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 .
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 “plurality of cuts out that extend from the inner circumferential wall of the sleeve to the outer circumferential wall whereby strips of material are defined between the cut outs that provide the axially conductive paths”, claim 12, 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 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitation "each rib" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the void" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-15 are 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 13 recites the limitation "the locating features" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While location features were described in claim 1, locating features were not defined until claim 6.
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyashita et al (US 2006/0214533). Miyashita discloses:
With regard to claim 1 - An electric motor comprising a stator 203 and a rotor, the stator carrying a plurality of phase windings 11 and the rotor carrying a plurality of magnet poles 7 and being connected to a shaft 5; and
in which the stator comprises an outer annular yoke 213, a plurality of discrete teeth 225 that are separate from the annular yoke 213, each tooth comprising a stem and a tooth tip 234 that is located at the end of the stem closest to the rotor, and an inner annular sleeve 227 that is located in what is otherwise an airgap between the inwardly facing tips of the stator teeth 225 and the rotor, and in which the inner sleeve 227 includes location features that positively locate and support the teeth by the tips 228.
With regard to claim 2 – wherein the inner sleeve comprises an electrically conductive material (“The second divided core unit 215 constitutes 12 magnetic pole surface constituent portions 227, six connecting portions 229A, and six connecting portions 229B, all of which are formed integrally with one another.” - ¶[0047]).
With regard to claim 3 – wherein the inner sleeve 227 comprises a metal or metal alloy or metal matrix composite.
With regard to claim 5 – wherein the material is magnetically permeable.
With regard to claim 6 – wherein the outer yoke 213 includes a set of locating features 223 on an inner surface that engage with the ends 233 of the teeth 225 furthest from the rotor.
With regard to claim 11 – wherein each tooth 225 comprises a generally rectangular block with an enlarged tip 234 extending along one edge that engage the inner sleeve.
With regard to claim 13 – A method of assembling a motor having the features of claim 1 comprising: providing an inner sleeve 227 of electrically conductive material and a set of individual stator teeth 225, forming a sub assembly by fixing the individual teeth 225 to the inner sleeve 227 using the locating features 234 to form a star shaped subassembly and winding electrical wire around the teeth 225 to form the coils; and
inserting the sub assembly axially into the outer annular yoke 217.
With regard to claim 14 – wherein the sub assembly is a press fit into the outer annular yoke 217.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayer et al (US 6,448,685). Mayer discloses:
With regard to claim 1 - An electric motor comprising a stator and a rotor, the stator carrying a plurality of phase windings and the rotor carrying a plurality of magnet poles and being connected to a shaft; and
in which the stator comprises an outer annular yoke 42, a plurality of discrete teeth 12 that are separate from the annular yoke 42, each tooth comprising a stem 30 and a tooth tip 34 that is located at the end 28 of the stem closest to the rotor, and an inner annular sleeve 10 that is located in what is otherwise an airgap between the inwardly facing tips of the stator teeth 12 and the rotor, and in which the inner sleeve 10 includes location features 14 that positively locate and support the teeth 12 by the tips 34.
With regard to claim 4 – wherein the inner sleeve comprises insulating material (“An exemplary strong tube 10 is schematically illustrated in FIG. 1. The strong tube is formed from a non-conductive and non-magnetic material such as fiberglass or other composite material.” – column 2, lines 22-25).
With regard to claim 6 – wherein the outer yoke 42 includes a set of locating features 36 on an inner surface that engage with the ends 38 of the teeth 12 furthest from the rotor.
With regard to claim 7 – wherein the outer surface of the inner sleeve 10 includes a plurality of ribs 16, each rib 16 extending radially outward into a space between adjacent tips 34 of the stator teeth 12 to locate the individual teeth.
With regard to claim 8 – wherein side walls of each rib 16 include an undercut which receives part of a tooth head 34 so that the teeth 12 cannot move radially, tangentially or circumferentially- away from the inner sleeve 10 (see Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 9 – wherein the inner sleeve 10 includes a set of grooves 14 in the outer circumferential surface, each one locating the tip 34 of a tooth 12 and the side walls of the grooves are undercut to positively restrain the tooth.
With regard to claim 11 – wherein each tooth 12 comprises a generally rectangular block with an enlarged tip 34 extending along one edge that engage the inner sleeve.
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 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Hudee (US 10,326,329). Mayer fails to explicitly disclose wherein the inner sleeve comprises an overmolding in which at least part of the tip of each tooth is embedded within the overmolded inner sleeve, the- void that the teeth occupy defining the location feature for the tooth. Hudee teaches, “the can according to the invention may be manufactured individually as an injection-molded part or be directly molded onto the stator as a molded-on part by overmolding” (column 3, lines 52-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Mayer with the teaching of Hudee such that the inner sleeve comprises an overmolding in which at least part of the tip of each tooth is embedded within the overmolded inner sleeve so that an accurately fitting form-locking form of the ribs into the stator-tooth gaps is automatically ensured.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Ombach et al (US 8,614,532). Mayer fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of cuts out that extend from the inner circumferential wall of the sleeve to the outer circumferential wall whereby strips of material are defined between the cut outs that provide the axially conductive paths. Ombach teaches a plurality of cuts out 402 that extend from the inner circumferential wall of a sleeve to the outer circumferential wall whereby strips of material 401 are defined between the cut outs that provide axially conductive paths (see Figs. 5 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Mayer with the teaching of Ombach so as to include a plurality of cuts out that extend from the inner circumferential wall of the sleeve to the outer circumferential wall whereby strips of material are defined between the cut outs that provide the axially conductive paths to allow for the use of less material.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Ionel et al (US 7,737,598). Mayer fails to explicitly disclose comprising applying adhesive to one or more surfaces during assembly such that when the assembly is completed the cured adhesive secures the teeth to the outer yoke and optionally to the inner sleeve. Ionel teaches that it is well-known in the art to use adhesive to secure components of a motor to one another (“Two portions of an attachable tooth 235 are attached to one another to complete a tooth 256. In one construction, an adhesive is used to attach the two halves of the tooth 235 and complete the tooth 256.” – column 9, lines 42-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Mayer with the teaching of Ionel such that the adhesive is used to secure the teeth to the annular yoke to ensure more secure connection.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ombach et al (US 8,614,532) in view of Miyashita. Ombach discloses:
A handwheel actuator assembly of a steer by wire vehicle comprising:
a housing 103;
a shaft 102 rotatably mounted with respect to the housing;
one or more motors each having a stator and a rotor, the stator carrying a plurality of phase windings and the rotor carrying a plurality of magnet poles and being connected to the shaft (see Fig. 2);
a control circuit 104 adapted to control the current flowing into or out of the or each motor to cause a net torque to be applied to the shaft during normal operation. Ombach fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the motors comprises a motor in accordance with claim 1 and in which the inner sleeve comprises an electrically conductive material. As seen above, Miyashita teaches the motor of claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the actuator of Ombach with the teaching of Miyashita’s motor to provide a permanent magnet rotary motor in which cogging torque can be reduced without greatly reducing torque and in which the lamination factor of windings within each slot can be enhanced.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY WILHELM whose telephone number is (571)272-6980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached at 571-272-7742. 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.
/TIMOTHY WILHELM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights