DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/027,540, filed on 21 March, 2023, were presented for examination. In the preliminary amendment also filed on 21 March, 2023, claims 1-10 were canceled and new claims 11-20 were added. In the response filed on 11 April, 2025, claims 11-14 and 17-20 were canceled and new claims 21-26 were added. In the response filed 22 August, 2025, new claim 27 was added. Claims 15-16 and 21-27 are currently pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 August, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15, 16, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ishizaki, claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Ishizaki, and claims 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Ishizaki in view of Endo, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
In pages 11-12 of the arguments/remarks, Applicant lists the limitations of as-currently-amended claim 15, with emphasis on the newly added limitations of a) the two housings being integrally formed, and b) wherein the second housing includes a groove formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second housing, and the first housing is located in the groove. Applicant proceeds to assert in various ways that neither Ishizaki (US 2020/0287428 A1) nor Horii (US 2014/0333163 A1) teaches or suggests one or both of said newly added limitations.
To begin with the first limitation, “wherein the first housing and the second housing are integrally formed”, Applicant states [in page 13] that “Ishizaki is silent regarding the cylindrical member 3 and the frame 2 being integrally formed” and [in page 14] that “Horii is silent regarding the cylindrical inner frame 9 and the cylindrical frame 8 being integrally formed”.
However, Horii explicitly recites, in ¶ 0026, that “the cylindrical frame 7 is formed by fitting together and integrating a cylindrical inner frame 9 that is made of aluminum inside a cylindrical outer frame 8 that is made of iron”. Thus there is evidence that when the inner and outer housings of Horii are fitted together, they are integrated, and therefore become “integrally formed” as interpreted by practitioners in the art. So, when Ishizaki in ¶ 0022 recites “the cylindrical member 3 and the stator 4 are fixed by being press-fitted into the frame 2”, the result is the same as Horii – specifically, they would not be separated by merely holding the outer housing to let the inner housing slip out, and likely the inner housing could not be pulled out without significant force in either case. Thus, they are integrally formed by their having been fitted together. Therefore, the Examiner believes that the evidence does not support Applicant’s assertion that the references are silent to the “first housing and the second housing are integrally formed”, and this limitation, now part of claim 15, does not define over either reference.
Next, with respect to the limitation “wherein the second housing includes a groove formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second housing and the first housing is located in the groove”, Applicant argues [in page 13] that “Ishizaki is also silent regarding the frame 2 having a groove formed on an inner circumferential surface of the frame 2, and the cylindrical member 3 being located in the groove” and [in page 14] “Horii is also silent regarding the frame 2 having a groove formed on an inner circumferential surface of the frame 2, and the cylindrical member 3 being located in the groove”.
Concerning Ishizaki, fig. 1 shows a flange 18 between a stepped portion of the outer housing 2 and a bearing holder 14. ¶ 0023 recites “as shown in circle A in the drawing, the flange portion 18 is placed on a stepped portion of the frame 2 and is held between the frame 2, and a bearing holder 14 and a heat sink 41”.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
So, Ishizaki’s outer housing [2] does comprise a groove (between the step and the bearing holder) on its inner circumferential surface with part [18] of the first housing located in the groove. It just requires another (additional) element to complete said groove.
Therefore, Applicant, by saying that Ishizaki is silent as to the groove, either intends to simply mean that Ishizaki does not use the word “groove” or a direct synonym of “groove”, which it apparently does not, or that the groove must be formed of only the inner surface of the outer housing, without needing a secondary structure to complete the groove.
Horii and its relationship to this claim limitation parallel those of Ishizaki. Horii’s outer housing [8] also does form a groove (outlined in bold by the Examiner and labeled at the bottom of the fig. 1 excerpt attached below) with the inner housing [9] inside it, but it requires the “front frame” 10 to form the third surface (axial top or bottom surface of the annular gap).
PNG
media_image2.png
471
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Applicant, by saying that Horii is silent as to the groove, either intends to simply mean that Horii does not use the word “groove” or a direct synonym of “groove”, which it apparently does not, or that the groove must be formed of only the inner surface of the outer housing, without needing a secondary (additional) structure to complete the groove.
Thus, the Examiner will treat the limitation as if it requires that a reference that teaches the limitation “wherein the second housing includes a groove formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second housing and the first housing is located in the groove” must include terminology conforming with the standard, accepted meaning(s) of “groove” and/or must have all 3 surfaces (upper, outer, and lower) of the groove-like-structure formed by only the inner circumferential surface of the second housing. By this definition, the Examiner concurs that although the references are not completely “silent” about the groove feature, neither Ishizaki nor Horii meets this strict requirement 100%.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Ishizaki ‘804 (US 2021/0384804 A1).
Hereafter in this Office Action, Ishizaki’s US 2020/0287428 A1 will be referred to as Ishizaki ‘428, while Ishizaki’s US 2021/0384804 A1 will be referred to as “Ishizaki ‘804.
With respect to formal matters, Applicant in pages 8-10 of the arguments/remarks asserts that the various amendments to the specification, abstract, title, and claims, and the replacement drawing sheets, overcome all of the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) put forth in the prior Office Action.
The Examiner concurs, all objections, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a and b) have been withdrawn. The Examiner believes that the title could be improved upon (i.e. made more specific to the improvement put forth in the elected invention, such as by referencing the dual housing and/or multiple materials and/or aluminum), but if Applicant wishes to proceed with the current title, the objection will not be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15-16, 21-23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaki ‘428 (US 2020/0287428 A1) in view of Ishizaki ‘804 (US 2021/0384804 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Ishizaki ‘428 teaches a motor [rotary electric machine 100] comprising:
a housing [body 1];
a stator [4] disposed in the housing [1] (see ¶ 0022);
a rotor [10] (see ¶ 0025) disposed in the stator [4]; and
a shaft [9] coupled to the rotor [10],
wherein the housing [1] includes a first housing [cylindrical member 3] (referring now back to ¶ 0022) and a second housing [frame 2] disposed outside the first housing [3] in a radial direction from an axial center of the shaft (the Examiner has drawn and labeled the radial direction and axial center in the annotated excerpt of fig. 1, attached below),
PNG
media_image3.png
508
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the first housing [3] is in contact with the stator [4] (¶ 0022 recites “stator 4 is provided in contact with the inner circumferential surface of the cylindrical member 3”),
wherein the second housing [2] is in contact with the first housing [3] (¶ 0022 recites “cylindrical member 3 is provided in contact with an inner circumferential portion of the frame 2”),
wherein the first housing [3] and the second housing [2] are formed of different materials (¶ 0022 recites “the frame 2 is made from an aluminum alloy… the cylindrical member 3 is made from carbon steel”), and
wherein the first housing [3] and the second housing [2] are integrally formed (see ¶ 0022 which recites “the cylindrical member 3 and the stator 4 are fixed by being press-fitted into the frame 2”).
Ishizaki ‘428 teaches wherein there is a recess formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second housing and the first housing is located in the groove (see response to arguments above), but omits teaching wherein the second housing includes a groove formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second housing, and the first housing is located in the groove.
Ishizaki ‘804 discloses a housing, a stator [5] disposed in the housing, a rotor [11] disposed in the stator, and a shaft [10] coupled to the rotor, wherein the housing includes a first housing [3] and a second housing [2] disposed outside the first housing [3] in a radial direction from an axial center of the shaft, wherein the first housing [3] and the second housing [2] are formed of different materials (see ¶ 0008), and wherein the first housing [3] and the second housing [2] are integrally formed (¶ 0052 recites “a metal bond is formed between the outer peripheral surface of the first annular shape member 3 in contact with the molten metal and the inner peripheral surface of the frame 2”).
PNG
media_image4.png
446
877
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ishizaki ‘804 teaches wherein the second housing [2] includes a groove [ditch 2g comprising end surfaces 3es] (see ¶ 0049 which recites “an annular shape ditch 2g is formed inside the frame 2”, and ¶ 0050 which recites “on a wall surface 2gws at both ends in the axial direction of the annular ditch of the frame 2, an end surface 3es at both ends in the axial direction of the first annular shape member 3…”) formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second housing [2] (inner circumferential surface labeled by the Examiner in the excerpt above), and the first housing [3] is located in the groove [2g].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Ishizaki ‘428, while incorporating the groove with the first housing located in the groove, as taught by Ishizaki ‘804, in order to integrally form, by molding, the first and second housing, while suppressing the step of press-fitting the first housing into the second housing, and to also improve dimensional accuracy (Ishizaki ‘804, ¶ 0051).
With respect to claim 16/15, Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804 teaches the motor of claim 15, Ishizaki ‘428 further teaches wherein an axial length [L2] of the second housing [2] is greater than an axial length [LS] of the stator [4] (see new blown-up excerpt of fig. 1 wherein the Examiner has drawn and labeled the axial direction, L2, and LS).
PNG
media_image5.png
476
357
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 21/15, Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804 teaches the motor of claim 15, Ishizaki ‘428 further teaches wherein the first housing [3] is formed of steel, and the second housing [2] is formed of an aluminum alloy (¶ 0022 recites “the frame 2 is made from an aluminum alloy… the cylindrical member 3 is made from carbon steel”).
Ishizaki ‘428 omits teaching wherein the ratio between the thickness of the first housing and the thickness of the second housing is in the range of 1.0:1.6 to 1.0:2.5 {Examiner’s note, this can be simplified for discussion by saying the second housing [2] has a thickness t2 that is 1.6-2.5 times larger than the thickness t1 of the first housing [3]}.
It is clear from the figures of Ishizaki ‘428 that the second housing [2] is substantially thicker than the first housing [3].
There is no indication in Ishizaki ‘428 that either of figs. 1 and 3 is drawn to scale. ¶ 0019 specifically recites that the scales of the drawings can differ from actualized scales.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to presume that the device taught by Ishizaki ‘428, if it were made, would also have a thicker aluminum second housing [2] than the inner steel first housing [3]. ¶ 0022 explicitly states that the first housing [3] is made “from an aluminum alloy which is inexpensive and has a light weight.”
One of the stated purposes of the reference is to reduce the overall thickness of the housing itself (end of ¶ 0004). The latter paragraph further lists as a failing of the prior art is that this aluminum, without the steel first housing [3] proposed by the reference, gets scratched by the stator during assembly. The steel first housing [3] is provided to allow the amount of aluminum to be reduced while maintaining strength and also protecting the aluminum from scratching (see ¶ 0004-0006).
It results from the foregoing passages/citations that optimizing the scalar thicknesses of the respective housings [3/2] would in a majority of attempts include providing enough steel (via first housing 3) for the protection feature, and then, because the steel first housing 3 would contribute its own strength and rigidity to the overall housing, making up the remaining requisite strength and durability of the overall housing by providing a minimum amount of aluminum plus a robust tolerance for desired stability and longevity of the machine itself, particularly as the aluminum outer portion also needs to serve as the outer casing and will be subject to other requirements (damage, thermal considerations).
Thus, the optimization of the thickness ratio of first housing [3] as a proportion of the thickness of housing [2] would be established through routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform routine optimization/experimentation, and said person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, in the need to provide the scratch resistance via a minimal amount of steel first housing while maintaining the structural capability of the housing via a moderate (minimal plus design tolerances) amount of aluminum second housing [2], by trying thicknesses of second housing [2] more than 1.6 and less than 2.5 times the thickness of first housing [3]. With the thickness of the first housing [3] held constant, the thickness of the second range [2] is a result-effective variable. The course and results of said experimentation would be generally predictable and the experimental data would only require review and selecting from among the best combinations/ratios by said person of ordinary skill – subsequently finding that the range of 1.0:1.6 to 1.0:2.5 was optimal would not be a surprising observation or result. {See MPEP 2144.05(II) which provides: “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.")”}.
With respect to claim 22/15, Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804 teaches the motor of claim 15, Ishizaki ‘428 further teaches wherein the first housing [3/17/18a] includes a plurality of protrusions [18a] (see ¶ 0027 and 0044-0048) protruding from an end portion of the first housing [3] in an axial direction (the Examiner has labeled the axial direction, the end portion, and the axial protrusions in the excerpt attached below).
PNG
media_image6.png
448
1103
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 23/22/15, Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804 teaches the motor of claim 22, Ishizaki ‘428 further teaches wherein the plurality of protrusions [18a] are disposed at predetermined intervals along an end of the first housing [3/17] (see fig. 6 excerpt above and also ¶ 0048).
With respect to claim 27/15, Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804 teaches the motor of claim 15, Ishizaki ‘428 further teaches wherein a thickness [t1] of the first housing [3] overlapping the stator [4] in a radial direction is less than a thickness [t2] of the second housing [2] (see annotated blown-up excerpt of fig. 1 attached below, wherein the Examiner has drawn and labeled the thickness dimensions).
PNG
media_image7.png
267
366
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804, as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Endo (US 2012/0306312 A1).
With respect to claim 24/23/22/15, Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804 teaches the motor of claim 23, Ishizaki ‘428 further teaches wherein the plurality of protrusions [18a] include a first protrusion [18a], the first protrusion [18a] being disposed at a first end portion (end portion labeled in fig. 4 and 6 excerpts below) of the first housing [3/17] (see rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for discrepancy between “first housing” and “second housing”) in the axial direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
448
1103
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Neither Ishizaki ‘428 nor Ishizaki ‘804 teaches a second protrusion, the second protrusion being disposed at a second end portion of the first housing in the axial direction, and a protruding direction of the first protrusion and a protruding direction of the second protrusion being different from each other.
Endo discloses a rotating electric machine (motor) including a stator core [111] and a first housing [cylindrical body portion 121], the first housing [121] making internal contact with an outer circumferential surface of the stator core [111] (see abstract and ¶ 0059-0060) and external contact with a second housing [201]. Endo further discloses a first protrusion [flange 122] at one end of the first housing [121] in the axial direction [along axis CL].
PNG
media_image8.png
314
682
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Endo teaches a second protrusion [125I], the second protrusion [125I] being disposed at end portion (see annotated excerpt of fig. 19 above wherein the Examiner has labeled the ends) of the first housing [121] in the axial direction (along axis CL), and a protruding direction of the first protrusion [122] (RADIALLY OUTWARD) and a protruding direction of the second protrusion [skirt housing 125I] (RADIALLY INWARD) being different from each other (see ¶ 0092).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804, while incorporating the second protrusion, as taught by Endo, in order to enable an outer surface of its skirt housing to abut a projection in the inner surface of the second housing, such that, as a result, the stator can be aligned accurately with respect to the second housing (Endo ¶ 0092).
With respect to claim 25/24/23/22/15, Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804, further in view of Endo, teaches the motor of claim 24, Ishizaki ‘428 further teaches wherein the second housing [2] includes an open first end portion (see new fig. 1/6 excerpt, below, wherein the open one end portion, other end portion, and pocket have been labeled by the Examiner – it is “open” in that it is temporarily closed by heat sink 41, which is press-fitted into 2 there – see ¶ 0023) in the axial direction (along shaft 9) and the a second end portion in which a pocket portion for accommodating a bearing [13] is disposed (see ¶ 0025),
PNG
media_image9.png
428
1171
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein the first protrusion [18/18a] is disposed to protrude further outward (see excerpts above) than an outer circumferential surface of the first housing [3] in the radial direction,
Endo teaches wherein the first protrusion [122] is disposed closer to the first end portion than the second protrusion [125I] (see fig. 19 excerpt attached again below), and
wherein the second protrusion [125I] is disposed closer to the second end portion than the first protrusion [122], and
PNG
media_image8.png
314
682
media_image8.png
Greyscale
the second protrusion [125I] is disposed to protrude further inward than an inner circumferential surface of the first housing [121] in the radial direction [along R3].
With respect to claim 26/24/23/22/15, Ishizaki ‘428 in view of Ishizaki ‘804, further in view of Endo, teaches the motor of claim 24, Ishizaki ‘428 further teaches wherein the second housing [2] includes an open first end portion (see new fig. 1/6 excerpt, below, wherein the open one end portion, other end portion, and pocket have been labeled by the Examiner – it is “open” in that it is temporarily closed by heat sink 41, which is press-fitted into 2 there – see ¶ 0023) in the axial direction (along shaft 9) and a second end portion in which a pocket portion for accommodating a bearing [13] is disposed (see ¶ 0025),
PNG
media_image9.png
428
1171
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein the first protrusion [18/18a] is disposed to protrude from the first end portion of the first housing [3/17] in the axial direction (see excerpt below above and rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112b above).
PNG
media_image6.png
448
1103
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Endo teaches wherein the first protrusion [122] is disposed closer to the one end portion than the second protrusion [125I] (see fig. 19 excerpt attached again below), and
wherein the second protrusion [125I] is disposed closer to the other end portion than the first protrusion [122], and
PNG
media_image8.png
314
682
media_image8.png
Greyscale
the second protrusion [125I] is disposed to protrude further inward than an inner circumferential surface of the first housing [121] in the radial direction [along R3].
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii (US 2014/0333163 A1) in view of Ishizaki ‘804 (US 2021/0384804 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Horii teaches a motor [electric machine 100] (see ¶ 0008 and 0024) comprising:
a housing [combined front frame 10, rear frame 11, and cylindrical frame 7];
a stator [1] disposed in the housing [10/11/7] (see ¶ 0024);
a rotor [15] disposed in the stator [1]; and
a shaft [16] coupled to the rotor [15] (see ¶ 0027),
wherein the housing [10/11/7] includes a first housing [cylindrical inner frame 9] and a second housing [cylindrical outer frame 8] disposed outside the first housing [9] in a radial direction from an axial center of the shaft (see the annotated excerpt of fig. 1 below, wherein the Examiner has labeled the axial center of the shaft and the radial direction),
PNG
media_image10.png
545
1075
media_image10.png
Greyscale
wherein the first housing [9] is in contact with the stator [1] (see ¶ 0026 which recites “the cylindrical frame 7 is formed by fitting together…. twelve core blocks…. are arranged into an annular shape by abutting together circumferential side surfaces of the core back portions 3a, and are pressed into and fixed inside the cylindrical frame 7 to assemble the stator 1” – see fig. 2 which shows that element 5 from fig. 1 is simply cooling grooves, described in ¶ 0025),
wherein the second housing [8] is in contact with the first housing [9] (see ¶ 0026),
wherein the first housing [9] and the second housing [8] are formed of different materials (¶ 0026 recites “a cylindrical inner frame 9 that is made of aluminum inside a cylindrical outer frame 8 that is made of iron”).
Hori teaches wherein there is a recess formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second housing and the first housing is located in the groove (see response to arguments above), but omits teaching wherein the second housing includes a groove formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second housing, and the first housing is located in the groove.
Ishizaki ‘804 discloses a housing, a stator [5] disposed in the housing, a rotor [11] disposed in the stator, and a shaft [10] coupled to the rotor, wherein the housing includes a first housing [3] and a second housing [2] disposed outside the first housing [3] in a radial direction from an axial center of the shaft, wherein the first housing [3] and the second housing [2] are formed of different materials (see ¶ 0008), and wherein the first housing [3] and the second housing [2] are integrally formed (¶ 0052 recites “a metal bond is formed between the outer peripheral surface of the first annular shape member 3 in contact with the molten metal and the inner peripheral surface of the frame 2”).
PNG
media_image4.png
446
877
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ishizaki ‘804 teaches wherein the second housing [2] includes a groove [ditch 2g comprising end surfaces 3es] (see ¶ 0049 which recites “an annular shape ditch 2g is formed inside the frame 2”, and ¶ 0050 which recites “on a wall surface 2gws at both ends in the axial direction of the annular ditch of the frame 2, an end surface 3es at both ends in the axial direction of the first annular shape member 3…”) formed on an inner circumferential surface of the second housing [2] (inner circumferential surface labeled by the Examiner in the excerpt above), and the first housing [3] is located in the groove [2g].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Horii, while incorporating the groove with the first housing located in the groove, as taught by Ishizaki ‘804, in order to integrally form, by molding, the first and second housing, while suppressing the step of press-fitting the first housing into the second housing, and to also improve dimensional accuracy (Ishizaki ‘804, ¶ 0051).
Conclusion
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 DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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, Seye 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834