DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 discloses “The automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 11, wherein the plastic motor housing is produced via an injection molding” (lines 1-2; emphasis added). Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 11 which is directed to a product, and not to a method. As such, the intended method of manufacturing the product (as recited in claim 12) is informative, but is not understood to further define the product of claim 11. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, it is not clear what the scope or metes and bounds of this claim may be.
Claim 14 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 13, wherein the form-fit connection is a dovetail connection which is provided by a plurality of dovetail-like protrusions being press-fitted into a plurality of corresponding grooves” (lines 1-3; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for two reasons. The first is that the claim depends from claim 13 which discloses that the connection may be either “form-fit” or “force-fit”. As such, under the entirely reasonable interpretation of claim 13 wherein the “force-fit” connection is selected, claim 14 then provides no understandable meaning or limitation to the product of claim 13. The claim must be definite given any and all reasonable interpretations, and claim 14 therefore does not satisfy this requirement for definiteness. The Applicant is encouraged to separate the two alternatives presented in claim 13, into two separate claims and to ensure that claim 14 depends from whichever claim recites the “form-fit connection”. Further, it is not at all clear what is intended by the phrase “dovetail-like protrusions” the claim already discloses a dovetail connection, but “dovetail-like” calls into question whether the connection is actually a dovetail connection at all, or if it is instead some undefined other type of connection. Moreover, the reader cannot possibly guess what may or may not fall within the realm of being “dovetail-like” and thus the scope or metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. The Applicant is encouraged to simply delete the hedging modifier “-like” and thereby to make that portion of the claim definite.
Claim 16 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the plurality of stator teeth are form-fitted and undetachably fastened to the plastic member” (lines 5-6; emphasis added). The term “undetachably fastened” is indefinite, because it is impossible to know how one would render any connection at all, undetachable. Every connection is reversible by some means or other, even if that detachment occurs by virtue of destruction of the connecting region. As such, the reader must guess what structure(s) render the connection between the two components entirely irreversible, and whether such a connection is even physically possible. Thus the scope of this claim cannot be determined.
Claim 17 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 11, further comprising: an auxiliary unit comprising…” (lines 1-3; emphasis added). This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear if this is the same “auxiliary unit” disclosed in claim 11 and recited in the preamble of claim 17 as well, or if this is a new, different, auxiliary unit. As best understood, it appears to be a different auxiliary unit, and the claim should likely be amended to instead recite: “The automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 11, further comprising: an additional auxiliary unit comprising…” or “The automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 11, further comprising: another auxiliary unit comprising…”. The Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim as suggested.
Claim 18 is rejected as indefinite by virtue of its dependence upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 17.
Claim 18 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “The automotive electric auxiliary unit of as recited in claim 17, wherein the auxiliary unit is an electric coolant pump” (lines1-2; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for similar reasons to claim 17. The reader cannot know which “auxiliary unit” is being modified. Is it the original auxiliary unit of claim 11, or the potentially new/different auxiliary unit of claim 17? It seems likely that the auxiliary unit of the body of claim 18 is referring to the seemingly additional unit from claim 17.
NOTE: Claims 12-18 have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (CN 107171465 A; translation provided concurrently by Examiner; citations taken from the copy provided).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses an automotive electric auxiliary unit (100) comprising an electric motor (components of 100) (Title; Abstract; fig. 1; pg. 4, lines 19-20), the electric motor comprising: a rotatable motor rotor (20) which is configured to rotate about a rotor axis (center of 22) (fig. 2; pg. 4, lines 19-20); a multi-piece motor stator (10, including: 11, 12, 30, 50) comprising a plurality of stator coils (12), a plurality of stator teeth (50), and a separate ring-shaped magnetic back iron ring (30), wherein the separate ring-shaped magnetic back iron ring is arranged to radially surround the plurality of stator teeth and is attached to the plurality of stator teeth (figs. 2-4; pg. 4, lines 21-31); and a plastic motor housing (40), wherein, the separate ring-shaped magnetic back iron ring is overmolded by the plastic motor housing (fig. 4; pg. 4, lines 32-39; pg. 5, lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses the automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 11, wherein the plastic motor housing is produced via an injection molding (pg. 5, lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses the automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 11, wherein the plurality of stator teeth are attached to the separate ring-shaped magnetic back iron ring by at least one of a form-fit connection and a force-fit connection (form-fit dovetails: fig. 5; pg. 5, lines 16-24).
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses the automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 13, wherein the form-fit connection is a dovetail connection which is provided by a plurality of dovetail- like protrusions (52) being press-fitted into a plurality of corresponding grooves (fig. 5; pg. 5, lines 16-24).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses the automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 11, wherein, the electric motor further comprises a plastic member (60), and the plurality of stator teeth are attached to each other via the plastic member (figs. 5-6; pp. 5-6, lines 40-45 and 1-8).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses the automotive electric auxiliary unit as recited in claim 15, wherein, the electric motor further comprises a mounting unit (13), the plurality of stator teeth and the plastic member are fastened to the mounting unit, and the plurality of stator teeth are form-fitted and undetachably fastened to the plastic member (figs. 1 and 3; pg. 6, lines 24-34).
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses a method for manufacturing an electric motor (100), wherein the electric motor comprises, a plastic motor housing (40), and a motor stator (10, including: 11, 12, 30, 50) comprising a plurality of stator teeth (50) and a separate ring-shaped magnetic back iron ring (30) (figs. 2-4; pg. 4, lines 19-31), the method comprising: overmolding the separate ring-shaped magnetic back iron ring by the plastic motor housing (fig. 4; pg. 4, lines 32-39; pg. 5, lines 16-20); and attaching the plurality of stator teeth to the separate ring-shaped magnetic back iron ring (fig. 5; pg. 5, lines 16-24).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Wang (CN 104822944 B).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Lin, however, does not explicitly disclose an auxiliary unit comprising a centrifugal pump rotor which is co-rotatably fixed to the rotatable motor rotor of the electric motor.
Wang teaches that it is well known to provide a similar auxiliary unit (fig. 4: all) comprising a motor (permanent magnet synchronous motor) (fig. 1; pg. 3, lines 1-4); comprising an[other] auxiliary unit (alternating current permanent magnet draining pump) comprising a centrifugal pump rotor (2) which is co-rotatably fixed to the rotatable motor rotor (9, 11, 17) of the electric motor (fig. 2; pg. 7, lines 18-36).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Lin to incorporate the additional auxiliary unit including a centrifugal pump rotor on the motor rotor of Wang. POSITA would have realized that motor such as those of Lin can be easily and readily modified to incorporate fans, impellers and the like achieve the desired ability to perform work and that the use of pump mechanisms and rotary elements in motors has been predictably employed to achieve cooling, air or fluid movement and the like in a cost effective and efficient manner. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special centrifugal pump rotor was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old automotive electric auxiliary unit comprising a motor of Lin with the well-known pump rotor of Wang. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 18, Lin in view of Wang teaches the automotive electric auxiliary unit comprising a motor of claim 11 as detailed above, and Wang further teaches that it is well known that the auxiliary unit is an electric coolant pump. (pp. 7-8, lines 35-41 and 1-9).
Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 17, above.
Regarding claim 19, Lin in view of Wang teaches the automotive electric auxiliary unit comprising a motor of claim 11 as detailed above, and Lin further discloses that the plastic motor housing comprises a first housing element (23) which defines a chamber, a second housing element (40) which defines a motor chamber, and a third housing element (13) which defines an electronic chamber , and the separate ring-shaped magnetic back iron ring is overmolded by the second element of the plastic motor housing (fig. 2; pg. 4, lines 32-39; pg. 5, lines 16-20; pg. 6, lines 24-40). Lin does not explicitly disclose that the first housing element defines a pump chamber.
Wang teaches that it is well known that the plastic motor housing comprises a first housing element (1) which defines a pump chamber (figs. 2-3; pg. 7, lines 18-20).
Regarding the rationale for combination of references, please refer to claim 17, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Tanaka (US 4,015,154) is held to anticipate all of the limitations of at least claims 11-13 and 20 (see figs. 1-3B, 5 and 7). The Tanaka reference is not currently applied as an anticipation rejection due to the completeness of the above applied art, and in order to avoid an overly long Office Action or duplicative rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729