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 Amendment
The amendments to the drawings submitted on 07/10/2025 are acknowledged and the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
The amendments to the specification submitted 07/10/2025 are acknowledged and the objections to the specification are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims submitted 07/10/2025 overcome the objections to the claims and the objections are withdrawn.
Claims 5 and 14 were cancelled, and the rejections under 35 USC §112 are withdrawn.
The rejections under 35 USC § 102 made in the previous office action are considered moot due to applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chestnut et al. (US 3,558,940 A) in light of Haydon (US 4004168) and Ordinary Skill in the Art.
With regard to claim 1, Chestnut et al. teaches “An AC motor comprising:
a synchronous motor comprising (Chestnut et al., Column 1, Lines 3-5)
a magnetic rotor (Chestnut et al., Column 1, Lines 3-5) and
a stator positioned at a fixed distance from the magnetic rotor (Chestnut et al., Fig. 1 at 16).;
a no-back component (Chestnut et al., Fig. 5-6 at 40), wherein the no-back component is configured to oscillate when the synchronous motor is rotating in a desired direction (See Chestnut et al., Fig. 5, solid vs. dotted line; Column 5, Lines 45-48), and wherein the no-back component is configured to move to a stopping position when the synchronous motor is rotating in an undesired direction (Chestnut et al., Fig. 5-6, Column 5, Lines 48-57); and
a motor cup at least partially enclosing the rotor and stator (Chestnut et al., Figs. 1-3), the motor cup including a bottom surface (Chestnut et al., Figs. 1-2 at 10) including a recessed cup (Chestnut et al., Figs. 1 and 4 at 12; The recessed cup is formed by the stator poles (12) of the motor, which form a cup recessed from the surface of the motor cup (10), and the portion of the bottom surface of the cup located within the circumference of the stator poles), wherein the no-back component (Chestnut et al., Figs. 1 and 4 at 40) is disposed in the recessed cup of the bottom surface of the motor cup (Chestnut et al., Fig. 4 at 12, 40);
wherein the recessed cup includes a plurality of apertures (Chestnut et al., Figs. 1-3), . . .”
Chestnut et al. does not explicitly teach wherein “the no-back component is attached in one selected aperture of the plurality of apertures, and the plurality of apertures is disposed about a rotor shaft axis, and each of the plurality of apertures is configured to fix the no- back component at a different angle relative to the rotor and/or stator.”
Haydon teaches “wherein the recessed cup includes a plurality of [connectors] (Haydon, Fig. 4 at 36, 38, 39) the no-back component is attached in one selected [connector] of the plurality of [connectors] (Haydon, Fig. 4 at 36, 38, 39: Haydon, Column 4, lines 24-29: “Further bosses 39 (Fig. 4) may be molded on the opposed surfaces of the bobbin such that the various pole pieces of the motor may be mounted in different positions consistent with the type of motor and the desired operating parameters.”), and the plurality of [connectors] is disposed about a rotor shaft axis (Haydon, Fig. 4), and each of the plurality of [connectors] is configured to fix the no- back component at a different angle relative to the rotor and/or stator (Haydon, Column 4, lines 16-28).”
It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of filing to adapt the teachings of Haydon to those of Chestnut et al. in order to provide adjustability of the location of the no-back component by providing multiple connectors for the no-back component to be connected to as needed. In Re Stevens held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance (212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), See also MPEP 2104.04(V)(D)). In addition, adjustability is a recognized benefit in the prior art. Haydon provides for a motor having a plurality of fixing means (bosses: Fig. 4 at 38-39) wherein a “no-back component is attached in one selected [fixing means] of the plurality of [fixing means] (Haydon, Fig. 4 at 36, 38, 39: Haydon, Column 4, lines 24-29: “Further bosses 39 (Fig. 4) may be molded on the opposed surfaces of the bobbin such that the various pole pieces of the motor may be mounted in different positions consistent with the type of motor and the desired operating parameters.”) While Haydon does not explicitly use a mechanical no-back component, it does utilize a magnetic détente device to stop the motor at a defined angle where it will experience appropriate force in order to restart it properly, and provides attachment means all around a circle for the détente device to be mounted in a location “consistent with the type of motor and desired operating parameters (Haydon, Column 4, lines 16-28).” Chestnut et al. also focuses on the similar task of placing a no-back device at a specific angle where a motor will stop and experience sufficient force to reverse itself, rather than stalling in a deadzone. Furthermore, Chestnut recognizes at least three appropriate locations for a no-back device (See Chestnut at Column 5, Lines 14-25).
Neither Haydon nor Chestnut et al. explicitly teaches that the connections between the no-back component and the motor are effected through holes in the motor casing (apertures) into which the no-back component itself fits. Rather, Chestnut et al. and Haydon teach securing the no-back component to a pin (boss) connected to the motor casing via an aperture in the no-back component (Chestnut et al. Fig. 4 at 37). However, a decision to reverse the components, implementing a pin on the no-back component which connects with an aperture on the bearing member would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); See also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find a pin or stem on the no-back component and holes in the casing to secure said pin obvious due to the simple reversal of parts from Chestnut et al. and Haydon et al.
A person having skill in the art would be motivated to simplify the manufacture of the motor with the no-back component by providing multiple attachment locations in the recessed cup of Chestnut et al. in order to make the installation location adjustable. A person having skill in the art would recognize that providing multiple attachment locations would provide the ability to install the no-back device in a location most consistent with the type of motor and desired operating parameters, as taught by Haydon. Furthermore, a person having skill in the art would recognize the equivalence of reversing the pin and hole combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon and implementing a pin on the no-back component which connects with a hole (or series of holes) on the bearing member.
As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find claim 1 obvious over the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 1 as described above. The combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon further teaches: “wherein the no-back component includes an attachment stem that fits in one of the plurality of apertures (The bosses of both Chestnut et al. (Chestnut et al. at 37) and Haydon (Haydon at 36-39) are interpreted to be an attachment stem: as described above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the equivalence of a reversal of parts, leading to an attachment stem on the no-back component and a plurality of apertures on the housing of the motor).”
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 1 as described above. Chestnut et al. further teaches: “wherein the rotor comprises a contact component (Fig. 5 at 35, cam), and the no-back component catches on the contact component when rotating in the undesired direction (Fig. 5, Column 5, Lines 50-57: “If when the rotor starts in the wrong direction the pawl 40 is in the position shown by the solid line, the rotor would continue to rotate in the wrong direction until stop face 44 engages the stop face formed by the step 39 of the cam [35]. If, on the other hand, the pawl is in the position shown by the dotted portion, then the rotor would continue to travel in the wrong direction until the stop face [39] of the cam [35] engages stop face 45 of the pawl.”).”
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 6 as described above. Chestnut et al. further teaches: “wherein the contact component (Fig. 5 at 35) contacts a contoured inner surface (Fig. 5 at 42) of the no-back component (Fig. 5 at 40) in the desired direction and causes an oscillating movement of the no-back component in the desired direction. (Fig. 5, Column 5 Lines 43-48: “With particular reference to FIG. 5, the one-way directional means is designed for a motor adapted to rotate in a counterclockwise direction. With the rotor turning in the desired counterclockwise direction, cam means 35 will continually displace the pawl 40 as the cam means 35 rotates past the end portion of the pawl having the stop face 44.”)”
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 7 as described above. Chestnut et al. further teaches: “wherein the contact component (Fig. 5 at 35) is fixed to a rotor shaft (Figs. 1, 5 at 22).”
With regard to claim 11, Chestnut et al. teaches: “An AC synchronous motor, comprising:
a housing comprising a motor cup (Fig. 1, 4 at 10), the motor cup including a bottom surface (Chestnut et al., Figs. 1-2 at 10) comprising a recessed cup (Chestnut et al., Figs. 1 and 4 at 12; The recessed cup is formed by the stator poles (12) of the motor, which form a cup recessed from the surface of the motor cup (10)), the recessed cup including a plurality of apertures (Chestnut et al., Figs. 1-3) . . .;
a magnetic rotor within the motor cup (Fig 1, 4 at 18-21, Column 3, Lines 66-70);
a stator within the motor cup and positioned at a fixed distance from the magnetic rotor (Fig. 1 at 16); and
a no-back component (Fig. 4-6 at 40) connected between the motor cup (Fig. 4 at 10) and the rotor (Fig. 4 at 18-21), wherein the no-back component is configured to oscillate when the rotor is rotating in a desired direction (See Fig. 5, solid vs. dotted line; Column 5, Lines 45-48: “With the rotor turning in the desired counterclockwise direction, cam means 35 will continually displace the pawl 40 as the cam means 35 rotates past the end portion of the pawl having the stop face 44.”), and
wherein the no-back component is configured to rotate to a stopping position when the rotor is rotating in an undesired direction (Fig. 5, Column 5, Lines 50-57: “If when the rotor starts in the wrong direction the pawl 40 is in the position shown by the solid line, the rotor would continue to rotate in the wrong direction until stop face 44 engages the stop face formed by the step 39 of the cam [35]. If, on the other hand, the pawl is in the position shown by the dotted portion, then the rotor would continue to travel in the wrong direction until the stop face [39] of the cam [35] engages stop face 45 of the pawl.”)
wherein the no-back component (Chestnut et al., Figs. 1 and 4 at 40) is disposed in the recessed cup (Chestnut et al., Fig. 4 at 12, 40) . . .”
Chestnut et al. does not explicitly teach where the “plurality of apertures is disposed about a rotor shaft axis” nor wherein “the no-back component is attached in one selected aperture of the plurality of apertures, and the plurality of apertures is disposed about a rotor shaft axis, and each of the plurality of apertures is configured to fix the no-back component at a different angle relative to the rotor and/or stator.”
Haydon teaches where the “plurality of [connectors] is disposed about a rotor shaft axis (Haydon, Fig. 4).” Haydon further teaches wherein “the no-back component is attached in one selected [connector] of the plurality of [connectors] (Haydon, Fig. 4 at 36, 38, 39: Haydon, Column 4, lines 24-29: “Further bosses 39 (Fig. 4) may be molded on the opposed surfaces of the bobbin such that the various pole pieces of the motor may be mounted in different positions consistent with the type of motor and the desired operating parameters.”), and the plurality of [connectors] is disposed about a rotor shaft axis (Haydon, Fig. 4), and each of the plurality of [connectors] is configured to fix the no-back component at a different angle relative to the rotor and/or stator (Haydon, Column 4, lines 16-28).”
It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of filing to adapt the teachings of Haydon to those of Chestnut et al. in order to provide adjustability of the location of the no-back component by providing multiple connectors for the no-back component to be connected to as needed. In Re Stevens held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance (212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), See also MPEP 2104.04(V)(D)). In addition, adjustability is a recognized benefit in the prior art. Haydon provides for a motor having a plurality of fixing means (bosses: Fig. 4 at 38-39) wherein a “no-back component is attached in one selected [fixing means] of the plurality of [fixing means] (Haydon, Fig. 4 at 36, 38, 39: Haydon, Column 4, lines 24-29: “Further bosses 39 (Fig. 4) may be molded on the opposed surfaces of the bobbin such that the various pole pieces of the motor may be mounted in different positions consistent with the type of motor and the desired operating parameters.”) While Haydon does not explicitly use a mechanical no-back component, it does utilize a magnetic détente device to stop the motor at a defined angle where it will experience appropriate force in order to restart it properly, and provides attachment means all around a circle for the détente device to be mounted in a location “consistent with the type of motor and desired operating parameters (Haydon, Column 4, lines 16-28).” Chestnut et al. also focuses on the similar task of placing a no-back device at a specific angle where a motor will stop and experience sufficient force to reverse itself, rather than stalling in a deadzone. Furthermore, Chestnut recognizes at least three appropriate locations for a no-back device (See Chestnut at Column 5, Lines 14-25).
Neither Haydon nor Chestnut et al. explicitly teaches that the connections between the no-back component and the motor are effected through holes in the motor casing (apertures) into which the no-back component itself fits. Rather, Chestnut et al. and Haydon teach securing the no-back component to a pin (boss) connected to the motor casing via an aperture in the no-back component (Chestnut et al. Fig. 4 at 37). However, a decision to reverse the components, implementing a pin on the no-back component which connects with an aperture on the bearing member would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); See also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find a pin or stem on the no-back component and holes in the casing to secure said pin obvious due to the simple reversal of parts from Chestnut et al. and Haydon et al.
A person having skill in the art would be motivated to simplify the manufacture of the motor with the no-back component by providing multiple attachment locations in the recessed cup of Chestnut et al. in order to make the installation location adjustable. A person having skill in the art would recognize that providing multiple attachment locations would provide the ability to install the no-back device in a location most consistent with the type of motor and desired operating parameters, as taught by Haydon. Furthermore, a person having skill in the art would recognize the equivalence of reversing the pin and hole combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon and implementing a pin on the no-back component which connects with a hole (or series of holes) on the bearing member.
As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find claim 11 obvious over the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon.
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 11 as described above. Chestnut et al. further teaches: “wherein the no-back component (Fig. 4 at 40) is connected between an end of the rotor (Fig. 4 at 20) and the bottom surface of the motor cup (Fig. 4 at 10).
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 12 as described above. The combination further teaches “wherein the no-back component includes an attachment stem element engaged in the selected aperture (The bosses of both Chestnut et al. (Chestnut et al. at 37) and Haydon (Haydon at 36-39) are interpreted to be an attachment stem element: as described above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the equivalence of a reversal of parts, leading to an attachment stem element on the no-back component and an aperture on the housing of the motor).”
With regard to claim 15, the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 11 as described above. Chestnut et al. further teaches: “wherein the rotor comprises a contact component (Fig. 5 at 35, cam) disposed on a rotor shaft (Fig. 5 at 22), and the no-back component (Fig. 5 at 40) catches on a first surface of the contact component (Fig. 5 at 39) when rotating in the undesired direction (Fig. 5, Column 5, Lines 50-57: “If when the rotor starts in the wrong direction the pawl 40 is in the position shown by the solid line, the rotor would continue to rotate in the wrong direction until stop face 44 engages the stop face formed by the step 39 of the cam [35]. If, on the other hand, the pawl is in the position shown by the dotted portion, then the rotor would continue to travel in the wrong direction until the stop face [39] of the cam [35] engages stop face 45 of the pawl [40].”).”
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 15 as described above. Chestnut et al. further teaches: “wherein a second surface of the contact component (Fig. 5 at 38) contacts a contoured inner surface of the no-back component (Fig. 5 at 42) in the desired direction to oscillate the no-back component when the rotor rotates in the desired direction (Fig. 5, Column 5 Lines 43-48: “With particular reference to FIG. 5, the one-way directional means is designed for a motor adapted to rotate in a counterclockwise direction. With the rotor turning in the desired counterclockwise direction, cam means 35 will continually displace the pawl 40 as the cam means 35 rotates past the end portion of the pawl having the stop face 44.”).”
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 16 as described above. Chestnut et al. further teaches: “wherein the contact component (Fig. 5 at 35) is fixed to a rotor shaft (Figs. 1, 5 at 22), and includes a catch surface extending outward from the rotor shaft (Fig. 5 at 39).”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 100793806 B1).
The combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC Motor of claim 7 as described above. Chestnut et al. does not explicitly teach “wherein an outer surface of the no-back component contacts a stationary portion of the synchronous motor on opposing sides to control the oscillating movement.”
Kim teaches “wherein an outer surface (Kim, Fig. 4 at 165) of the no-back component (Kim, Fig. 4 at 163) contacts a stationary portion of the synchronous motor on opposing sides to control the oscillating movement.” Kim teaches a “latch rotation guide (Figs. 4-6 at 165) which “may be a protrusion that protrudes in the radial direction of the rotation axis from one side of the latch. In this case, stoppers may be provided on both sides of the protrusion so that the latch can rotate by a distance corresponding to the distance that the protrusion moves between the two stoppers.” As such, the protrusion contacts two stoppers on opposite sides in order to limit the oscillating motion of the no-back component.
It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kim with those of Chestnut, including wherein an outer surface of the no-back component contacts a stationary portion of the synchronous motor on opposing sides in order to limit the rotation of the no-back component in order to more stably prevent reverse rotation of the rotation shaft, as taught by Kim at lines 455-463 (“the reverse rotation prevention device may further include a latch rotation guide (165) that limits the rotation angle of the latch, which is intended to limit the rotation of the latch within a certain range to more stably prevent reverse rotation of the rotation shaft.”) A person of skill in the art would find it obvious to provide limits on the oscillation of the no-back component in order to keep the no-back component within a position where it can engage the contact element to prevent the rotor from going in the wrong direction.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chestnut et al., Haydon, and Kim as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Schertel et al. (DE 1763498).
The combination of Chestnut et al., Haydon, and Kim teaches the AC Motor of claim 9 as described above. The combination of Chestnut et al., Haydon and Kim further teaches “wherein the outer surface of the no-back component includes at least one extension . . .” (Kim Figs. 4-6 at 165; Kim at 455-463: “a protrusion that protrudes in the radial direction of the rotation axis from one side of the latch.”).
The combination of Chestnut et al., Haydon, and Kim does not explicitly teach “[an extension] that contacts a motor housing to control the oscillating movement.”
Schertel et al. teaches “[an extension] (Schertel Fig. 2 at 20) that contacts a motor housing (Schertel Fig. 2 at 10) to control the oscillating movement (Schertel Paragraph [0003]: “The pivoting movement of the pawl 3 is limited by a cam 20 which rests against the stator poles 10”).” Schertel further teaches that the pivoting motion of the pawl may be limited by the housing of the motor (Schertel at Paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Schertel et al. with those of Chestnut and Kim and use the outer walls of the motor housing or to control the oscillating motion of the pawl. The combination of Chestnut and Kim teaches the importance of limiting the motion of the no-back component, using a pair of stops to do so. Schertel et al. further teaches that the motion of the no-back component may be limited by the housing of the motor itself. A person having skill in the art would be motivated to use the housing itself to limit the motion of the no-back component in order to simplify construction of the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim and Schertel et al.
The combination of Chestnut et al. and Haydon teaches the AC motor of claim 16 as discussed above. Chestnut does not explicitly teach “wherein an outer surface of the no-back component contacts a stationary portion of the motor cup on [an] opposing sides to limit an oscillating movement.”
Kim teaches “wherein an outer surface (Kim, Fig. 4 at 165) of the no-back component (Kim, Fig. 4 at 163) contacts a stationary portion of the . . . [motor] on opposing sides to limit an oscillating movement.” Kim teaches a “latch rotation guide (Figs. 4-6 at 165) which “may be a protrusion that protrudes in the radial direction of the rotation axis from one side of the latch. In this case, stoppers may be provided on both sides of the protrusion so that the latch can rotate by a distance corresponding to the distance that the protrusion moves between the two stoppers.” As such, the protrusion contacts two stoppers on opposite sides in order to limit the oscillating motion of the no-back component.
It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kim with those of Chestnut, including wherein an outer surface of the no-back component contacts a stationary portion of the synchronous motor on opposing sides in order to limit the rotation of the no-back component in order to more stably prevent reverse rotation of the rotation shaft, as taught by Kim at lines 455-463 (“the reverse rotation prevention device may further include a latch rotation guide (165) that limits the rotation angle of the latch, which is intended to limit the rotation of the latch within a certain range to more stably prevent reverse rotation of the rotation shaft.”) A person of skill in the art would find it obvious to provide limits on the oscillation of the no-back component in order to keep the no-back component within a position where it can engage the contact element to prevent the rotor from going in the wrong direction.
Kim does not explicitly teach that the stationary portion of the motor is a stationary portion of the motor cup. Schertel teaches wherein an outer surface of the no-back component contacts the motor cup to limit its motion (Schertel at Paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Schertel et al. with those of Chestnut and Kim and use the outer walls of the motor housing or to control the oscillating motion of the pawl. The combination of Chestnut and Kim teaches the importance of limiting the motion of the no-back component, using a pair of stops to do so. Schertel et al. further teaches that the motion of the no-back component may be limited by the housing of the motor itself. A person having skill in the art would be motivated to use the housing itself to limit the motion of the no-back component in order to simplify construction of the motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the response to the office action states that claims 1 and 11 are amended to clarify that the claimed invention is not a mere reversal of parts. Examiner respectfully notes that the current rejection relies only on the reversal of the pin attached to the housing having described in Chestnut et al. (“Directional stop means 36 is pivotally mounted on shell 10 through boss 37 which is formed as part of bearing member 27.”), to a directional stop means having a pin to mount it to the shell. Reversing the parts so that a pin or boss lies on the directional stop means with the hole it is mounted to being connected to the housing rather than the opposite is a simple reversal which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious from Chestnut et al.
The response to the office action argues that the no-back mechanism is connected to the housing/motor cup within a recessed cup, while in Chestnut, the pawl is connected to a bearing member connected to the rotatable shaft and is part of the rotating rotor assembly. Chestnut et al. shows a recessed cup formed of the stator poles (12) wherein the no-back component is connected (See e.g. Chestnut Fig. 4 at 12, 40). Examiner notes the wide variety of forms a “recessed cup” can take, and notes that in addition to the “recessed cup” of Chestnut et al., a person of ordinary skill in the art would generally be capable of crafting a housing to appropriately fit the parts of the motor required.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that the pawl in Chestnut et al. is part of the rotating rotor assembly. Chestnut et al. specifically notes that “Directional stop means 36 is pivotally mounted on shell 10 through boss 37 which is formed as part of bearing member 27.” Chestnut et al., Column 4, lines 35-37. The “pivot” here allows the pawl to oscillate when the cam member is rotating, thereby allowing the rotor to continue rotating when it is moving in the desired direction. (See e.g. Chestnut et al., Fig. 5, Column 5 Lines 43-48: “With particular reference to FIG. 5, the one-way directional means is designed for a motor adapted to rotate in a counterclockwise direction. With the rotor turning in the desired counterclockwise direction, cam means 35 will continually displace the pawl 40 as the cam means 35 rotates past the end portion of the pawl having the stop face 44.”). If the pawl were rotating with the rotor, then the cam means 35, which is also rotating with the rotor, would not contact the pawl when the rotor begins to rotate in the non-desired direction, and could not contact the pawl to stop the motor in a desired position, as described in Chestnut et al. (See Chestnut et al., Column 4, line 61-Column 5, line 67). The pawl must be fixed with respect to the housing in order to function as a no-back mechanism with a fixed location as described in Chestnut et al. Furthermore, reference numeral 27 is described as a “bearing member” throughout Chestnut et al., one interpretation of which is that it holds the rotating shaft while remaining stationary itself. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the pawl to be fixed with respect to the rotation of the rotating rotor assembly and the cam located thereon.
The response to the office action also argues that reversing the boss still does not provide Applicant's invention, where the no-back mechanism is attached in one of a plurality of apertures in a recessed cup of the housing itself. As noted above in the reasons for rejection above, the combination of Haydon and Chestnut et al. provides for multiple fixing locations for a no-back component, noting the importance of mounting the no-back component in the correct location and providing several different mounting locations in order to provide for various specific arrangements of a given motor. While in Haydon and Chestnut et al. these mounting locations comprise bosses to which a no-back component with an aperture is mounted, a person of skill in the art would find it obvious to reverse this arrangement, providing the bosses on the no-back component and the apertures on the housing. While Chestnut et al. does teach an intermediate part (the “bearing member” 27) rather than mounting the no-back component directly to the housing, in general, making integral what has been separate in the prior art is generally considered an obvious modification (See MPEP 2144(V)(B)). Furthermore, the combination of bearing member and the portion of the motor cup formed by the pole pieces (12) and the bottom of the motor cup (10) can be considered the “recessed portion” of the motor cup. Finally, several pieces of prior art as noted below teach mounting the no-back component directly to the motor cup. In summary, reversing the bosses makes obvious applicant’s invention as set forth in the rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lundin (US 3200915), Linn (US 3525888), Kuzara (US 3416014), Lee (US 20070126294) are considered pertinent at least in teaching a no-back mechanism operating through a cam and pawl principle where the cam is programmed to contact a stop face when the motor rotates in an undesired direction. Lundin, Linn, and Kuzara further teach a no-back mechanism secured to a motor housing and located between a rotor and the housing. Linn, Kuzara, and Lee further teach a no-back mechanism which interacts with a contact device located directly on the rotor of a motor.
Svarnias (US 3350589) and Yatsuhiro (US 3614492) are considered pertinent at least in teaching no-back devices having an adjustable element which allows the location where the contact element contacts the no-back mechanism to be adjusted. These inventions teach changing the location in order to alter the direction of the rotor. However, as currently framed, they are relevant to the claims that involve changing the angle of the no-back device.
Linn (US 3525888), Kuzara (US 3416014), Walter (US 3211933), Lee (US 20070126294), and Gerber (US 4532444) are considered pertinent at least in teaching a no-back device which comes into contact with a stationary portion of the housing which is designed to limit the movement of the no-back device.
Kristupas (US 3073176), Spridco (US 5095767), and Gilbert (US 1763302) are considered pertinent at least in teaching the use of a plurality of apertures spaced on a motor housing as means to secure changeable or interchangeable components to the motor.
Bertram et al. (US 5118977) is considered pertinent at least in teaching the importance of the angles and relationship between the magnets and stator poles in a permanent magnet synchronous motor, as well as the angle at which the no-back component impacts the rotor.
Delaloye (US 3320449 A), Gerstner et al. (US 4651040 A) Han et al. (US 20060175924 A1), and United Gas Industries Ltd (GB 1437376 A) are considered pertinent at least in teaching a no-back component connected directly to the motor cup without an intervening structure. Gerstner especially shows a variety of locations for the no-back component including directly attached to the motor casing (see Gerstner Fig. 3)
Spring et al. (US 3308314 A), Yokoe (US 20190368267 A1), International Register Company (GB 1022900), and United Gas Industries Ltd (GB 1437376 A) are considered pertinent at least in showing a motor having a recessed cup portion which accommodates a no-back component.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID O JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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.
/D.O.J./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834