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 statements (IDS’s) submitted on 10/28/2024, 03/20/2025, 05/16/2025 and 07/13/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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) 1,2, 15,19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Aoyama (US 20210091640).
Regarding claim 1, Aoyama disclose:
An electric work machine (abstract) comprising:
a brushless motor comprising a stator disposed around a rotor (abstract); and
an output part (4) configured to be directly or indirectly driven by the rotor;
wherein: the rotor (24, para 100) comprises a rotor core (110) and a plurality of magnetic-pole parts (by 110,112, Fig 7) disposed around a circumferential direction of the rotor core (Fig 7);
the stator (22) comprises: a stator core (60);
one or more insulators (61,62, para 81) fixed to the stator core (60); and
coils (64), which are respectively wound on teeth of the stator core via the insulator(s) (para 83);
the magnetic-pole parts (by 110,112, Fig 7) comprise first magnetic-pole parts (by 110) and second magnetic-pole parts (by 112),
which are disposed alternately in the circumferential direction and the magnetic poles of which differ from each other (Fig 7, paras 121, 122); and
each one of the magnetic-pole parts (by 110,112, Fig 7) is constituted by a plurality of discrete permanent magnets (112, Figs 7-8B, para 104).
Regarding claim 2/1, Aoyama disclose wherein, in each one of the magnetic-pole parts, a plurality of the discrete permanent magnets (112) is arranged in an axial direction of the rotor core (since they are inserted into cavities of 112, paras 100,102).
Regarding claim 15, Aoyama disclose:
An electric work machine (abstract) comprising:
a brushless motor comprising a stator disposed around a rotor (abstract); and
an output part (4) configured to be directly or indirectly driven by the rotor;
wherein: the rotor (24, para 100) comprises a rotor core (110) and a plurality of magnetic-pole parts (by 110,112, Fig 7) disposed around a circumferential direction of the rotor core (Fig 7);
the stator (22) comprises: a stator core (60);
one or more insulators (61,62, para 81) fixed to the stator core (60); and
coils (64), which are respectively wound on teeth of the stator core via the insulator(s) (para 83);
the magnetic-pole parts (by 110,112, Fig 7) comprise first magnetic-pole parts (by 110) and second magnetic-pole parts (by 112),
which are disposed alternately in the circumferential direction and the magnetic poles of which differ from each other (Fig 7, paras 121, 122); and
each one of the magnetic-pole parts (by 110,112, Fig 7) is constituted by a plurality of discrete permanent magnets (112, Figs 7-8B, para 104);
the magnetic-pole parts are constituted by permanent magnets (112), which are fixed to the rotor core (paras 100,102,104); and the rotor core has:
a shaft opening (not labeled, but center of core 110, Fig 7), in which a rotor shaft is disposed (better seen as 26, Fig 3, para 66); and
a plurality of holes (120) formed in a radial direction between the shaft opening and an outer surface of the rotor core (by 126, Fig 7).
Regarding claim 19/1, Aoyama disclose wherein the total number of magnetic-pole parts (4 times 110 and 112 = 8) is larger than the total number of coils. (para 79 yields 4)
Regarding claim 20/1, Aoyama disclose wherein: the total number of magnetic-pole parts is eight (4 times 110 and 112 = 8); and the total number of coils is six (para 79).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (US 20210091640).
Regarding claim 7/1, Aoyama disclose wherein, in each one of the magnetic-pole parts, a discrete permanent magnet (112, Fig 7) is arranged in the circumferential direction (Fig 7, paras 100,102,104).
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of having the single discrete permanent magnet made of a plurality discrete permanent magnets, since it would permit one to replace only the malfunctioning part as opposed to replacing the entire magnet and it would provide cost savings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Aoyama to have a plurality of the discrete permanent magnets.
The motivation to do so is it would permit one to replace only the malfunctioning part as opposed to replacing the entire magnet and it would provide cost savings.
In regards to claim 7/1, Aoyama discloses the claimed invention except for the multiplicity of discrete permanent magnets. Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention was made to duplicate discrete permanent magnets, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The motivation to do so would is it would permit one to replace only the malfunctioning part as opposed to replacing the entire magnet and it would provide cost savings.
Regarding claim 11, Aoyama disclose:
An electric work machine (abstract) comprising:
a brushless motor comprising a stator disposed around a rotor (abstract); and
an output part (4) configured to be directly or indirectly driven by the rotor;
wherein: the rotor (24, para 100) comprises a rotor core (110) and a plurality of magnetic-pole parts (by 110,112, Fig 7) disposed around a circumferential direction of the rotor core (Fig 7);
the stator (22) comprises: a stator core (60);
one or more insulators (61,62, para 81) fixed to the stator core (60); and
coils (64), which are respectively wound on teeth of the stator core via the insulator(s) (para 83);
the magnetic-pole parts (by 110,112, Fig 7) comprise first magnetic-pole parts (by 110) and second magnetic-pole parts (by 112),
which are disposed alternately in the circumferential direction and the magnetic poles of which differ from each other (Fig 7, paras 121, 122);
the magnetic-pole parts are constituted as permanent magnets (112, para 104), which are disposed in the interior of the rotor core (paras 100,102,104); and
when the total number of magnetic-pole parts is given as Pn (8 in this case since 110,112 are considered) and the angle formed between the permanent magnets (112) of the first magnetic-pole parts and the permanent magnets of the second magnetic-pole parts that are adjacent to each other is given as θ (see Fig 7), the condition below is satisfied: θ=180[°]×(Pn-2)/Pn.
Aoyama disclose the claimed invention as discussed above, except for explicitly mentioning pole parts that are adjacent to each other is given as θ, the condition below is satisfied: θ=180[°]×(Pn-2)/Pn. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention was made to have pole parts that are adjacent to each other is given as θ, the condition below is satisfied: θ=180[°]×(Pn-2)/Pn, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation to do so it would provide an electric power tool in which an accuracy of rotation detection of a rotor in a brushless motor is excellent and a torque of a rotor in a brushless motor is ensured (paras 112-113 of Aoyama).
Regarding claim 16/15, Aoyama disclose wherein each one of the magnetic-pole parts is constituted by a discrete permanent magnet (112, paras 100,102,104).
In regards to claim 16/15, Aoyama discloses the claimed invention except for the multiplicity of discrete permanent magnets. Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention was made to duplicate discrete permanent magnets, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The motivation to do so would is it would permit one to replace only the malfunctioning part as opposed to replacing the entire magnet and it would provide cost savings.
Regarding claim 18/16, Aoyama disclose wherein the total number of magnetic-pole parts is six or more (4 times 110 and 112 = 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6,8-10, 12-14,17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 3/2 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein: each one of the magnetic-pole parts is constituted by at least three of the discrete permanent magnets disposed in the axial direction; the stator core comprises pole arcs, which protrude in the circumferential direction from radially-inner-end portions of the teeth; and when an opening width, which is the distance between a first one of the pole arcs of a first one of the teeth and a second one of the pole arcs, which is disposed adjacent to the first one of the pole arcs, of a second one of the teeth disposed adjacent to the first one of the teeth, is given as Wa, and a magnet width, which is the dimension of the permanent magnets in a tangential direction of the rotor, is given as Wm, the condition below is satisfied: 0.2≤Wa/Wm.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 4/2 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein: each one of the magnetic-pole parts is constituted by at least two of the discrete permanent magnets disposed in the axial direction; the stator core comprises pole arcs, which protrude in the circumferential direction from radially-inner-end portions of the teeth; and when an opening width, which is the distance between a first one of the pole arcs of a first one of the teeth and a second one of the pole arcs, which is disposed adjacent to the first one of the pole arcs, of a second one of the teeth disposed adjacent to the first one of the teeth, is given as Wa, and a magnet width, which is the dimension of the permanent magnets in a tangential direction of the rotor, is given as Wm, the condition below is satisfied: 0.3≤Wa/Wm.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 5-6 are also allowable for depending on claim 4.
In claim 8/7 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein: each one of the magnetic-pole parts is constituted by at least two of the discrete permanent magnets arranged in the circumferential direction; the stator core comprises pole arcs, which protrude in the circumferential direction from radial-inner-end portions of the teeth; and when an opening width, which is the distance between a first one of the pole arcs of a first one of the teeth and a second one of the pole arcs, which is disposed adjacent to the first one of the pole arcs, of a second one of the teeth disposed adjacent to the first one of the teeth, is given as Wa, and a magnet width, which is the dimension of the permanent magnets in a tangential direction of the rotor, is given as Wm, the condition below is satisfied: 0.2≤Wa/Wm.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 9-10 are also allowable for depending on claim 8.
In claim 12/11 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein: the rotor core comprises magnet holes, in which the permanent magnets are respectively disposed; each of the magnet holes has an outer-side support surface, which faces radially outward and opposes an outer surface of the corresponding permanent magnet; in each of the magnet holes, a gap is formed radially outward of the outer-side support surface; a bridge part of the rotor core is disposed between the outer surface of the rotor core and a radially-outer-end portion of the gap; and when a second virtual line, which extends in a direction parallel to the outer-side support surface and passes through a point of intersection between a virtual circle, which passes through an inner-end portion of the bridge part in the radial direction, and a first virtual line, which passes through an edge of the outer-side support surface such that the first virtual line is orthogonal to the outer-side support surface, is given as reference line Lr, a distance in a radial direction between the reference line Lr and the outer-side support surface is given as submerged amount Da, and an outer diameter of the rotor core is given as Dr, the condition below is satisfied: 0.017≤Da/Dr.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 13-14 are also allowable for depending on claim 12.
In claim 17/15 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein: the stator core comprises pole arcs, which protrude in the circumferential direction from radially-inner-end portions of the teeth; and when an opening width, which is the distance between a first one of the pole arcs of a first one of the teeth and a second one of the pole arcs, which is disposed adjacent to the first one of the pole arcs, of a second one of the teeth disposed adjacent to the first one of the teeth, is given as Wa, and a magnet width, which is the dimension of the permanent magnets in a tangential direction of the rotor, is given as Wm, the condition below is satisfied: 0.2≤Wa/Wm.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 M 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights