DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the claim amendment and new prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 17. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gersten et al. (US 2022/0311295 A1) in view of Fenn et al. (DE 10 2019 202 563 A1) and Ramsey et al. (US 2021/0126497 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Gersten discloses a rotating assembly (107), comprising:
a first rotating part (109) having a first body with a radially extending outer rim portion (111);
a second rotating part (101) having a receiving area (see annotation below) defined by a radially extending inner flange (see annotation below) with an inwardly extending shoulder (see annotation below) defined thereon;
PNG
media_image1.png
330
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first rotating part (109) being located in the second rotating part (101) with the radially extending outer rim portion (111) of the first rotating part (109) adjacent to the radially extending inner flange of the second rotating part (101; FIG. 5), and a portion of the first rotating part (109) being axially supported by the inwardly extending shoulder (FIG. 5).
Gersten does not disclose a plurality of anti-rotation encapsulation recesses located in the first body at least one of at or adjacent to the radially extending outer rim portion;
staking elements comprising plastically deformed portions of the second rotating part, the staking elements being formed via application of an axial load, and the staking elements extend into respective ones of the plurality of anti-rotation encapsulation recesses such that the staking elements enable the transmission of torque between the first and second rotating parts.
Fenn discloses a plurality of anti-rotation encapsulation recesses (22) located in the first body (4) at least one of at or adjacent to the radially extending outer rim portion (15b; FIG. 3);
staking elements (18) of the second rotating part (3), the staking elements being formed via application of an axial load (the cylinder section is pressed axially), the staking elements extend into respective ones of the plurality of anti-rotation encapsulation recesses (22) such that the staking elements (18) enable the transmission of torque between the first and second rotating parts (4, 3; FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Gersten in view of Fenn to disclose a plurality of anti-rotation encapsulation recesses located in the first body at least one of at or adjacent to the radially extending outer rim portion; staking elements of the second rotating part formed via application of an axial load that extend into respective ones of the plurality of anti-rotation encapsulation recesses such that the staking elements enable the transmission of torque between the first and second rotating parts, for the advantages of holding the rotor carrier parts together.
PNG
media_image2.png
248
1094
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ramsey discloses staking elements (126) comprising plastically deformed portions (deformed when clamped in groove 128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Gersten in view of Fenn, further in view of Ramsey to disclose staking elements comprising plastically deformed portions, which allows the welding step of attaching the first rotating part to the first rotating part to be removed, simplifying the manufacture process.
Regarding claim 11/10, Gersten in view of Fenn and Ramsey was discussed above in claim 10. Fenn further discloses wherein the second rotating part (3) is formed of stamped sheet metal.
PNG
media_image3.png
59
1078
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gersten does not explicitly disclose the radially extending inner flange has a thickness of less than 15 mm. Gersten does disclose in ¶ [0028] that the radii R1 and R2 are 10,000 mm long and the Δr is 0.02 mm. While the drawings are not to scale, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that with a rotor radius of 10,000 mm and the Δr of 0.02 mm, the radially extending inner flange would be miniscule compared to the radius. FIG. 4 in view of the above disclosure would reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of the radially extending inner flange would be 15 mm or less.
Regarding claim 12/10, Gersten in view of Fenn and Ramsey was discussed above in claim 10. Fenn further discloses wherein the anti-rotation encapsulation recesses (22) are completely filled by the respective staking elements (18; the recesses are dimensioned corresponding to the stakes).
PNG
media_image4.png
248
1094
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13/10, Gersten in view of Fenn and Ramsey was discussed above in claim 10. Fenn further discloses wherein the anti-rotation encapsulation recesses (22) are equally spaced in a circumferential direction (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 14/10, Gersten in view of Fenn and Ramsey was discussed above in claim 10. Fenn further discloses wherein the anti-rotation encapsulation recesses (22) extend radially inwardly (the recess is on a radially inner side of the outer rim portion) from a radially outer surface of the radially extending outer rim portion (32b).
Regarding claim 15/10, Gersten in view of Fenn and Ramsey was discussed above in claim 10. Gersten further discloses wherein the first rotating part (109) is a bearing carrier (¶ [0052] bearing plate), and the second rotating part (101) is a rotor carrier for an electric motor (¶ [0035] rotor carrier; ¶ [0002] rotor carrier for a rotor of an electric machine).
Regarding claim 16/10, Gersten in view of Fenn and Ramsey was discussed above in claim 10. Fenn further discloses wherein the application of the axial load to form the staking elements (18; the first rotating part is pressed against the second rotating part as shown in FIG. 1) presses the first rotating part (4) against the inwardly extending shoulder (as disclosed in Gersten) of the second rotating part (3).
Gersten modified in view of Fenn would have the first rotating part pressed against the second rotating part when inserting the staking elements into the recesses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17/10, the specific limitation of “an axial height of each of the staking elements is 1.0 mm – 3.0 mm” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
None of the prior arts discloses an axial height of a staking element between 1.0 mm – 3.0 mm.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a new claim incorporating claim 10 and allowable subject matter claim 17. Claim 18 is allowable for the same reason as discussed above in claim 17.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MINKI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0521. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MINKI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights