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 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laber (US 2022/0368190) and in view of Koenen (US 20190074744).
As to claim 1, Laber discloses a drive device (Paragraph 0010) for moving a leaf (Regarding
applicant’s recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention
from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the
claim), with an electric machine (Paragraph 0010), wherein the electric machine is designed as an axial
flux machine (Paragraph 0007) comprising single, stator (20; Fig. 1) and single, rotor (14; Fig. 1), configured to be rotated about a machine axis with respect to the stator (Paragraph 0007) wherein the
stator comprises a stator base which has a plate-shaped base section (Fig. 3) and a plurality of stator
teeth protruding from a common surface of the base section (Fig. 3), in the axial direction of the electric
machine, whereby at least one coil is wound directly or indirectly around at least one stator tooth (Fig.
3).
PNG
media_image1.png
561
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
550
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Laber fails to disclose wherein the rotor comprises at least one permanent magnet, wherein the permanent magnet is arranged along a virtual circle around the machine axis and spans a first angular range, and the stator comprises a stator base with at least one stator tooth protruding from the stator base, wherein the stator tooth is arranged along a virtual circle around the machine axis and spans a second angular range, wherein the ratio of the first angular range as a dividend to the second angular range is in the range from 1.1 to 1.6.
Koenen, however, discloses the rotor comprises at least one permanent magnet, wherein the permanent magnet is arranged along a virtual circle around the machine axis and spans a first angular range, and the stator comprises a stator base with at least one stator tooth protruding from the stator base, wherein the stator tooth is arranged along a virtual circle around the machine axis and spans a second angular range, wherein the ratio of the first angular range as a dividend to the second angular range is in the range from 1.1 to 1.6 (Para 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive device of Laber with the rotor comprises at least one permanent magnet, wherein the permanent magnet is arranged along a virtual circle around the machine axis and spans a first angular range, and the stator comprises a stator base with at least one stator tooth protruding from the stator base, wherein the stator tooth is arranged along a virtual circle around the machine axis and spans a second angular range, wherein the ratio of the first angular range as a dividend to the second angular range is in the range from 1.1 to 1.6, as disclosed by Koenen, in order to optimize magnetic forces of the rotor.
As to claim 2, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 1, wherein the stator has at least one coil (22; Fig. 1 of Laber) wherein the at least one coil of the stator are arranged in-such that a magnetic flux is generated through the at least one coil in a direction parallel to the machine axis (Paragraph 0027 of Laber).
PNG
media_image3.png
536
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 2, wherein the ratio between the number of permanent magnets as a dividend and the number of coils is in a range from 1.0 to 1.6 (Fig.2; Paragraph 0035 of Laber).
PNG
media_image4.png
379
479
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 1, wherein that at least one, each, stator tooth is connected to the stator base in a form-fitting manner with the stator base (Fig. 3 of Laber).
PNG
media_image5.png
541
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 1, wherein the stator base has a bearing mount (Paragraph 0027 of Laber) for receiving a roller bearing (28, 30; Fig. 1 of Laber), wherein the drive device comprises the roller bearing for rotatably bearing the rotor with respect to the stator (Paragraph 0027; Fig. 1 of Laber), wherein the roller bearing is received in the bearing mount of the stator base (Paragraph 0027; Fig. 1 of Laber).
PNG
media_image6.png
466
481
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
323
473
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 1, wherein the drive device has a gear coupled to the electric machine, and the gear is designed as a toothed gear (Fig. 10 of Laber).
PNG
media_image8.png
315
486
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 9, wherein at least one first gear element of the gear is arranged coaxially to the electric machine, and the rotor is connected in a rotationally- fixed manner to the first gear element of the gear (Fig. 10 of Laber).
PNG
media_image9.png
325
476
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 9, wherein the gear has a first gear element, which is connected in a rotationally-fixed manner to the rotor, and a second gear element, wherein the second gear element is operatively connected (Fig. 10 of Laber), with the first gear element, wherein an axis of rotation of the second gear element runs in an installation space between the machine axis and an outer lateral surface of the rotor that is extended virtually in the axial direction of the electric machine (Fig. 10 of Laber).
PNG
media_image10.png
372
484
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laber, Koenen, and in view of Henry (US 2019/0006901).
As to claim 6, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 5, stator teeth and a plurality of coils.
Laber fails to disclose wherein at least one of the stator teeth has an, electrically insulating,
tooth cover, wherein the stator has a plurality of coils and at least one of the coils is wound around the
tooth cover.
Henry, however, discloses wherein at least one of the stator teeth has an, electrically insulating,
tooth cover (Paragraph 0031), wherein the stator has a plurality of coils and at least one of the coils is
wound around the tooth cover (Paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive device of Laber with at least one of the
stator teeth has an, electrically insulating, tooth cover, wherein the stator has a plurality of coils and at
least one of the coils is wound around the tooth cover, as disclosed by Henry, in order to provide a
means of insulation to prevent short circuiting and minimize energy loss.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laber, Koenen, and further in view of Russalian (US 2021/0044050).
As to claim 8, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim, wherein the drive device has a stator that has one or a plurality of coils.
Laber fails to disclose a circuit board and the coils are electrically connected to a circuit board.
Russalian, however, discloses a circuit board and the coils are electrically connected to the
circuit board (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive device of Laber with a circuit board and
the coils are electrically connected to the circuit board, as disclosed by Russalian, to gain the ability to control the power to the coils as desired for a given application.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laber, Koenen, and further in view of Krivoy (US 2014/0123559).
As to claim 12, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 1, the rotor.
Laber fails to disclose a lever to form a connection of the drive device to the leaf or to a frame.
Krivoy, however, discloses a lever (115; Paragraph 0031) to form a connection of the drive
device to the leaf or to a frame (Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image11.png
371
461
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive device of Laber with a lever to form a
connection of the drive device to the leaf or to a frame, as disclosed by Krivoy, properly transmit torque from the machine to the leaf.
As to claim 13, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 1.
Laber fails to disclose a closer module with at least one mechanical energy storage device and at
least one transmission element wherein the drive device has a drive module with a drive housing,
wherein the axial flux machine and/or a gear coupled to the axial flux machine is arranged in the drive
housing.
Krivoy, however, discloses a closer module with at least one mechanical energy storage device
(116; Paragraph 0023) and at least one transmission element (112; Paragraph 0023) wherein the drive
device has a drive module (100; Paragraph 0025) with a drive housing (104; Paragraph 0026), wherein
the axial flux machine is arranged in the drive housing (Paragraph 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive device of Laber with a closer module with
at least one mechanical energy storage device and at least one transmission element wherein the drive
device has a drive module with a drive housing, wherein the axial flux machine is arranged in the drive
housing, as disclosed by Krivoy, to allow for proper energy release and storage.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laber, Koenen, Krivoy, and further in view of Jongen (US 2023/0286011).
As to claim 14, the combination of Laber, Koenen, and Krivoy discloses the drive device according to claim 13, and the gear.
Laber fails to disclose the gear has a transmission ratio as a quotient of the speed of the rotor as
a dividend and the speed of the transmission element, which is less than 125.
Jongen, however, discloses the gear has a transmission ratio (Paragraph 0030) as a quotient of
the speed of the rotor (Paragraph 0030; “The input element may be, for example, an input shaft”) as a
dividend and the speed of the transmission element (Paragraph 0030 and 0031; “The gearing output of the belt drive can be coupled to the gearing input of the reduction gearing.”,” The respective reduction
gear can be an eccentric gear”, “The eccentric gears can, for example, be cycloidal gears in
which cam discs”), which is less than 125 (Paragraph 0031; “In one form, the transmission ratio of the
reduction gears is in a range from i=50 to i=200”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive device of Laber with the gear has a
transmission ratio as a quotient of the speed of the rotor as a dividend and the speed of the
transmission element, which is less than 125, as disclosed by Jongen, to ensure a compact design of the
gears.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laber, Koenen,
and further in view of Chen (US 2022/0170307).
As to claim 15, the combination of Laber and Koenen discloses the drive device according to claim 1.
Laber fails to disclose a use of a drive device in a swing leaf drive.
Chen, however, discloses a use of a drive device in a swing leaf drive (Paragraph 0022)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive device of Laber with a use of a
drive device in a swing leaf drive, as disclosed by Chen, to allow for the operation of opening and closing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can
normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5pm.
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 on 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.
/ETHAN NGUYEN VO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834