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 .
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.
Claims 13-20 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 inventors, or for pre-AIA the applicants regard as the invention. Claims 13-20 recite the limitation “and/or” (Line 2) that is vague and indefinite as the boundaries of the claimed invention cannot be defined.
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.
Claims 10, 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguy et al (US 2010/0072864).
Regarding claim 10, Nguy et al teach a motor assembly with an electrically controllable component assembly (Abstract), comprising:
an electronically commutated motor (Fig. 2, 18), having a rotor (20) executing a rotational movement, and a machine shaft (26), which is connected to the rotor in a torsionally fixed manner, and a signal transducer (10; Para. 0014, lines 10-11), which revolves with the rotor, of a sensor device (30) configured to sense an angle of rotation of the rotor, first regions and second regions (Fig. 1, 10 & 40) being developed on the signal transducer, which are positioned in mutual alternation in sequence with one another in a circumferential direction of the signal transducer and which differ from one another in their electrical conductivity (Para. 0016, lines 10-23);
wherein the signal transducer includes a shaped sheet metal part (Para. 0016, lines 10-11), which is flush-mounted against the rotor (20) and is fixed in place on the machine shaft (26) in a torsionally fixed manner.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Nguy et al teach that the signal transducer (10) is fixed in place by a frictional connection, such as bolts or fasteners (Para.0024), on the rotor (20) in addition to the torsionally fixed fastening to the machine shaft (26) through the central opening (28, Para. 0015).
Regarding claim 18, Nguy et al teach that the keyed connection between the signal transducer(10) and the rotor (20) has a stud such as bolts or fasteners (Para.0024), which is developed on the shaped sheet metal part of the transducer and projects in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the machine shaft and protrudes into an associated receiving opening of the rotor.
Regarding claim 19, Nguy et al teach that an end of the stud such as bolts or fasteners (Para.0024), protruding into the receiving opening is plastically deformed, after force tightening (Para. 0017).
Regarding claim 20, Nguy et al teach that an end of the stud such as bolts or fasteners (Para.0024), protruding into the receiving opening is axially caulked after bonding (Para. 0015).
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 of this title, 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 11 and 12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguy et al in view of Kajiura et al (US 5,955,807).
Regarding claim 11, Nguy et al teach a motor assembly with an electrically controllable component assembly (Abstract) including the torsionally fixed fastening of the signal transducer (Fig. 5 & 6, 210) and the machine shaft (226; Para. 0020, lines 6-11) through the central opening (228), which reads on applicants’ claimed invention.
However, Nguy et al do not teach a press-fit connection between the signal transducer (210) and the machine shaft (226).
Kajiura et al teach an electric machine (Abstract) with the shaft (Fig. 1, 1240) press-fit into the cylindrical core (1231; Col. 4, lines 18-20), in order to provide a highly efficient synchronous electric machine (Col. 1, lines 48-49).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor assembly of Nguy et al, by applying the shaft press-fit into the cylindrical core, as taught by Kajiura et al, in order to obtain a highly efficient electric machine.
Regarding claim 12, Kajiura et al teach that the press-fit connection includes a serration (Col. 4, lines 18-20), in which at least one radially projecting serration is provided on a periphery of the machine shaft, which extends in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the machine shaft and is configured to displace material of a wall of a shaft channel of the signal transducer when the signal transducer is fixed to the machine shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112th Rejection and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to THIEM D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4568. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Aneeta Yodichkas, can be reached on 571-272-9773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THIEM D PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
May 13, 2025
