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 . Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-15, filed 09/02/2026, with respect to the objection to drawings and rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4-20 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection and rejection have been withdrawn. The replacement sheet and corresponding amendment to the specification is accepted. Regarding rejection of the claims, Applicant has amended the two independent claims by requiring at least one single-turn coil trace on a first surface of the ceramic substrate; Yao et al. (CN 110784049 A), the primary cited reference, does not disclose this added limitation. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 20050037183 A1).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “each of the plurality of single-turn coil traces form” should be replaced by: each of the plurality of single-turn coil traces forms. In claim 13, “the at least one single-turn coil traces” should be replaced by: the at least one single-turn coil trace. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (CN 110784049 A) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 20050037183 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
328
363
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a ceramic substrate coil (see the title: “A Ceramic PCB Disc Type Brushless Excitation Motor”), comprising:
a ceramic substrate (substrate, annotated fig. 2); and
a plurality of
where each of the plurality of
each of the plurality of s at least a partial loop about the first surface of the ceramic substrate with a first
Yao does not disclose: each of the plurality of coil traces is a single-turn coil trace.
Hasegawa discloses a multilayer ceramic coil for a compact motor (see the title: Multilayer Ceramic Coil And Motor Using The Same) wherein each coil trace is a single-turn (see coils 4a in fig. 2a). Hasegawa additionally states: “A motor equipped with the multilayer ceramic coil generates a stable torque force because the multilayer ceramic coil has a higher thermal proof compared with coils provided by plastic, composite materials or glass and has a good heat conductivity. Additionally, the motor shows a reliable performance in various ambient conditions.”, (see para [0040]).
PNG
media_image3.png
268
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For a compact motor with stable torque force, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-turn coils in Yao with stacked or concentric single-turn coils resulting in having: a plurality of single-turn coil traces disposed on a first surface of the ceramic substrate.
Regarding claim 4, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 1, Yao further discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 1 comprising at least
PNG
media_image4.png
222
511
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
312
284
media_image5.png
Greyscale
one coil trace disposed on a second surface of the ceramic substrate (implied, the dual rotor in fig. 3 requires a dual stator and that can be achieved by having coils on the front and back of the ceramic substrate; see also the symmetric drive in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 4, comprising a plurality of coil traces disposed on the second surface of the ceramic substrate (implied, see discussion regarding claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 4, wherein at least one single-coil trace on the first surface of the ceramic substrate is connected to the at least one coil trace on the second surface of the ceramic substrate (implied; see the symmetric drive in fig. 4).
Yao does not disclose that the two coils are connected by a wire bond but by using a via. However, making an electrical connection between two electrical contact points is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art, and in the instant application, Applicant has not shown an unexpected improvement for using a wire bond.
For connecting the two coils, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: at least one single-coil trace on the first surface of the ceramic substrate is connected to the at least one coil trace on the second surface of the ceramic substrate by a wire bond.
Regarding claim 7, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 4, wherein at least one single-turn coil trace on the first surface of the ceramic substrate is connected to the at least one coil trace on the second surface of the ceramic substrate by a via (via, annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 1, wherein the plurality of single-turn coil traces has a triangular or trapezoidal shape (see annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 1, wherein the ceramic substrate is a planar substrate (see annotated fig. 2; see also “ceramic disk” in the title and abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 1, wherein the ceramic substrate is formed of aluminum nitride, aluminum oxide, or silicon nitride (see Yao’s claim 4: “the ceramic PCB substrate comprising alumina, silicon nitride, diamond, boron nitride in the one kind of or more.”).
Regarding claim 12, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 1, wherein the plurality of single-turn coil traces comprises a copper trace (see: “Of course, also can adopt other ceramic PCB substrate manufacturing method, specifically is directly plating copper DPC (Directplating copper) film method for depositing a metal film, which is mainly used for evaporation, magnetron sputtering surface deposition technique such as metallized substrate surface, firstly under the condition of vacuum sputtering titanium, chromium and then is copper particles, finally plating thickening, then finish the circuit making the common PCB technique, and then increase the thickness of the circuit by electroplating/chemical plating deposition mode.”) disposed on the ceramic substrate by electroplating, direct bonding, or active metal brazing (see: “a plurality of ceramic PCB winding is fixed in the way of ceramic PCB substrate, it can use the conductive silver paste, conductive graphene or both mixed ink printed on the ceramic PCB base plate, also can adopt chemical plating, plating the conductive metal on the ceramic PCB substrate, then using etching to form a ceramic PCB windings, also can be metal 3D printing, mask spraying and so on printed on the ceramic PCB substrate.”).
Regarding claim 13, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses a permanent magnet machine (fig. 1), comprising:
a rotor (rotor, annotated fig. 1); and
a stator (stator, annotated fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of ceramic coils (see 12 coils in annotated fig. 2) , each of the plurality of ceramic coils comprising a corresponding ceramic substrate (substrate, annotated fig. 2) and at least one single-turn (single-turn was discussed regarding claim 1) coil trace disposed on a first surface of the corresponding ceramic substrate (see annotated fig. 2), where the plurality of ceramic coils are positioned and the at least one single-turn coil trace[[s]] are connected to form a stator winding of the permanent magnet machine (see connected coils in annotated fig. 2; see also formed the stator in figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 14, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 13 discloses the permanent magnet machine of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of ceramic coils comprise a plurality of coil traces disposed on the first surface of the ceramic substrate (see multi-loops for each coil in annotated fig. 2), wherein each of the plurality of single-turn coil traces are concentrically disposed with respect to the other single-turn coil traces on the first surface of the ceramic substrate (discussed regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 13 discloses the permanent magnet machine of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of ceramic coils comprise at least one coil trace disposed on a second surface of the ceramic substrate (discussed regarding claim 4).
Regarding claim 17, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 13 discloses the permanent magnet machine of claim 13, wherein the plurality of ceramic coils are positioned to form an axial flux stator winding (see the axial flux motor in figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 18, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 13 discloses the permanent magnet machine of claim 13, wherein the at least one coil traces are connected by a combination of vias and external wire bonds (see via in annotated fig. 2 and also the discussion regarding the choice for an electrical contact in claim 6).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (CN 110784049 A) in view of Frampton et al. (US 20210265889 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 1 discloses the ceramic substrate coil of claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein the plurality of single-turn coil traces has a rectangular shape.
Deciding about the shape of the printed coils is a design option and within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art as evidenced by Frampton who teaches utilizing printed coils for an axial flux electric motor (See : “[0037] The shape of the windings may include concentric circles, rectangles, arc segments, trapezoids, or another shape. The stator windings may be formed from copper or another conductive material. The traces may exist on multiple layers of the PCB.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the plurality of single-turn coil traces has a rectangular shape.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (CN 110784049 A) in view of Shin et al. (KR 20250001231 A).
Regarding claim 16, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 13 discloses the permanent magnet machine of claim 13, but does not disclose: wherein the plurality of ceramic coils are positioned to form a radial flux stator winding.
Those having ordinary skills in the art are aware of axial flux machines and radial electric machines; they also can convert an axial flux machine design to a radial flux machine.
Shin teaches a radial flux machine using flat PCB coils (see figs. 4 and 5, below).
PNG
media_image6.png
250
620
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
217
268
media_image7.png
Greyscale
To create a radial flux electric machine using the flat coils, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the plurality of ceramic coils can be positioned to form a radial flux stator winding.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (CN 110784049 A) in view of Stahlhut et al. (US 20080100174 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Yao as modified by Hasegawa in claim 13 discloses the permanent magnet machine of claim 13, but does not disclose: wherein the stator comprises a heat sink disposed adjacent to a second side of the ceramic substrate and the heat sink comprises a water jacket.
Yao discloses a dual rotor axial flux machine using ceramic coils. Those having ordinary skills in the art are aware of axial flux machines with a single rotor and stator and also of radial electric machines with inner rotors (radial electric machine discussed regarding claim 16). In both cases, only one side of the ceramic substrate would need to have coils. Also, it’s also a common practice to cool a radial electric machine using a cooling jacket wherein the cooling jacket acts as a heat sink for the stator of a radial electric machine. Axial flux machines can also be cooled using a cooling jacket.
As an example, Stahlhut teaches an axial flux electric machine that has a single rotor and a single stator. The stator has a flat coil (fig. 2, below) similar to the stator disclosed by Yao. The flat coil is disposed on a dielectric substrate 200 (fig. 2) which in turn is disposed on magnetic core 16 that forms the housing and includes a cooling channel (see inlet and outlet in fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image8.png
563
468
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
603
447
media_image9.png
Greyscale
To cool the outer stator of an axial flux machine or the outer stator of a radial electric machine utilizing ceramic coils or flat coils, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the stator of the either electric machine would further comprise: a heat sink disposed adjacent to a second side of the ceramic substrate and the heat sink comprises a water jacket.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892 Notice of References) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Shin et al. (KR 20250001231 A) teaches creating concentric multiple single-turn coils in fig. 6a and a single coil with multiple turns in fig. 6b for an electric machine.
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 MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights