DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 17 October 2025 are accepted.
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 damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system” [sic].
But, Suzuki teaches a motor in which vibration of a rotor can be suppressed including a damping system (elastic members) 101 adjacent a bearing system 51 (Fig.1), said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force 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).
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 damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system, said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system since Suzuki teaches the 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 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 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, 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 damping system between the rotor [14] and the housing [12] and providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system” [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 resulting from the compressive force 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 provide Gill with a damping system between the rotor and the housing providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system since Suzuki teaches the 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 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 an elastomeric component between the rotor [14] and the housing [12].”
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 resulting from the compressive force 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 resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction in Gill 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. 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 damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system” [sic].
But, Hamakita teaches an electric power steering system including a rotor (worm shaft) 20 and a damping system comprising elastic member (elastic members) 63/67 adjacent bearing system 31, said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system (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 damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system, said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system since Hamakita teaches the damping system would have dampened and absorbed vibration
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 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 damping system 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 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 damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system” [sic] (claim 1) and “a damping system between the rotor [14] and the housing [12] and providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system” [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 an elastomeric component between the rotor [14] and the housing [12].”
But, Horng teaches a bearing assembly with a damping system (L-shaped rubber ring) 134 adjacent a bearing system 13, said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction 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, such that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system since Horng teaches a damping system would have provided a vibration reduction effect. Similarly, it would also have been obvious before the effective filing date to dampen divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction in Gill by absorbing the divergent forces with an elastomeric component between the rotor and the housing since Horng’s damping system would have provided a vibration reduction effect. 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 damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system” [sic].
But, Suzuki teaches a motor in which vibration of a rotor can be suppressed including a damping system (elastic members) 101 adjacent a bearing system 51 (Fig.1), said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force 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 provide Toyama with a damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system and the second bearing system, said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system since Suzuki teaches the 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 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 damping system between the rotor [rotating shaft/magnet 20/30] and the housing [bearing housings 22/26 and casing 41] and providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system” [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 resulting from the compressive force 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 provide Toyama with a damping system between the rotor and the housing providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system since Suzuki teaches the 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 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 an elastomeric component between the rotor [rotating shaft/magnet 20/30] and the housing [bearing housings 22/26 and casing 41].”
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 resulting from the compressive force 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 resulting from the compressive force 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. 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 damping system adjacent any of the first bearing system [16] and the second bearing system [16], said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system” [sic].
But, Klement teaches a rotary bearing system including a damping system (resilient filling mass) 8 adjacent any of a first bearing system 7 and a second bearing system 7, said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction 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, said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system since Klement teaches the damping system would have dampened noise and allowed the bearings to deviate resiliently.
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 17 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill would not modify Gill because Suzuki is directed to a continuous duty motor whereas Gill is directed to a limited rotation motor (Response, p.11).
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, 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 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 applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Suzuki (not the Examiner) explicitly states that the damping system comprising elastic members 101 “absorb vibrations in the radial direction of the rotor 81” and “suppress the radial vibration of the roto 81 from being transmitted to the motor case 11…” (English translation p.34, third to last paragraph). Suzuki also teaches the elastic members 101 “can stably support the first ball bearing 51 with respect to the first bearing housing portion 25” (ibid., second to last paragraph) and that they “apply a load from the first inner ring 53 to the first outer ring 52…[and] more stably support the first ball bearing 51 with respect to the first bearing housing portion 25” (ibid., last paragraph). Thus, as noted in the rejection, 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, said damping system providing that divergent forces resulting from the compressive force that diverge from the axial direction are absorbed by the damping system since Suzuki teaches such a damping system would have suppressed the radial vibration of the rotor and more stably supported the ball bearing with respect to the bearing housing.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 9 & 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gill in view of Hamakita
Applicant argues 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 a vehicle power steering system (Response, p.12).
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 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
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill would not look to modify Gill’s limited rotation motor system with Horng’s damping system since the latter is directed to a bearing assembly for a continuous duty electric motor (Response, p.13).
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 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
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill would not look to modify Toyama’s limited rotation motor system with Susuki’s damping system since the latter is directed to a continuous duty electric motor (Response, p.14).
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, Toyama is directed to a “Rocking Actuator and Laser Machining Apparatus” (title) comprising an electric motor, i.e., an actuator with a coil as a stator and a permanent magnet as a movable element (c.1:5-10) 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, Toyama is directed to suppression of torsional vibration (c.3:66-c.4:1) and Suzuki is directed to suppression of rotor vibration (abstract), which are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of vibration reduction of the bearing system of the invention (¶[0022], ¶[0033]).
Rejection of claims 1, 12 & 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gill in view of Klement
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.15).
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
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 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