DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 1.22.26. Claims 1-2,6-10 are pending and have been examined, claims 3-5, 11-14 are withdrawn.
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 and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendments to the independent claim 1 which will be examined below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 rejections, the Applicant provides several arguments to which the
Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: That is, Cen's friction ring 2 does NOT form a C-shaped structure that has two ends as recited in claim 1, and Cen's notch No is NOT formed between two ends of the C-shaped structure as recited in claim 1. In addition, as is clear from Cen's Fig. 4, Cen's friction ring 2 does not have an inner circumferential surface that extends circumferentially from one end to the other end of the two ends is a continuous and complete arcuate friction surface, as recited in claim 1.
Examiner Response 1: Examiner agrees Cen does not disclose all of the amended limitations.
Applicant Argument 2: The groove itself does not possess any ability to cause the ring body to elastically deform radially because Cen's friction ring 2 is not a C- shaped ring that can deform as a whole at all, but rather an assembly where a ring body 8 fixes multiple independent elastic friction units (5, 6, 7).
Examiner Response 2: Examiner understands the structural difference between instant invention and Cen, however argument is moot because “deform radially” is not recited in claim. Further Cen Para 0031 discloses deformation which has a radial component which thereby leads to increased frictional force.
Applicant Argument 3: It is entirely different from the radial clasping effect produced by the structural deformation of a whole C-shaped friction ring with a notch as defined by claim 1. The notch of claim 1 allows the friction ring as a whole to contract and clasp the shaft. It is a structural notch forming two ends capable of relative displacement.
Examiner Response 3: In light of amendments and argument, Examiner will reconsider previous prosecution. However Examiner notes that “the friction ring as a whole to contract” is not recited in amended claim 1.
Applicant Argument 4: Referring to Cen's Fig. 4, when the friction ring 2 is subjected to a force along the
tangential direction of the motor shaft 1, the friction plates 5 can move together with the motor shaft 1 through deformation of the connecting ribs 6, 7. However, each friction plate 5 is independent. Even though there is a notch No between two friction plates 5, both friction plates 5 will move in the same circumferential direction; there will not be a situation where the adjacent ends of two friction plates 5 move towards each other.
Examiner Response 4: Examiner agrees that Cen does not adequately read on amended claim 1 and that new limitations add more clarity to the invention in the claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “at least two limiting portions” and claim 1 recites “a limiting portion” and it is not clear if they are one and the same. To advance prosecution, Examiner will interpret same as “two of the limiting portions”.
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 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.
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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cen in view of Bellows et al (US20200030057A1), hereinafter Bellows.
Regarding Claim 1, Cen discloses (Figs 1-4) a self-locking arrangement [Abstract] for a motor (1), the self-locking arrangement [Abstract discloses actuator], comprising:
an end cap (4) mounted on the motor (Fig 1); and
a friction ring (2) sleeved over a drive shaft (1) of the motor, wherein:
a notch (No) is provided on the friction ring, a limiting portion (Lt) is provided at an outer periphery (Fig 3, 8p) of the friction ring, and the end cap is fitted (Fig 2, 3g) with the limiting portion, so that the friction ring clasps the drive shaft in a case where the drive shaft rotates along a first direction [Para 0031 discloses “when the friction ring 2 is subjected to a force along the tangential direction of the motor shaft 1, the friction plate 5 can move together with the motor shaft 1 through the deformation of the connecting rib and undergo a slight displacement or a tendency to slightly displace relative to the original position, so that the friction force between the friction plate 5 and the motor shaft 1 along the tangential direction of the motor shaft 1 can be increased”]. Cen does not explicitly disclose the friction ring forms a C-shaped structure that has two ends, the notch is formed between the two ends of the C-shaped structure, and an inner circumferential surface of the friction ring that extends circumferentially from one end to the other end of the two ends is a continuous and complete arcuate friction surface.
Bellows discloses (Fig 3) the friction ring (18) forms a C-shaped structure (Fig 3) that has two ends (50,52) , the notch (190) is formed between the two ends of the C-shaped structure, and an inner circumferential surface (232,234) of the friction ring that extends circumferentially from one end to the other end of the two ends is a continuous and complete arcuate friction surface (Fig 3) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed self-locking arrangement of Cen modified by C shaped friction ring of Bellows in order to have a simple structure to apply frictional force at one location thereby reducing cost and complexity and improving reliability.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
563
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
544
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Cen in view of Bellows discloses the self-locking arrangement for a motor according to claim 1. Cen in view of Bellows does not disclose wherein at least two limiting portions are provided, the limiting portions being disposed on two sides of the notch, so that the friction ring clasps the drive shaft in a case where the drive shaft rotates along a second direction opposite the first direction.
Bellows further discloses(Fig 3) wherein at least two limiting portions (180, 182) are provided, the limiting portions being disposed on two sides of the notch (190), so that the friction ring (18) clasps the drive shaft (14) in a case where the drive shaft rotates along a second direction (friction is applied whether 28 rotates clockwise or anti-clockwise) opposite the first direction (there is relative motion between 28 and 14, so structure is equivalent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed self-locking arrangement of Cen in view of Bellows modified by two limiting portions as further taught by Bellows in order to have a simple structure to apply frictional force at one location irrespective of rotational direction thereby reducing cost and complexity and improving reliability.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cen in view of Bellows and Wang (CN203421132U English translation).
Regarding Claim 6, Cen in view of Bellows discloses the self-locking arrangement for a motor according to claim 1. Cen in view of Bellows does not explicitly disclose wherein a connecting element connecting two ends of the friction ring is provided at the notch .
Wang discloses (Fig 2) wherein a connecting element (4) connecting two ends (32,32) of the friction ring (3) is provided at the notch (No) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed self-locking arrangement of Cen in view of Bellows modified by connecting element of Wang in order to have a simple structure that can apply required frictional force on shaft.
PNG
media_image4.png
520
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Cen in view of Bellows and Wang discloses the self-locking arrangement for a motor according to claim 6. Cen in view of Bellows and Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the connecting element is a spring ; or, the connecting element is an elastic strip made of an elastic material; or, the connecting element is a rigid element passing through two ends of the friction ring; or, the connecting element and the friction ring are one-piece formed, a thickness of the connecting element being smaller than the thickness of the friction ring.
Wang further discloses wherein the connecting element is a spring ; or, the connecting element is an elastic strip made of an elastic material; or, the connecting element (4) is a rigid element (4 is a locking pin) passing through two ends (32,32) of the friction ring (3); or, the connecting element and the friction ring are one-piece formed, a thickness of the connecting element being smaller than the thickness of the friction ring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed self-locking arrangement of Cen in view of Bellows and Wang modified by rigid connecting element of Wang in order to have a simple structure that can apply required frictional force on shaft.
Regarding Claim 8, Cen in view of Bellows discloses the self-locking arrangement for a motor according to claim 1. Cen in view of Bellows further discloses wherein the limiting portion (Cen, Lt) is a raised portion (Fig 3) protruding from the outer periphery (8p) of the friction ring (2), and a catch portion (3g) fitted with the raised portion being provided on the end cap (4).
Regarding Claim 9, Cen in view of Bellows discloses the self-locking arrangement for a motor according to claim 8. Cen in view of Bellows further discloses wherein the raised portion (Cen,Lt) is a stop lever (Lt) and the catch portion is a snap groove (3g), the stop lever being snapped into the snap groove (Fig 2)[0034 discloses “The friction ring 2 is axially and circumferentially positioned relative to the shell 4 by engaging the positioning protrusion 3 with the positioning groove”].
Regarding Claim 10, Cen in view of Bellows discloses the self-locking arrangement for a motor according to claim 8. Cen in view of Bellows further discloses wherein a limiting sleeve (Fig 2, 4s) is provided in the end cap (4), the catch portion (3g) is provided on the limiting sleeve, and the friction ring (2, Lt) is snapped in the limiting sleeve (4s); or, a catch sleeve is sleeved outside the limiting portion, the catch sleeve being fitted with the catch portion.
Conclusion
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 VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834