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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/2/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 1 and 13, the limitation of “…a protrusion and a groove configured to be engaged with each other in the first direction are formed on the first electrical steel sheet and the second electrical steel sheet” does not have proper support in the specification, and the drawings in figure 8 does not provide clear illustration of the described feature of the protrusion and groove, and therefore the limitation is considered new matter.
Claims 2, 4-7, and 14-17 are also rejected for their dependency upon aforementioned claims 1 and 13.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blattler et al. (WIPO Document No.: WO 2021/089180 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. (Foreign Patent Document No.: TW I672891 B) and Kumano et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2004/0046632 A1).
For claim 8, Blattler et al. disclose the claimed invention comprising a motor (reference numeral 6, figures 4, 5) configured to provide feedback torque to a steering wheel (see the Abstract), wherein the motor comprises: a rotor (reference numeral 62) configured to be rotated by supplied power (figures 4, 5); and a stator (reference numeral 61) configured to surround the rotor (see figures 4, 5). Blattler et al. however do not specifically disclose the stator being configured by stacking a plurality of electric steel sheets in a first direction, which are conductors, while insulating each of the plurality of electric steel sheets with an insulator, and wherein when the steering feedback actuator is broken down, an iron loss of the stator is increased by adjusting the occupancy of the insulator in the stator to generate residual frictional torque for ensuring traveling stability.
Stacking a plurality of electric steel sheets is a known skill as exhibited by Nakamura et al. (i.e. electromagnetic steel plates, see translation of Nakamura et al., third page, fifth full paragraph), the structure of which when applied to the stator would provide the stator being configured by stacking a plurality of electric steel sheets in a first direction, which are conductors. Insulating each of the electric steel sheets with an insulator is a known skill as exhibited by Kumano et al. (see paragraph [0224]), and Kumano et al. also disclose improving the insulation for optimizing the iron loss (see paragraph [0014]), the structure of which would provide the iron loss of the stator being further increased by adjusting the occupancy of the insulator in the stator in order to generate the residual frictional torque for ensuring traveling stability when the steering feedback actuator is broken down.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the stacked electric steel sheets as disclosed by Nakamura et al. and also have the improvement of the insulation as disclosed by Kumano et al. for the electric steel sheets of Blattler et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for achieving optimal torque characteristics for the device.
For claim 9, Blattler et al. in view of Nakamura et al. and Kumano et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the iron loss being increased by adjusting the occupancy of the insulator to less than 4%. Having a particular occupancy for the insulator would merely involve adjusting the thickness of the insulator which is a known skill as exhibited by Kumano et al. (see paragraphs [0029-0030]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a certain thickness as disclosed by Kumano et al. for having a particular iron loss for the steel sheets of Blattler et al. in view of Nakamura et al. and Kumano et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for achieving optimal torque characteristics for the device.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blattler et al. in view of Nakamura et al. and Kumano et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zaizen et al. (US Patent No. 11136645).
For claim 10, Blattler et al. in view of Nakamura et al. and Kumano et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the iron loss being further increased by adjusting quality of the electric steel sheet of the stator. Producing a particular quality for the steel sheet is a known skill as exhibited by Zaizen et al. which disclose lamination of steel sheets and adjusting the iron loss (see column 3, lines 28-55) affecting the quality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the iron loss as disclosed by Zaizen et al. for the electric steel sheets of Blattler et al. in view of Nakamura et al. and Kumano et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for achieving optimal torque characteristics for the device.
For claim 11, Blattler et al. in view of Nakamura et al. and Kumano et al. and Zaizen et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the stator being configured by a low-quality stack of electric steel sheets with the iron loss of 4 W/kg or more. Zaizen et al. already disclose the adjusting of the iron loss (see column 3, lines 28-55) which would enable the steel sheets to have an iron loss of 4 W/kg or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular iron loss as disclosed by Zaizen et al. for the steel sheets of Blattler et al. in view of Nakamura et al., Kumano et al., and Zaizen et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for achieving optimal torque characteristics for the device.
For claim 12, Blattler et al. in view of Nakamura et al., Kumano et al., and Zaizen et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the stator being configured by a low-quality stack of electric steel sheets with the iron loss within a range of 6 to 13 W/kg. Zaizen et al. already disclose the adjusting of the iron loss (see column 3, lines 28-55) which would enable the steel sheets to have an iron loss within a range of 6 to 13 W/kg. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a particular iron loss as disclosed by Zaizen et al. for the steel sheets of Blattler et al. in view of Nakamura et al., Kumano et al., and Zaizen et al. for predictably providing desirable configuration for achieving optimal torque characteristics for the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s recitation of a protrusion and a groove in the electrical sheet is not supported by the applicant’s specification and drawings as explained above in the present action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX W MOK whose telephone number is (571)272-9084. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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.
/ALEX W MOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights