DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 13 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Examiner’s Comment on Proper Multiple Dependent Claim 11
Claim 11 is a multiple dependent claim. The language used -- “wherein the electrical machine unit (100) further comprises a sensor holder (130) according to any one of the preceding claims” (emphasis added -- instant claim 11; starting in line 5) -- is an acceptable recitation of multiple dependency (MPEP 608.01(n) I. A. 2nd example).
Please note that the Fee Worksheet of record 01/25/2024 is incorrect as it states 2 independent claims and 13 total claims. However, there is only a single independent claim and 31 total claims (claims 12 depend from multiple dependent claims 11).
The proper fees regarding multiple dependent claims and the proper number of claims is required as set forth on 01/10/2024.
Claims 1-10, 11(1-10), 12(1-10) and 13 will be examined as recited.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12(1-10) are objected to because of the following informalities: these dependent claims begin with “Sensor holder” or “Electric machine unit”.
These recitations should be “The sensor holder …” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11(1-10) and 13 are further objected to because of the following informalities: there appear to be many repeated limitations (at least the rotor / stator / fan recitations) when considered with the multiple claims from which claim 11 depends.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1 (with dependent claims 2-13), the phrase "in particular" in the final line of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Specifically, the final indent reads “wherein the second sensor housing part (136) is configured to receive a temperature sensor (142) for measuring a temperature of the electrical machine (110), in particular in the vicinity of the fan (118).” (emphasis added).
It is unclear if the term “in the vicinity of the fan” is 1) required; 2) some form of an alternative or 3) exemplary and not to be given weight.
As best understood for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution this term will be considered exemplary and not given weight.
However, positive in claim recitation of concrete metes and bounds applicant intends to claim is required.
Claims 3 and 9 also contain indefinite limitations “an elongate, in particular cylindrical, sleeve” and “the busbars (143), are surrounded, in particular overmolded, by a part” (emphasis added) respectively.
As above, it is unclear if these terms are: 1) required; 2) some form of an alternative or 3) exemplary and not to be given weight.
As best understood for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution these terms will be considered exemplary and not given weight.
However, positive in claim recitation of concrete metes and bounds applicant intends to claim is required.
Further, claim 3 recites “sleeve (138) into which the temperature sensor (142) can be inserted” (emphasis added). This is an indefinite recitation as it is unclear if the temperature sensor must be in the sleeve for the claim to be infringed.
Does this limitation require 1) a sleeve configured to hold the temperature sensor; OR 2) a sleeve into which the temperature IS inserted.
As best understood, for purpose of examination and in order to expedite prosecution this limitation will be considered as “sleeve (138) configured to hold the temperature sensor (142)” or the like.
However, positive in claim recitation of concrete metes and bounds applicant intends to claim is required.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Applicant’s assistance in regularizing the claims for US practice is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 10, 11(1, 2, 3, 4, 10) and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp et al (US 20240142313; hereinafter Kopp) in view of Radford et al. (US 20220407374; hereinafter Radford).
Regarding claim 1, Kopp teaches a sensor holder (130) for use with an electrical machine unit (100), the electrical machine unit (100) comprising an electrical machine (110) having a rotor (112), a stator (116) (abstract; [0021]; see figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the sensor holder (130) comprises a first sensor housing portion (132) and a second sensor housing portion (136) ([0025] “The housing 10 thus comprises an inductive position sensor 30 and a temperature sensor 40.”; [0021] “inductive technology sensor 30, to measure the position of a rotating element”; see fig. 2 showing these housing portions holding the rotation sensor 30 and temperature sensor 40 respectively),
wherein the first sensor housing part (132) is configured to receive a rotor position sensor (140) (see fig. 2 showing this configuration), and
wherein the second sensor housing part (136) is configured to receive a temperature sensor (142) for measuring a temperature of the electrical machine (110) ([0039-40] teaches measuring the temperature of the machine; see fig. 2 showing this configuration).
Kopp does not directly and specifically state that the electrical machine has a fan (118), and a power converter (120) for the electrical machine (110), the power converter (120) being attached to the electrical machine (110) and that the temperature sensor is in particular in the vicinity of the fan (118) (see 112b section above regarding this indefinite limitation).
However, Radford teaches an electrical machine/motor (abstract) having “a rotor … a stator … a terminal box for connecting input power, a cooling fan, a rotor position sensor, temperature sensors” ([0018]) as well as “a power converter” ([0019]) which are considered conventional (see [0018] and fig. 1 teaching that these elements are known in related art) as is the use of the electric machine/motor in vehicles ([0019]) and where the portions are part of the machine as a whole and will necessarily be in less than a predetermined distance from the fan which is also a constituent portion of the machine (at least based on the size of the machine).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the machine of Kopp with the conventionally known electric machine portions of Radford. This is because such portions of an electric machine are well known and allow the machine to function appropriately and as desired. This is important in order to provide known electric machine functionality to a specifically designed electric machine to meet end user requirements.
Regarding claim 2, Kopp teaches that the first sensor housing part (132) has a cylindrical recess (134) into which the rotor position sensor (140) can be inserted (see fig. 2 showing that the housing for the position sensor 30 has a cylindrical recess).
Regarding claim 3, Kopp teaches that the second sensor housing part (136) has an elongate, in particular cylindrical (see 112b section above regarding this indefinite limitation), sleeve (138) into which the temperature sensor (142) can be (see 112b section above regarding this indefinite limitation) inserted (see fig. 2 showing the housing for the temperature sensor has an elongate sleeve with the temperature sensor 40 therein; see also [0021-25]).
Regarding claim 4, Kopp teaches that an axis (R1) of the cylindrical recess (134) of the first sensor housing part and an axis (R2) of the elongated sleeve (138) of the second sensor housing part form a non-zero angle (a) with each other (see figs. 1 and 2 showing an axis of the cylindrical recess with the position sensor 30 and an axis of the temperature sensor sleeve are at a non-zero angle – see especially fig. 2 showing that many pairs of axes exist at an angle with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 10, Kopp teaches that the first sensor housing part (132) and the second sensor housing part (136) are integrally formed with each other (see figs. 1 and 2 showing this configuration).
Regarding claims 11, depending from claims 1-4 and 10, Kopp teaches electric machine unit (100), the electric machine unit comprising an electric machine (110) having a rotor (112), a stator (116) (abstract; [0021]; see figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the electrical machine unit (100) further comprises a sensor holder (130) according to any one of the preceding claims (see treatment of claims 1-4 and 10 above),
wherein the sensor holder (130) is arranged in or on the electrical machine unit (110) such that the rotor position sensor (140) can be arranged or is arranged in the first sensor housing part (132) such that the rotor position sensor (140) lies at least substantially on an axis of rotation (R) of the rotor (112) ([0025] “The housing 10 thus comprises an inductive position sensor 30”; [0021] “inductive technology sensor 30, to measure the position of a rotating element”; see fig. 2 showing this housing portion holding the rotation sensor 30 such that it is configured to be on the axis of rotation of the rotor it measures), and
in that the temperature sensor (142) can be arranged or is arranged in the second sensor housing part (136) ([0025] “The housing 10 thus comprises … a temperature sensor 40.”; see fig. 2 showing the housing portion holding the temperature sensor 40; see also [0021]).
Kopp does not directly and specifically state regarding a fan (118), a power converter (120) for the electric machine, wherein the power converter (120) is attached to the electric machine (110), and that the second housing part is arranged in such a way that the temperature sensor (142) is less than a predetermined distance (d) away from the fan (118).
However, Radford teaches an electrical machine/motor (abstract) having “a rotor … a stator … a terminal box for connecting input power, a cooling fan, a rotor position sensor, temperature sensors” ([0018]) as well as “a power converter” ([0019]) which are considered conventional (see [0018] and fig. 1 teaching that these elements are known in related art) as is the use of the electric machine/motor in vehicles ([0019]) and where the portions are part of the machine as a whole and will necessarily be in less than a predetermined distance from the fan which is also a constituent portion of the machine (at least based on the size of the machine).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the machine of Kopp with the conventionally known electric machine portions of Radford. This is because such portions of an electric machine are well known and allow the machine to function appropriately and as desired. This is important in order to provide known electric machine functionality to a specifically designed electric machine to meet end user requirements.
Regarding claim 13, Kopp teaches a method (see at least [0014-17]) of using a sensor holder (130) according to claim 1 (see treatment of claim 1 above) with an electrical machine unit (100), wherein the electrical machine unit comprises an electrical machine having a rotor, a stator (abstract; [0021]; see figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the sensor holder (130) is or is arranged in or on the electrical machine unit (100) such that the rotor position sensor (140) can be or is arranged in the first sensor housing part (132) such that the rotor position sensor lies at least substantially on an axis of rotation of the rotor ([0025] “The housing 10 thus comprises an inductive position sensor 30”; [0021] “inductive technology sensor 30, to measure the position of a rotating element”; see fig. 2 showing this housing portion holding the rotation sensor 30 such that it is configured to be on the axis of rotation of the rotor it measures), and
that the temperature sensor (142) can be or is arranged in the second sensor housing part (134) ([0025] “The housing 10 thus comprises … a temperature sensor 40.”; see fig. 2 showing the housing portion holding the temperature sensor 40; see also [0021]).
Kopp does not directly and specifically state regarding a fan, and a power converter for the electrical machine, wherein the power converter is attached to the electrical machine and that the second housing part is arranged such that the temperature sensor is less than a predetermined distance away from the fan.
However, Radford teaches an electrical machine/motor (abstract) having “a rotor … a stator … a terminal box for connecting input power, a cooling fan, a rotor position sensor, temperature sensors” ([0018]) as well as “a power converter” ([0019]) which are considered conventional (see [0018] and fig. 1 teaching that these elements are known in related art) as is the use of the electric machine/motor in vehicles ([0019]) and where the portions are part of the machine as a whole and will necessarily be in less than a predetermined distance from the fan which is also a constituent portion of the machine (at least based on the size of the machine).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the machine of Kopp with the conventionally known electric machine portions of Radford. This is because such portions of an electric machine are well known and allow the machine to function appropriately and as desired. This is important in order to provide known electric machine functionality to a specifically designed electric machine to meet end user requirements.
Claims 12 depending from claims 11 which depend from claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp et al. (US 20240142313; hereinafter Kopp) as modified by Radford et al. (US 20220407374; hereinafter Radford) as applied to claims 1-4, 10, 11(1, 2, 3, 4 and 10) above respectively and further in view of Adra (US 20070069667).
Regarding claims 12 depending from claims 11 which depend from claims 1-4 and 10, Kopp lacks direct and specific teaching that the electric machine unit (100) according to claims 11 (1, 2, 3, 4 and 10) is configured as a traction drive of a vehicle or as a boost-recuperation machine.
However, Adra teaches an electric motor (abstract) having at least a power converter (abstract), a temperature sensor and a position sensor ([0038]) where the “electric motor 20 is illustrated as a drive for one or more traction devices” ([0025]; see also [0050]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric machine unit with a sensor holder of Kopp with the electric machine/motor configured as a traction drive of a vehicle of Adra. This is because such use of the electric machine as a traction drive allows for moving a vehicle. This is important in order to provide specific use for the electric machine desirable to a set of end users.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, claims 11 (5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and further depending claims 12 (5, 6, 7, 8, 9) would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best prior art of record Kopp et al. (US 20240142313), Radford et al. (US 20220407374), and Adra (US 20070069667), fail to specifically teach the invention as claimed.
The limitations of independent claim 1 when combined with the limitations regarding the busbars and arrangement of fastening element and wires in dependent claim 5 distinguish the present invention from the combined prior art.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 5-9, 11(5,6,7,8,9) and 12(5,6,7,8,9). The examiner cannot find specific teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine the elements of these references other than applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/ SPE, Art Unit 2855