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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 11-16, 23-25, and 29-30 were rejected as being obvious over Hoshinoya in view of Herbert. Claims 17-19 were rejected as being obvious over Hoshinoya in view of Herbert and Mizutani. Claims 20-22 were rejected as being obvious over Hoshinoya in view of Herbert and Spaggiari. Claim 30 was rejected as being obvious over Hoshinoya in view of Herbert and Kai. The Applicant amended claims 11 and 29 and canceled claims 23-25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant amended claims 1 and 29 to incorporate the claim limitations of claims 23-25, namely “wherein the recess of the component is provided by a hole of the component.” The Applicant argued that Hoshinoya does not disclose this claim limitation and that the lid member 142 of Hoshinoya does not include a hole into which the free end of a venting pipe is disposed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The lid member 142 of Hoshinoya contains a hole in the form of a cylindrical tube attached to the center of the lid that surrounds the venting pipe as seen in FIG. 13. Therefore, Hoshinoya does teach the claimed limitation. Claims 1 and 19 remain rejected over Hoshinoya in view of Herbert.
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.
Claims 11-16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,809,186 to Hoshinoya et al. (hereinafter Hoshinoya; cited by Applicant on 9/20/2023) in view of German Patent No. 35 00 723 to Herbert et al. (hereinafter Herbert).
Regarding claim 11, Hoshinoya teaches a pressure equalization arrangement (FIG. 12, 140) for a chamber (Column 14 lines 21-29) of an electric machine (FIG. 9, 70) of a motor vehicle (FIG. 1, 3), the pressure equalization arrangement comprising:
a venting pipe (FIG. 9; 92, 151), via which gas can flow out of the chamber for pressure equalization, that adjoins the chamber which is vented (Column 14 lines 30-41),
wherein a free end (FIG. 13, 143) of the venting pipe projects from below into a recess (FIG. 13, VS) which is provided by a component (FIG. 13, 142) and which is closed upwardly and in which a gas bubble in which the free end of the venting pipe projects with a venting opening accumulates when a water level increases (Column 14 lines 2-29), and
wherein the recess of the component is provided by a hole of the component (FIG. 12, 142).
Hoshinoya does not teach the venting pipe being screwed or pressed on a bearing plate of the electric machine, and the bearing plate delimiting the chamber.
However, Herbert teaches a chamber (FIG. 1, 30) delimited by a bearing plate (FIG. 1, 8) with a venting pipe (FIG. 1, 50) pressed on it (Paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization arrangement of Hoshinoya by incorporating it into the chamber of Herbert for the chamber to benefit from the features of the arrangement of Hoshinoya.
Regarding claim 12, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 11, wherein Hoshinoya further teaches the venting opening being arranged above a predetermined wading line (Claim 1/5: 143 is optional so venting opening must be above wading line to prevent intrusion of water; Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 13, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 11, wherein Herbert further teaches the chamber being a brush chamber of the electric machine (FIG. 1; 27, 28).
Regarding claim 14, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 12, wherein Herbert further teaches the chamber being a brush chamber of the electric machine (FIG. 1; 27, 28).
Regarding claim 15, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 13, wherein Herbert further teaches the brush chamber being associated with a drive shaft (FIG. 1, 5) of the electric machine.
Regarding claim 16, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 14, wherein Herbert further teaches the brush chamber being associated with a drive shaft (FIG. 1, 5) of the electric machine.
Regarding claim 29, Hoshinoya teaches an electric machine (FIG. 9, 70) for a motor vehicle (FIG. 1, 3) comprising:
a chamber (Column 14 lines 21-29);
a venting pipe (FIG. 9; 92, 151) which adjoins the chamber which is intended to be vented and via which gas can flow out of the chamber for pressure equalization (Column 14 lines 30-41); and
a component (FIG. 13, 142) which provides an upwardly closed recess;
wherein a free end (FIG. 13, 143) of the venting pipe projects from below into the recess, in which a gas bubble in which the free end of the venting pipe projects with a venting opening accumulates when a water level rises (Column 15 lines 2-29), and
wherein the recess of the component is provided by a hole of the component (FIG. 12, 142).
Hoshinoya does not teach the venting pipe being screwed or pressed on a bearing plate of the electric machine, and the bearing plate delimiting the chamber.
However, Herbert teaches a chamber (FIG. 1, 30) delimited by a bearing plate (FIG. 1, 8) with a venting pipe (FIG. 1, 50) pressed on it (Paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization arrangement of Hoshinoya by incorporating it into the chamber of Herbert for the chamber to benefit from the features of the arrangement of Hoshinoya.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshinoya in view of Herbert and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0295160 to Mizutani.
Regarding claim 17, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 11.
Hoshinoya in view of Herbert does not teach the component being an insulation component.
However, Mizutani teaches an electric machine venting cover (FIG. 3, 41) being an insulation component (Paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization chamber of Hoshinoya in view of Herbert with the insulation component of Mizutani due to the desirable properties of the insulation component like being thermally and electrically insulating to help prevent damage to the arrangement.
Regarding claim 18, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 12.
Hoshinoya in view of Herbert does not teach the component being an insulation component.
However, Mizutani teaches an electric machine venting cover (FIG. 3, 41) being an insulation component (Paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization chamber of Hoshinoya in view of Herbert with the insulation component of Mizutani due to the desirable properties of the insulation component like being thermally and electrically insulating to help prevent damage to the arrangement.
Regarding claim 19, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 13.
Hoshinoya in view of Herbert does not teach the component being an insulation component.
However, Mizutani teaches an electric machine venting cover (FIG. 3, 41) being an insulation component (Paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization chamber of Hoshinoya in view of Herbert with the insulation component of Mizutani due to the desirable properties of the insulation component like being thermally and electrically insulating to help prevent damage to the arrangement.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshinoya in view of Herbert and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0121569 to Spaggiari.
Regarding claim 20, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 11.
Hoshinoya in view of Herbert does not teach the component being made from a foam, wherein a wall, which delimits the recess, of the component is constructed in a gas-tight and water-tight manner.
However, Spaggiari teaches an electric motor with a lid (FIG. 1, 4) being partially constructed with a foam (FIG. 9, 30; Paragraph [0066]), wherein a wall, which delimits a recess (FIG. 9, 4) is constructed in a gas-tight and water-tight manner (Paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization arrangement of Hoshinoya in view of Herbert with the foam of Spaggiari to have a tighter component wall that further resists the ingress of water.
Regarding claim 21, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 12.
Hoshinoya in view of Herbert does not teach the component being made from a foam, wherein a wall, which delimits the recess, of the component is constructed in a gas-tight and water-tight manner.
However, Spaggiari teaches an electric motor with a lid (FIG. 1, 4) being partially constructed with a foam (FIG. 9, 30; Paragraph [0066]), wherein a wall, which delimits a recess (FIG. 9, 4) is constructed in a gas-tight and water-tight manner (Paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization arrangement of Hoshinoya in view of Herbert with the foam of Spaggiari to have a tighter component wall that further resists the ingress of water.
Regarding claim 22, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the pressure equalization arrangement according to claim 13.
Hoshinoya in view of Herbert does not teach the component being made from a foam, wherein a wall, which delimits the recess, of the component is constructed in a gas-tight and water-tight manner.
However, Spaggiari teaches an electric motor with a lid (FIG. 1, 4) being partially constructed with a foam (FIG. 9, 30; Paragraph [0066]), wherein a wall, which delimits a recess (FIG. 9, 4) is constructed in a gas-tight and water-tight manner (Paragraph [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization arrangement of Hoshinoya in view of Herbert with the foam of Spaggiari to have a tighter component wall that further resists the ingress of water.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshinoya in view of Herbert and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 6,063,153 to Kai.
Regarding claim 30, Hoshinoya in view of Herbert teaches the electric machine according to claim 29, wherein Herbert further teaches the chamber being a brush chamber of the electric machine (FIG. 1; 27, 28).
Hoshinoya in view of Kai does not teach the chamber being a brush chamber of the electric machine and the electric machine being in the form of a wet-running electric motor.
However, Kai teaches an electric machine chamber (FIG. 1, 11) containing a brush (FIG. 1, 19) that is vented (Column 3 lines 19-32) in the form of a wet-running electric motor (Column 2 lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure equalization arrangement of Hoshinoya in view of Kai by incorporating it into the brush chamber of Kai for the brush chamber to benefit from the features of the arrangement of Hoshinoya in view of Herbert.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm 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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834