes ribs.
Ribbed elastomeric grommets and plugs are well known in the motor and electrical arts for improving retention within a housing opening, enhancing sealing against dust and moisture ingress, increasing frictional engagement with the housing, reducing cable movement caused by vibration, and improving strain relief of conductors passing through the grommet. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide the rubber grommet (27) of Ochiai with one or more ribs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding ribs to the rubber grommet (27) of Ochiai represents a predictable design modification involving the use of a known feature to improve the sealing and retention functions already performed by the grommet. The modification would have involved only routine engineering skill and would have yielded no unexpected result, but merely the expected benefits of improved sealing, retention, and durability of the power cord exit structure.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as modified by Wang and Ochiai in view of Hao (US 20170338706 A1).
Claim 23/22/21/20/19/18/17
Feng as modified by Wang and Ochiai teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 22, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the rotor assembly includes rotor laminations provided with hollows.
Hao conversely teaches a brushless electric machine including a rotor (202) formed from a stack of laminations (para. 6). The rotor (202) further includes mass reduction cutouts (218) disposed in low flux density regions near the center of the rotor and spokes (220) located between the cutouts (218) and extending toward the outer portion of the rotor containing the permanent magnets (210) (para. 43). The mass reduction cutouts (218) constitute hollows formed in the rotor laminations.
PNG
media_image5.png
434
394
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the rotor assembly of Feng to adopt a similar hollow rotor lamination structure in the manner taught by Hao. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate a mass reduction cutout structure because Hao expressly teaches that the cutouts reduce the overall mass of the rotor and reduce the rotational moment of inertia (para. 43).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as modified by Wang, Ochiai and Hao in view of Ikeno (US 20170288517 A1).
Claim 24/23/22/21/20/19/18/17
Feng as modified by Wang, Ochiai and Hao teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 23, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the stator assembly includes a stator core, and a tooth and a tooth crown of which form an angle of 115-125 degrees.
Ikeno teaches a brushless motor including a stator (2) having a stator core (5) comprising a ring-shaped back core part (21) and a plurality of toothed parts (22). Each toothed part (22) includes a tooth main body (24) extending radially from the back core part (21) and a tooth tip part (25) integrally formed with the tooth main body (24). The tooth tip part (25) further includes slant parts (26) extending outwardly in the circumferential direction. Ikeno teaches that the geometry of the tooth main body (24), tooth tip part (25), and slant parts (26) is selected to reduce cogging torque while maintaining motor torque.
PNG
media_image6.png
428
442
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the tooth geometry of the stator of Feng such that the tooth crown forms an angle with the tooth within the claimed range of 115-125 degrees as a matter of routine optimization of a known result-effective variable. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the angular relationship between the tooth main body (24) and the tooth tip part (25), including the slant portions (26), directly affects magnetic flux distribution, air-gap performance variation, cogging torque, torque ripple, and motor efficiency. Ikeno expressly teaches modifying tooth-tip geometry to reduce cogging torque while maintaining torque output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the tooth-to-tooth-crown angle to achieve a desired balance between cogging torque reduction and magnetic performance. Selecting an angle within the claimed range would have involved only routine experimentation and optimization of a known geometric parameter affecting motor performance and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 25/24/23/22/21/20/19/18/17
Feng as modified by Wang, Ochiai and Hao teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 24, wherein the brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) is of an inter rotor or outer rotor structure.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Greenbank (US 6339302 B1).
Claim 26/17
Feng teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the brushless motor is configured to drive an air pump in a seat lumbar support adjustment system or a massage system.
Greenbank teaches a vehicle seat system (10) including intelligent motors (12a-12d) not limited to brushless motors (para. 2), a lumber support massage module (22), and control circuitry integrated with the motors through circuit boards (36). Greenbank further teaches that the seat system may include lumbar support movement functions actuated by a lumber movement switch (70) and massage functions actuated by a massage switch (72). Greenbank additionally teaches that the disclosed control system may be used with DC brushless motors. Greenbank therefore teaches the use of brushless motor-based actuation systems in vehicle seat lumber support adjustment systems and massage systems.
PNG
media_image7.png
750
534
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was claimed to employ the brushless motor of Feng as the drive motor for a seat lumbar support adjustment systems and/or massage system as taught by Greenbank. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because brushless motors provide improved reliability, reduced maintenance, lower electrical noise, improved efficiency, compact packaging for applications such as this, and enhanced controllability compared with conventional brushed motors. Furthermore, Greenbank expressly recognizes the advantages of integrating intelligent motor control into seat adjustment and lumbar support systems.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as modified by Greenbank in view of Guo (CN 109944783 A).
Claim 27/26/17
Feng as modified by Greenbank teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 26, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the circuit board assembly is integrated with an ECU circuit of an air pump system.
Guo conversely teaches a brushless motor controller for a vehicle secondary-air-pump-system, wherein the controller includes an MCU, signal conditioning circuitry, voltage sampling circuitry, current sampling circuitry, temperature sampling circuitry, and inverter drive circuitry operatively connected with a vehicle MCU/controller and configured to control operation of a secondary air pump (Abstract). Thus, Guo teaches integration of motor-control circuitry with ECU circuitry of an air pump-system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to incorporate the ECU-based air-pump control system of Guo into the motor assembly of Feng in order to provide localized control, monitoring, fault protection, and improved operational control of the air-pump system while reducing wiring complexity and improving system reliability.
Claim 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as modified by Greenbank and Guo in view of Tsuchida (WO 2019077716 A1).
Claim 28/27/26/17
Feng as modified by Greenbank and Guo teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 27, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the motor is a single-phase motor, and wherein the stator core of the stator assembly has an asymmetric tooth crown.
Tsuchida conversely teaches a single phase brushless motor (100) having a rotor (5) and a stator (1) including teeth (12). Each tooth (12) includes a first side portion (121), a second side portion (122), a tooth tip portion (13), a first projection portion (21) projecting from the first side portion (121), and a second projection portion (22) projecting rom the second side portion (22). Tsuchida further teaches that the tooth tip portion (13) includes a first end (A1) and a second end (A2), wherein the distance G2 between the second end (A2) and the rotor (5) is greater than the distance G1 between the first end (A1) and the rotor (5) (G1<G2). Tsuchida also teaches that the distance D1 from reference line L1 to the boundary B1 between the first projection portion (21) and fist side portion (121) is greater than the distance D2 from reference line L1 to the boundary B2 between the second projection portion (22) and second side portion (122), thereby providing a larger projection portion than the second projection portion. Tsuchida explains that the asymmetric tooth geometry causes a greater amount of magnetic flux to flow through the first projection portion (21), controls rotor positioning at start-up, suppresses magnetic saturation, reduces iron loss, and improves motor efficiency (see para. 3; Effect of Embodiment 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
544
582
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
654
602
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time othe claimed invention was filed to modify the salient pole tooth structure of Feng to adopt a similar asymmetric projection geometriy taught by Tsuchida because Tsuchida expressly teaches that such geometry controls magnetic flux distribution, suppresses local magnetic saturation, reduces iron loss, improves efficiency, and provides more predictable rotor starting behavior.
Claim 29/28/27/26/17
Feng as modified by Greenbank and Guo teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 28, wherein the asymmetrical tooth crown (taught by Tsuchida) is divided into a large tooth crown (21; Tsuchida) and a small tooth crown (25; Tsuchida) along a tooth center line (L2; Tsuchida), and wherein arc transition is designed between the large tooth crown and the small tooth crown.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as modified by Greenbank and Guo in view of Tsuchida.
Claim 30/27/26/17
Feng as modified by Greenbank and Guo teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 27, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein the motor is provided with 4 poles and 4 slots or 6 poles and 6 slots.
Tsuchida teaches a brushless motor (100) including a rotor (5) and a stator (1). Tsuchida discloses that the stator (1) includes a stator core (10) having four teeth (12) extending radially inward toward the rotor (5), the teeth being equally spaced in the circumferential direction. Tsuchida further teaches that a slot is formed between each adjacent pair of teeth (12), thereby providing a four-slot stator structure (see Fig. 2). Accordingly, Tsuchida teaches a four-pole, four-slot motor configuration.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the stator configuration of Feng to employ the four-pole, four slot stator arrangement taught by Tsuchida because Tsuchida expressly teaches that such a pole/slot arrangement provides controlled magnetic flux distribution, predictable rotor starting characteristics, suppression of magnetic saturation, reduced iron loss, and improved motor efficiency.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng as modified by Greenbank and Guo in view of Sanyo (US 6533558 B1).
Claim 31/27/26/17
Feng as modified by Greenbank and Guo teaches: The brushless motor (Fig. 1 and 2) according to claim 27, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the motor is a three-phase motor with 4 poles and 6 slots or 8 poles and 6 slots.
Sanyo conversely teaches a brushless motor including a stator (4) having a stator core (74) and a rotor (5) disposed radially inward to the stator. Sanyo further teaches that six cog portions (75) are provided on the inner periphery of the stator core (74) and slot portions (78) are formed between adjacent cog portions (75). Sanyo expressly states that the stator winding (7) is wound around the cog portions (75) utilizing the slot portions (78), thereby constituting a “four-pole-six-slot stator” (stator 4).
PNG
media_image10.png
620
542
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Feng to employ the four-pole, six-slot stator configuration taught by Sanyo because Sanyo teaches that the concentrated winding four-pole/six-slot arrangement reduces winding projection from the stator core, increases slot area, increases available internal space, and contributes to a more compact motor structure.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Greenbank and Guo.
Claim 32/17
Feng teaches the brushless motor of claim 17 but does not explicitly teach: An air pump system for a vehicle seat, the air pump system comprising:
an air pump arranged in the vehicle seat and a brushless motor for driving the air pump according to claim 17.
Greenbank teaches a vehicle seat (10) including various electrically driven devices arranged within the seat and powered by motors (12a-12d), wherein the motors are incorporated into seat adjustment and comfort systems located within the vehicle seat.
Guo conversely teaches a brushless motor controller for a vehicle secondary-air-pump-system, wherein the controller includes an MCU, signal conditioning circuitry, voltage sampling circuitry, current sampling circuitry, temperature sampling circuitry, and inverter drive circuitry operatively connected with a vehicle MCU/controller and configured to control operation of a secondary air pump (Abstract). Thus, Guo teaches integration of motor-control circuitry with ECU circuitry of an air pump-system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the brushless motor of claim 17 to drive an air pump similar hat taught by Guo arranged within a vehicle seat similar to that taught by Greenbank because vehicle seats commonly employ electrically driven comfort and adjustment devices, and the use of brushless motor’s in such an application would have provided the recognized benefits of compact size, reliability, reduced, maintenance, and efficient operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED F SECK whose telephone number is (571)272-4638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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 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.
/AHMED F SECK/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights