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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2024 and 01/21/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Best (EP1560319).
As to independent claim 1, Best teaches an electric motor comprising a rotor (6) and a stator (2), the rotor (6) comprising: a rotor housing (12) having an inner surface (see figure 14), an outer surface (see figure 14), a first end, and a second end; permanent magnets (14) located along the inner surface of the rotor housing (12) at least one groove defined in the first end of the rotor housing (12); and a sealing member (54) including at least one protrusion (54) located in the at least one groove (64) as shown in figures 11-14.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 113555988).
As to claim 2/1, Best teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein at least one of the first end or the second end of the rotor comprises a flange that is attached to a central portion of the rotor by means of an interference fit.
However Wang teaches at least one of the first end or the second end of the rotor (see figure 2) comprises a flange (2) that is attached to a central portion of the rotor by means of an interference fit as shown in figure 2 and see paragraph [0024], for the advantageous benefit of effectively reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
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 Best by using at least one of the first end or the second end of the rotor comprises a flange that is attached to a central portion of the rotor by means of an interference fit, as taught by Wang, to effective reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
As to claim 3/1, Best in view of Wang teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs located on the outer surface of the rotor.
Wang teaches the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs (4) located on the outer surface of the rotor as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of effectively reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
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 Best in view of Wang by using the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs located on the outer surface of the rotor, as taught by Wang, to effective reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Harlan (WO2022070476).
As to claim 4/1, Best teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor housing is made of titanium.
However the rotor housing is made of titanium (see paragraph [0011]), for the advantageous benefit of preventing electrical shorting.
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 Best by using the rotor housing is made of titanium, as taught by Harlan, to prevent electrical shorting.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Manabu (JP6692870).
As to claim 5/1, Best teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor further comprises axial grooves defined in the inner surface of the rotor.
However Manabu teaches the rotor further comprises axial grooves (57) defined in the inner surface of the rotor as shown in figure 6, for the advantageous benefit of providing the influence on the deterioration of the output performance of the outer rotor type motor can be minimized.
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 Best by using the rotor further comprises axial grooves defined in the inner surface of the rotor, as taught by Manabu, to provide the influence on the deterioration of the output performance of the outer rotor type motor can be minimized.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Peng (CN105864584) and Marlin (FR2925118).
As to claim 6/1, Best teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further comprising a honeycomb panel located in a recess defined in the outer surface of the rotor housing.
However Peng teaches a honeycomb panel (7) located in the outer surface of the rotor housing (1) as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of providing an energy-absorbing performance, if excessive energy causes energy to overflow, explosion-proof ring still can guarantee the safety of the device.
Marlin teaches a honeycomb panel (52) located in a recess (see annotated figure 3) as shown in figure 3, for the advantageous benefit of providing better transmitting the impact energy of an object.
PNG
media_image1.png
228
598
media_image1.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 Best by using a honeycomb panel located in a recess defined in the outer surface of the rotor housing, as taught by Peng and Marlin, to provide an energy-absorbing performance, if excessive energy causes energy to overflow, explosion-proof ring still can guarantee the safety of the device and better transmitting the impact energy of an object.
As to claim 7/6, Best in view of Peng and Marlin teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further comprising an aluminum sheet covering the honeycomb panel.
However Peng teaches comprising an aluminum sheet (inherent as a wearable metal material) covering the honeycomb panel (7) as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of providing an energy-absorbing performance, if excessive energy causes energy to overflow, explosion-proof ring still can guarantee the safety of the device.
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 Best in view of Peng and Marlin by using an aluminum sheet covering the honeycomb panel, as taught by Peng, to provide an energy-absorbing performance, if excessive energy causes energy to overflow, explosion-proof ring still can guarantee the safety of the device.
As to claim 9/6, Best in view of Peng and Marlin teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the honeycomb panel is positioned in the recess with cells of the honeycomb panel facing in a radial direction.
Marlin teaches the honeycomb panel (52) is positioned in the recess (see annotated figure 3) with cells of the honeycomb panel (52) facing in a radial direction as shown in figure 3, for the advantageous benefit of providing better transmitting the impact energy of an object.
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 Best in view of Peng and Marlin by using the honeycomb panel is positioned in the recess with cells of the honeycomb panel facing in a radial direction, as taught by Marlin, to provide better transmitting the impact energy of an object.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319), Peng (CN105864584) and Marlin (FR2925118) as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 113555988).
As to claim 8/6, Best in view of Peng and Marlin teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs located on the outer surface of the rotor.
However Wang teaches the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs (4) located on the outer surface of the rotor as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of effectively reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
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 Best in view of Peng and Marlin by using the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs located on the outer surface of the rotor, as taught by Wang, to effective reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319), Peng (CN105864584) and Marlin (FR2925118) as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Chen (CN107009650).
As to claim 10/6, Best in view of Peng and Marlin teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the honeycomb panel is made of aluminum.
However Chen teaches the honeycomb panel is made of aluminum (see paragraph [0035]), for the advantageous benefit of providing a high specific rigidity performance efficiency of the structure.
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 Best in view of Peng and Marlin by using the honeycomb panel is made of aluminum, as taught by Chen, to provide a high specific rigidity performance efficiency of the structure.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319), Peng (CN105864584) and Marlin (FR2925118) as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Manabu (JP6692870).
As to claim 11/6, Best in view of Peng and Marlin teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor further comprises axial grooves defined in the inner surface of the rotor.
However Manabu teaches the rotor further comprises axial grooves (57) defined in the inner surface of the rotor as shown in figure 6, for the advantageous benefit of providing the influence on the deterioration of the output performance of the outer rotor type motor can be minimized.
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 Best in view of Peng and Marlin by using the rotor further comprises axial grooves defined in the inner surface of the rotor, as taught by Manabu, to provide the influence on the deterioration of the output performance of the outer rotor type motor can be minimized.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319) in view of Rabbi et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0107664).
As to independent claim 12, Best teaches an electric motor comprising a rotor (6) and a stator (2), the rotor (6) comprising: a rotor housing (12) having an inner surface (see figure 14), an outer surface (see figure 14), a first end, and a second end; permanent magnets (14) located along the inner surface of the rotor housing (12) at least one groove defined in the first end of the rotor housing (12); and a sealing member (54) including at least one protrusion (54) located in the at least one groove (64) as shown in figures 11-14.
However Best teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except propulsions system for an aircraft, comprising: a rotor assembly including rotor blades and a rotor; and a nacelle including a stator.
However Rabbi et al. teaches propulsions system for an aircraft (see title), comprising: a rotor assembly (300) including rotor blades (320) and a rotor ; and a nacelle (100) including a stator (200) as shown in figure 4, for the advantageous benefit of providing higher output power without reaching magnetic saturation in the yoke or in the teeth of the stator.
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 Best by using propulsions system for an aircraft, comprising: a rotor assembly including rotor blades and a rotor; and a nacelle including a stator, as taught by Rabbi et al., to provide higher output power without reaching magnetic saturation in the yoke or in the teeth of the stator.
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319) and Rabbi et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0107664) as applied in claim 12 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 113555988).
As to claim 13/12, Best in view of Rabbi et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein at least one of the first end or the second end of the rotor comprises a flange that is attached to a central portion of the rotor by means of an interference fit.
However Wang teaches at least one of the first end or the second end of the rotor (see figure 2) comprises a flange (2) that is attached to a central portion of the rotor by means of an interference fit as shown in figure 2 and see paragraph [0024], for the advantageous benefit of effectively reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
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 Best in view of Rabbi et al. by using at least one of the first end or the second end of the rotor comprises a flange that is attached to a central portion of the rotor by means of an interference fit, as taught by Wang, to effective reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
As to claim 15/12, Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Wang teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs located on the outer surface of the rotor.
Wang teaches the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs (4) located on the outer surface of the rotor as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of effectively reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
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 Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Wang by using the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs located on the outer surface of the rotor, as taught by Wang, to effective reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319) and Rabbi et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0107664) as applied in claim 12 above, and further in view of Manabu (JP6692870).
As to claim 14/12, Best in view of Rabbi et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor further comprises axial grooves defined in the inner surface of the rotor.
However Manabu teaches the rotor further comprises axial grooves (57) defined in the inner surface of the rotor as shown in figure 6, for the advantageous benefit of providing the influence on the deterioration of the output performance of the outer rotor type motor can be minimized.
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 Best in view of Rabbi et al. by using the rotor further comprises axial grooves defined in the inner surface of the rotor, as taught by Manabu, to provide the influence on the deterioration of the output performance of the outer rotor type motor can be minimized.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319) and Rabbi et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0107664) as applied in claim 12 above, and further in view of Peng (CN105864584) and Marlin (FR2925118).
As to claim 16/12, Best in view of Rabbi et al. teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor further comprises a honeycomb panel located in a recess defined in the outer surface of the rotor housing.
However Peng teaches a honeycomb panel (7) located in the outer surface of the rotor housing (1) as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of providing an energy-absorbing performance, if excessive energy causes energy to overflow, explosion-proof ring still can guarantee the safety of the device.
Marlin teaches a honeycomb panel (52) located in a recess (see annotated figure 3) as shown in figure 3, for the advantageous benefit of providing better transmitting the impact energy of an object.
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 Best in view of Rabbi et al. by using a honeycomb panel located in a recess defined in the outer surface of the rotor housing, as taught by Peng and Marlin, to provide an energy-absorbing performance, if excessive energy causes energy to overflow, explosion-proof ring still can guarantee the safety of the device and better transmitting the impact energy of an object.
As to claim 17/16, Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Peng and Marlin teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the honeycomb panel is positioned in the recess with cells of the honeycomb panel facing in a radial direction.
Marlin teaches the honeycomb panel (52) is positioned in the recess (see annotated figure 3) with cells of the honeycomb panel (52) facing in a radial direction as shown in figure 3, for the advantageous benefit of providing better transmitting the impact energy of an object.
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 Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Peng and Marlin by using the honeycomb panel is positioned in the recess with cells of the honeycomb panel facing in a radial direction, as taught by Marlin, to provide better transmitting the impact energy of an object.
As to claim 19/16, Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Peng and Marlin teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further comprising an aluminum sheet covering the honeycomb panel.
However Peng teaches comprising an aluminum sheet (inherent as a wearable metal material) covering the honeycomb panel (7) as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of providing an energy-absorbing performance, if excessive energy causes energy to overflow, explosion-proof ring still can guarantee the safety of the device.
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 Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Peng and Marlin by using an aluminum sheet covering the honeycomb panel, as taught by Peng, to provide an energy-absorbing performance, if excessive energy causes energy to overflow, explosion-proof ring still can guarantee the safety of the device.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319), Rabbi et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0107664), Peng (CN105864584) and Marlin (FR2925118) as applied in claim 16 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 113555988).
As to claim 18/16, Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Peng and Marlin teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs located on the outer surface of the rotor.
However Wang teaches the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs (4) located on the outer surface of the rotor as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of effectively reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
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 Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Peng and Marlin by using the rotor further comprises circumferential ribs located on the outer surface of the rotor, as taught by Wang, to effective reduces the production cost and the assembly cost.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (EP1560319), Rabbi et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0107664), Peng (CN105864584) and Marlin (FR2925118) as applied in claim 16 above, and further in view of Chen (CN107009650).
As to claim 20/16, Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Peng and Marlin teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the honeycomb panel is made of aluminum.
However Chen teaches the honeycomb panel is made of aluminum (see paragraph [0035]), for the advantageous benefit of providing a high specific rigidity performance efficiency of the structure.
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 Best and Rabbi et al. in view of Peng and Marlin by using the honeycomb panel is made of aluminum, as taught by Chen, to provide a high specific rigidity performance efficiency of the structure.
Conclusion
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 July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights