DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶[0022], line 9, change “reduce” to –reduces--.
In ¶[0023], line 3, change “elements” to –elements’--.
In ¶[0024], line1 insert –a-- before “spring”. On line 3 change “bearings” to –bearings’--. On line 4, change “ball’s” to –balls—and change “driving” to –and drives--. On line 5, change “removing” to –to remove-- and change “taking” to –take--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-32 are 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.
In claims, the recitation “said compliant damping system adapted to absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion…” is vague and indefinite in scope. “Microscopic motion” lacks clear basis, and therefore “components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion” also lacks basis.
Claim 16 recites similar indefinite functional language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-12, 15-16, 19-23, 26-27 & 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US Pat.Pub.2008/0180775) in view of Suzuki (JP 2014-92170).
Regarding claim 1, Gill teaches a limited rotation motor system (galvanometric motor) comprising: a stator 30 within a housing 10;
a rotor 14 rotatably coupled within the stator 30 by a first bearing system 16 at a proximal end and a second bearing system 16 at a distal end, each of said first bearing system 16 and said second bearing system 16 being coupled at an inner side thereof to the rotor 14 and being coupled at an outer side thereof to the housing 10;
a compression system (spring) 54 applying a compressive force between the first bearing system 16 and the second bearing system 16 in an axial direction (i.e., coil spring pre-tensions or biases the rotor 14 in the axial direction; ¶[0037]; Fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gill does not further teach “a compliant damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said compliant damping system adapted to absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor [14] during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic].
But, Suzuki teaches a motor in which vibration of a rotor can be suppressed including a compliant damping system (elastic members) 101 adjacent a bearing system 51 and housing 21/23 (Fig.1). Suzuki’s elastic members 101 suppress the radial vibration of the rotor 81 and can more stably support the first ball bearing 51 with respect to the first bearing housing portion 25; English translation p.34, last three paragraphs).
PNG
media_image2.png
745
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Gill with “a compliant damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16] since Suzuki teaches the compliant damping system would have suppressed the radial vibration of the rotor and more stably supported the ball bearing with respect to the bearing housing. Regarding the compliant damping system’s function “to absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic], the combination teaches the claimed structure and Suzuki’s elastic members 101 placed adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 would inherently “absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion” [sic] due to the intrinsic elastic characteristics of nitrile rubber (Suzuki, p.33).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki’s compliant damping system includes an elastomeric washer 152 positioned between the housing 21/23 and bearing system 51 (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki’s compliant damping system includes at least one O-ring 101 positioned between the rotor and any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system (i.e., elastic member 101 is an O-ring; p.33).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki’s O-ring 101 is compressed (p.33).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki’s compliant damping system includes at least one O-ring 101 positioned between the housing 21/23 and the bearing system 51 (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki’s compliant damping system includes a plurality of (two) O-rings 101 adjacent the bearing system 51 (abstract; Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches the compliant damping system includes an annular elastomeric material 181 positioned between the rotor and bearing system 51 (Fig.9).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki’s compliant damping system includes an annular elastomeric material 101 (e.g., material which has elasticity, such as a rubber material, an elastomer, and another resin material; p.39) positioned between the housing 21/23 and first bearing system 51 (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki’s compliant damping system includes elastomeric material that is any of molded parts (encompassed by a material which has elasticity, such as a rubber material, an elastomer, and another resin material; p.39) installed…on the surface of other components of the system (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Gill teaches a limited rotation motor system (galvanometric motor) comprising:
a stator 30 within a housing 10;
a rotor 14 rotatably coupled within the stator 30 by a first bearing system 16 at a proximal end and a second bearing system 16 at a distal end, each of said first bearing system 16 and said second bearing system 16 being coupled at an inner side thereof to the rotor 14 and being coupled at an outer side thereof to the housing 10;
a compression system (spring) 54 applying a compressive force between the first bearing system 16 and the second bearing system 16 in an axial direction (i.e., coil spring pre-tensions or biases the rotor 14 in the axial direction; ¶[0037]; Fig.2).
Gill does not further teach “a compliant damping system between the rotor [14] and the housing [12] and providing that divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion are absorbed, wherein the damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic].
But, Suzuki teaches a motor in which vibration of a rotor can be suppressed including a compliant damping system (elastic members) 101 adjacent a bearing system 51 and housing 21/23 (Fig.1). Suzuki’s elastic members 101 suppress the radial vibration of the rotor 81 and can more stably support the first ball bearing 51 with respect to the first bearing housing portion 25 (English translation p.34, last three paragraphs).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Gill with a compliant damping system between the rotor and the housing since Suzuki teaches the compliant damping system would have suppressed the radial vibration of the rotor and more stably supported the ball bearing with respect to the bearing housing. Regarding the function of “providing that divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion are absorbed, wherein the damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic], the combination teaches the claimed structure and Suzuki’s elastic members 101 placed adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 would inherently “absorb” divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction “due to microscopic motion” [sic] due to the intrinsic elastic characteristics of nitrile rubber (Suzuki, p.33).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki’s damping system includes an elastomeric washer 152 positioned between the housing 21/23 and bearing system 51 (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki’s damping system includes at least one O-ring 101 positioned between the rotor and any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system (i.e., elastic member 101 is an O-ring; p.33).
Regarding claim 21, Suzuki’s O-ring 101 is compressed (p.33).
Regarding claim 22, Suzuki’s damping system includes at least one O-ring 101 positioned between the housing 21/23 and the bearing system 51 (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 23, Suzuki’s damping system includes a plurality of (two) O-rings 101 adjacent the bearing system 51 (abstract; Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 26, Suzuki teaches the damping system includes an annular elastomeric material 181 positioned between the rotor and bearing system 51 (Fig.9).
Regarding claim 27, Suzuki’s damping system includes an annular elastomeric material 101 (e.g., material which has elasticity, such as a rubber material, an elastomer, and another resin material; p.39) positioned between the housing 21/23 and first bearing system 51 (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 30, Suzuki’s damping system includes elastomeric material that is any of molded parts (encompassed by a material which has elasticity, such as a rubber material, an elastomer, and another resin material; p.39) installed…on the surface of other components of the system (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 31, as noted above with respect to corresponding apparatus claim 16,
Gill teaches all the features of the method except for “damping divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction by absorbing the divergent forces with a compliant elastomeric component between the rotor [14] and the housing [12], and constraining displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force.”
But, Suzuki teaches a motor in which vibration of a rotor can be suppressed including a damping system (elastic members) 101 between a rotor (i.e., rotor shaft) 82 and housing 21/23 (Fig.1). The elastic members 101 suppress the radial vibration of the rotor 81 and can more stably support the first ball bearing 51 with respect to the first bearing housing portion 25 (English translation p.34, last three paragraphs).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to dampen divergent forces in Gill with a compliant elastomeric component between the rotor and the housing since
Suzuki teaches such a compliant elastomeric component would have suppressed the radial vibration of the rotor and more stably supported the ball bearing with respect to the bearing housing. Further, Suzuki’s elastic members 101 placed adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 would have inherently dampened divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction and constrained displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force due to the intrinsic elastic characteristics of the annular O-rings, which comprise nitrile rubber (Suzuki, p.33).
Regarding claim 32, Suzuki’s elastomeric component includes an O-ring 101 or elastomeric washer 152.
Claims 1-3, 9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US Pat.Pub.2008/0180775) in view of Hamakita et al. (US Pat.Pub.2012/ 0111657).
Regarding claim 1, as noted in the preceding grounds of rejection, Gill teaches all the claimed features except for “a compliant damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said compliant damping system adapted to absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor [14] during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic].
But, Hamakita teaches an electric power steering system including a rotor (worm shaft) 20 and a compliant damping system comprising elastic member (elastic members) 63/67 adjacent bearing system 31, said compliant damping system adapted to absorb divergent components of forces…that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion, i.e., when the worm shaft 20 vibrates relative to the housing 70 in the axial direction S1, the elastic members 63 and 67 elastically deform to damp and absorb the vibration (¶[0045]; Fig.2).
PNG
media_image3.png
531
726
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Gill with a compliant damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system, said compliant damping system adapted to absorb divergent components of force that “diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion” [sic] since Hamakita teaches the damping system would have dampened and absorbed vibration. Regarding the compliant damping system’s function of “absorbing the compressive force…wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic], the combination teaches the claimed structure and Hamakita’s elastic members 63/67 adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 would inherently “absorb” divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction “due to microscopic motion” [sic] due to their intrinsic elastic characteristics (i.e., the annular elastic members comprise an elastic material such as rubber; ¶[0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Hamakita teaches the damping system includes an elastomeric washer (elastic member) 67 positioned between a rotor (worm shaft) 20 and a first bearing system 31 (Figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 3, Hamakita’s elastomeric washer (elastic member) 67 is positioned between a shoulder 42 on the rotor (worm shaft) 20 and an inner race 31a of the first bearing system 31 (Figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Hamakita teaches the damping system includes a cross-sectionally L-shaped elastomeric material (elastic member unit) 34 positioned between the rotor (worm shaft) 20 and the bearing system 31 (¶[0031]; Figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Hamakita teaches the damping system includes an annular elastomeric material (elastic member) 67 positioned between the rotor (worm shaft) 20 and the bearing system 31 (¶[0044]; Figs.2-3).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill & Suzuki as applied to claim 16, further in view of Hamakita.
The compliant damping system Gill & Suzuki does not further include “an elastomeric washer positioned between the rotor and any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system” (claim 17).
But, Hamakita teaches an electric power steering system including an elastomeric washer (elastic member) 67 positioned between a rotor (worm shaft) 20 and a first bearing system 31 (Figs.2-3). When the worm shaft 20 vibrates relative to the housing 70 in the axial direction S1, the elastic member 67 elastically deforms to damp and absorb the vibration (¶[0045]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Gill & Suzuki with an elastomeric washer positioned between the rotor and any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system since Hamakita teaches this would have damped and absorbed the vibration of the rotor.
Regarding claim 18, Hamakita’s elastomeric washer (elastic member) 67 is positioned between a shoulder 42 on the rotor (worm shaft) 20 and an inner race 31a of the first bearing system 31 (Figs.2-3).
Claims 9 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill & Suzuki as applied to claims 1 & 16, further in view of Eda et al. (US Pat.Pub.2004/0245040).
The compliant damping system of Gill & Suzuki does not further include “a cross-sectionally L-shaped elastomeric material positioned between the rotor and any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system” (claims 9 & 24).
But, Eda teaches an electric power steering device including a cross-sectionally L-shaped elastomeric material (elastic member) 60 positioned between the rotor (worm shaft) 2 and a first bearing system 3, to allow (¶[0064]-¶[0065]; Figs.3-4). The elastomeric material allows the rotor to move slightly in the axial direction within a limit of elasticity of the elastic member to reduce impact and noise (¶[0019], ¶[0022]).
PNG
media_image4.png
441
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the compliant damping system of Gill & Suzuki with a cross-sectionally L-shaped elastomeric material positioned between the rotor and any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system since Eda teaches this would have allowed the rotor to move slightly in the axial direction within a limit of elasticity of the elastic member to reduce impact and noise.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 12, 15-17, 19, 25, 27 & 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill and Horng et al. (US Pat.Pub.2019/0115799).
As noted above with respect to claims 1 & 16, Gill teaches all the claimed features except for “a compliant damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said compliant damping system adapted to absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic] (claim 1) and “a compliant damping system between the rotor [14] and the housing [12] and providing that divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion are absorbed, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic] (claim 16). Similarly, regarding method claim 31, Gill teaches all the features of the method except for “damping divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction by absorbing the divergent forces with a compliant elastomeric component between the rotor [14] and the housing [12], and constraining displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force.”
But, Horng teaches a bearing assembly with a compliant damping system (L-shaped rubber ring) 134 adjacent a bearing system 13, said compliant damping system providing that divergent forces are absorbed by the damping system (i.e., rubber ring reduces vibration; ¶[0015], ¶[0062]; Fig.3). Horng’s damping system (rubber ring) 134 is also between the rotor (shaft) 2 and the housing (bearing seat) 1 (Fig.3).
PNG
media_image5.png
544
495
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Gill with a damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system, or between the rotor and the housing, since Horng teaches a damping system would have provided a vibration reduction effect. Further, regarding the claimed functions, Horng’s L-shaped rubber ring adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 would inherently “absorb” divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction “due to microscopic motion” [sic] because of the elastic characteristics of rubber.
Regarding claims 2 & 17, Horng’s damping system includes an elastomeric washer (rubber ring) 134 positioned between the rotor (shaft) 2 and bearing system 13 (Fig.3).
Regarding claims 4 & 19, Horng’s damping system includes an elastomeric washer (rubber ring) 134 positioned between the housing 1 and bearing system 13 (Fig.3).
Regarding claims 10 & 25, Horng’s damping system includes a cross-sectionally L-shaped elastomeric material (L-shaped rubber ring) 134 positioned between the housing 1 and bearing system 13 (Fig.3).
Regarding claims 12 & 27, Horng’s damping system includes an annular elastomeric material (rubber ring) 134 positioned between the housing 1 and bearing system 13 (Fig.3).
Regarding claims 15 & 30, Horng’s damping system includes elastomeric material that is any of molded parts (rubber ring) 134 installed…on the surface of other components of the system (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 32, Horng’s elastomeric component (L-shaped rubber ring) 134 includes an L-shaped elastomeric material (Fig.3).
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, 19-23 & 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (US 7,629,714) in view of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Toyama teaches a limited rotation motor system (rocking actuator) comprising:
a stator (coil/yoke) 33/34 within a housing (bearing housings 22/26 and casing 41);
a rotor (rotating shaft/magnet) 20/30 rotatably coupled within the stator by a first bearing system 21 at a proximal end and a second bearing system 25 at a distal end, each of said first bearing system 25 and said second bearing system 21 being coupled at an inner side thereof to the rotor 20/30 and being coupled at an outer side thereof to the housing;
a compression system (waved washer) 23 applying a compressive force between the first bearing system 25 and the second bearing system 21 in an axial direction (i.e., waved washer 23 urges an outer ring of the ball bearing 21 to the right in FIG. 1 so as to preload the ball bearing 21; c.4:33-35; Fig.1).
PNG
media_image6.png
584
774
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Toyama does not further teach “a compliant damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said compliant damping system adapted to absorb divergent components of forces of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic].
But, Suzuki teaches a motor in which vibration of a rotor can be suppressed including a compliant damping system (elastic members) 101 adjacent a bearing system 51 and housing 21/23 (Fig.1). Suzuki’s elastic members 101 suppress the radial vibration of the rotor 81 and can more stably support the first ball bearing 51 with respect to the first bearing housing portion 25 (English translation p.34, last three paragraphs).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Toyama with “a compliant damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16] since Suzuki teaches the compliant damping system would have suppressed the radial vibration of the rotor and more stably supported the ball bearing with respect to the bearing housing. Regarding the compliant damping system’s function “to absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic], the combination teaches the claimed structure and Suzuki’s elastic members 101 placed adjacent Toyama’s preloaded first bearing system would inherently “absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion” [sic] due to the elastic members’ intrinsic elastic characteristics (they comprise, e.g., annular O-rings of nitrile rubber; Suzuki, p.33).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki’s damping system includes an elastomeric washer 152 positioned between the housing 21/23 and bearing system 51 (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki’s damping system includes at least one O-ring 101 positioned between the rotor and any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system (i.e., elastic member 101 is an O-ring; p.33).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki’s O-ring 101 is compressed (p.33).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki’s damping system includes at least one O-ring 101 positioned between the housing 21/23 and the bearing system 51 (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki’s damping system includes a plurality of (two) O-rings 101 adjacent the bearing system 51 (abstract; Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches the damping system includes an annular elastomeric material 181 positioned between the rotor and bearing system 51 (Fig.9).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki’s damping system includes an annular elastomeric material 101 (e.g., material which has elasticity, such as a rubber material, an elastomer, and another resin material; p.39) positioned between the housing 21/23 and first bearing system 51 (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 13, in Toyama the compressive force is provided by a spring (waved washer) 23 against a retainer ring (collars) 27, 32 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 14, in Toyama the compressive force is provided by the spring (waved washer) 23 at the “distal” [sic] (i.e., proximal) end of the first bearing system 21 against the retaining ring (collars) 27, 32 of the second bearing system 25 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki’s damping system includes elastomeric material that is any of molded parts (encompassed by a material which has elasticity, such as a rubber material, an elastomer, and another resin material; p.39) installed…on the surface of other components of the system (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 16, as noted above with respect to claim 1, Toyama teaches all the corresponding features except for “a compliant damping system between the rotor [rotating shaft/magnet 20/30] and the housing [bearing housings 22/26 and casing 41] and providing that divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion are absorbed, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic].
But, Suzuki teaches a motor in which vibration of a rotor can be suppressed including a compliant damping system (elastic members) 101 adjacent a bearing system 51 and housing 21/23 (Fig.1). Suzuki’s elastic members 101 suppress the radial vibration of the rotor 81 and can more stably support the first ball bearing 51 with respect to the first bearing housing portion 25 (English translation p.34, last three paragraphs).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Toyama with a compliant damping system between the rotor and the housing since Suzuki teaches the compliant damping system would have suppressed the radial vibration of the rotor and more stably supported the ball bearing with respect to the bearing housing. Regarding the function of “providing that divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion are absorbed, wherein the damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic], the combination teaches the claimed structure and Suzuki’s elastic members 101 placed adjacent Toyama’s preloaded first bearing system would inherently “absorb” divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction “due to microscopic motion” [sic] due to the elastic members’ intrinsic elastic characteristics (they comprise, e.g., annular O-rings of nitrile rubber; Suzuki, p.33).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki’s damping system includes an elastomeric washer 152 positioned between the housing 21/23 and bearing system 51 (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki’s damping system includes at least one O-ring 101 positioned between the rotor and any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system (i.e., elastic member 101 is an O-ring; p.33).
Regarding claim 21, Suzuki’s O-ring 101 is compressed (p.33).
Regarding claim 22, Suzuki’s damping system includes at least one O-ring 101 positioned between the housing 21/23 and the bearing system 51 (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 23, Suzuki’s damping system includes a plurality of (two) O-rings 101 adjacent the bearing system 51 (abstract; Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 26, Suzuki teaches the damping system includes an annular elastomeric material 181 positioned between the rotor and bearing system 51 (Fig.9).
Regarding claim 27, Suzuki’s damping system includes an annular elastomeric material 101 (e.g., material which has elasticity, such as a rubber material, an elastomer, and another resin material; p.39) positioned between the housing 21/23 and first bearing system 51 (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 28, in Toyama the compressive force is provided by a spring (waved washer) 23 against a retainer ring (collars) 27, 32 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 29, in Toyama the compressive force is provided by the spring (waved washer) 23 at the “distal” [sic] (i.e., proximal) end of the first bearing system 21 against the retaining ring (collars) 27, 32 of the second bearing system 25 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 30, Suzuki’s damping system includes elastomeric material that is any of molded parts (encompassed by a material which has elasticity, such as a rubber material, an elastomer, and another resin material; p.39) installed…on the surface of other components of the system (Figs.1-2).
Regarding claim 31, as noted above with respect to corresponding apparatus claim 16, Toyoma teaches all the features of the method except for “damping divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction by absorbing the divergent forces with a compliant elastomeric component between the rotor [rotating shaft/magnet 20/30] and the housing [bearing housings 22/26 and casing 41], and constraining displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic].
But, Suzuki teaches a motor in which vibration of a rotor can be suppressed including a damping system (elastic members) 101 between a rotor (i.e., rotor shaft) 82 and housing 21/23 and providing that divergent forces that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system (i.e., elastic members 101 suppress the radial vibration of the rotor 81 and can more stably support the first ball bearing 51 with respect to the first bearing housing portion 25; English translation p.34, last three paragraphs).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to dampen divergent forces that diverge from the axial direction in Toyoma by absorbing the divergent forces with an elastomeric component between the rotor and the housing since Suzuki teaches this would have suppressed the radial vibration of the rotor and more stably supported the ball bearing with respect to the bearing housing. Further, Suzuki’s elastic members 101 placed adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 would have inherently dampened divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction and constrained displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force due to the intrinsic elastic characteristics of the annular O-rings, which comprise nitrile rubber (Suzuki, p.33).
Regarding claim 32, Suzuki’s elastomeric component includes an O-ring 101 or elastomeric washer 152.
Claims 1, 12 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (US Pat.Pub.2008/0180775) in view of Klement (GB 2102512).
Regarding claim 1, Gill teaches a limited rotation motor system (galvanometric motor) comprising:
a stator 30 within a housing 10;
a rotor 14 rotatably coupled within the stator 30 by a first bearing system 16 at a proximal end and a second bearing system 16 at a distal end, each of said first bearing system 16 and said second bearing system 16 being coupled at an inner side thereof to the rotor 14 and being coupled at an outer side thereof to the housing 10;
a compression system (spring) 54 applying a compressive force between the first bearing system 16 and the second bearing system 16 in an axial direction (i.e., coil spring pre-tensions or biases the rotor 14 in the axial direction; ¶[0037]; Fig.2).
Gill does not further teach “a compliant damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said compliant damping system adapted to absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor [14] during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic].
But, Klement teaches a rotary bearing system including a compliant damping system (resilient filling mass) 8 adjacent any of a first bearing system 7 and a second bearing system 7, said compliant damping system providing that divergent forces are absorbed by the damping system (i.e., the resilient filling mass dampens noise and allows the bearings 7 to deviate resiliently in directions of movement A & B; p.1:46-50 & 113-116; Figs.1-2).
PNG
media_image7.png
336
471
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Gill with a damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system since Klement teaches the damping system would have dampened noise and allowed the bearings to deviate resiliently. Regarding the compliant damping system’s function “to absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion, wherein the compliant damping system constrains displacement of the rotor during limited rotation irrespective of the compressive force” [sic], the combination teaches the claimed structure and Klement’s elastic members (resilient filling mass) 8 placed adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 would inherently “absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion” [sic] due to the resiliency of the filling mass, which is a silicon rubber for example (Klement; p.1:84-85).
Regarding claim 12, Klement’s damping system includes an annular elastomeric material positioned between the housing 2 and the bearing systems 7 (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 15, Klement teaches the damping system includes elastomeric material (resilient filling mass) 8 that is any of molded parts installed, or formed in place, or over-molded feature on the surface of other components of the system (i.e., by injection moulding; c.1:31-40 & 50-54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not distinguish any structural differences but instead argues the references used in the combinations do not teach or suggest reduction of internal pre-load derived microscopic motion resulting from divergent compressive forces and, as a consequence of failing to address this particular problem, are non-analogous art (Response, p.9). These arguments are not persuasive because the structure of the combinations intrinsically performs the claimed functions and the references are all analogous art according to the standard set forth in MPEP 2141.01.
Rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 11-12, 15-16, 19-23, 26-27 & 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gill in view of Suzuki
Specifically, regarding Suzuki, Applicant argues Suzuki’s elastic members suppress rotor vibration reaching the housing, not forces that originate from the axial preload path under microscopic motion of the rotating shaft (Response, pp.9-10).
This is not persuasive. Per MPEP 2144 (IV) the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, even though the combination may not explicitly teach absorbing preload-derived divergences, the structure of the combination inherently performs the claimed functions since Suzuki teaches a compliant damping system including, e.g., an elastomeric washer 152 positioned between the housing 21/23 and bearing system 51 (Fig.6) corresponding to the compliant damping system of claim 4, or O-rings 101 positioned between the rotor and any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system (Figs.1-2) corresponding to the compliant damping system of claims 5-8. When Suzuki’s compliant damping system elements are placed between Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 and housing 10, the intrinsic elastic characteristics of Suzuki’s compliant damping members enable them to “absorb divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction due to microscopic motion” [sic].
Per MPEP 2114(I), after the Office explains that the prior art inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus, the burden shifts to Applicant to establish the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. Applicant fails to meet this burden. Suzuki’s structure cannot be viewed piecemeal but in combination with Gill. Applicant also fails to consider the functional implications of Suzuki’s elastic members when placed between Gill’s preloaded first bearing system and housing.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Suzuki is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as noted previously on pp.20-21 of the Final Office Action, Gill is directed to a "Galvanometric Motor with Optical Position Detection Device" (title) and Suzuki is directed to a "Motor" (title). Both references are in the field of electric motors, which is within the field of the inventor's endeavor of "motor system[s]".
Further, Suzuki is directed to suppression of rotor vibration (abstract), which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of vibration reduction of the bearing system of the invention (¶[0022], ¶[0033]). In response to the “particular problem test” that Applicant proposes as the “proper test” for determining analogous art, per MPEP 2141.01(a)(I), the “‘same field’ of endeavor’ and ‘reasonably pertinent’ [tests] are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Applicant argues modification to Gill’s “precision” galvanometer within the preload path with elastomeric rings of Suzuki or Horng or gear-shock absorbers of Hamakita or Eda would “compromise axial stiffness” (Response, p.12). But, Applicant provides no evidence for this assertion or any basis for “compromised axial stiffness”. Moreover, Applicant presumes Suzuki, Horng, Hamakita & Eda are not “precision” devices. But, no evidence is given for this presumption.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 9 & 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gill in view of Hamakita
Applicant argues in a similar manner to the previous grounds of rejection that one of ordinary skill would not look to modify Gill’s limited rotation motor system with Hamakita’s damping system since the latter is directed to an electronic power steering with worm-gear disclosures where elastomers absorb axial shocks and gear-induced vibrations, not preload-generate microscopic motion from divergent components of compressive forces in a highly precise, limited-rotation motor (Response, pp.9-10).
As noted, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, even though the combination may not explicitly teach absorbing preload-derived divergences, the structure of the combination inherently performs the claimed functions since Hamakita’s elastic members 63/67 comprise an elastic material such as rubber (¶[0042]). When placed adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16, they would inherently “absorb” divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction “due to microscopic motion” [sic].
In response to Applicant's argument that Hamakita’s electronic power steering system is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as noted previously on pp.22-23 of the Final Office Action, the invention is generally directed to “a motor system…” (¶[0002]). Likewise, Gill is directed to a “Galvanometric Motor with Optical Position Detection Device” (title) and Hamakita is directed to an “electric power steering system” (title) comprising an electric motor (¶[0005]). Both references are in the field of electric motors, which is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor of “motor system[s]”. Further, Hamakita is directed to elastic members that absorb vibration of a worm shaft 20 driven by electric motor 18 (abstract; ¶[0045]; Fig.1), which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of vibration reduction of the bearing system of the invention (¶[0022], ¶[0033]).
Rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 10, 12, 15-17, 19, 25, 27 & 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gill and Horng
As noted above, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, even though the combination may not explicitly teach absorbing preload-derived divergences, the structure of the combination of Horng’s L-shaped rubber ring adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 would inherently “absorb” divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction “due to microscopic motion” [sic] because of the elastic characteristics of rubber.
In response to Applicant's argument that Horng’s continuous-duty motor is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as noted previously on p.23 of the Final Office Action, the invention is generally directed to “a motor system…” (¶[0002]). Likewise, Gill is directed to a “Galvanometric Motor with Optical Position Detection Device” (title) and Horng is directed to a “bearing assembly and motor including the same” (title). Both references are in the field of electric motors, which is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor of “motor system[s]”. Further, Horng is directed to resilient materials to absorb vibration caused by imbalance and bearing play, which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of vibration reduction of the bearing system of the invention (¶[0022], ¶[0033]).
Rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, 19-23 & 26-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Toyama in view of Suzuki
See the response to arguments against Gill & Suzuki above, which apply in a similar manner to Toyama & Suzuki.
Rejection of claims 1, 12 & 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gill in view of Klement
As noted above, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, even though the combination may not explicitly teach absorbing preload-derived divergences, the structure of the combination of Klement’s resilient filling mass 8 adjacent Gill’s preloaded first bearing system 16 would inherently “absorb” divergent components of the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction “due to microscopic motion” [sic] because of the elastic characteristics of silicon rubber (Klement; p.1:84-85).
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill would not look to modify Gill’s limited rotation motor system with Klement’s damping system since the latter is directed to a drive mechanism for an air circulation blower of a baking oven (Response, p.10). In response, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the invention is generally directed to “a motor system…” (¶[0002]). Likewise, Gill is directed to a “Galvanometric Motor with Optical Position Detection Device” (title) and Klement is directed to an electric motor for an air circulation blower (abstract). Both references are in the field of electric motors, which is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor of “motor system[s]”. Further, Klement is directed to a “resiliently yielding” or elastic bearing element that dampens noise (p.1:46-50), which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of vibration reduction of the bearing system of the invention (¶[0022], ¶[0033]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights