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 .
Priority
Since the related Application Number (see under the title ¶ [0001]) has matured into a patent therefore, the application number should be updated to: --, now patent No. 11870299, issued on 01/09/2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter as represented in claims 1 and 6 (entirely) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed to.
The following title is suggested: -- “Electric Motor Housing Fabricating Method” --.
Abstract should be updated to reflect method invention
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: that in pages 4-5, about ¶ [0017] several US PG-pubs cited thereto should be updated to patent numbers instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the scope of the claims directed to “method for making of a housing for a motor” (see preamble line 1), respectively. However, the recitation of “to form a magnetic core” (claim 1, lines 4-5), thus, it is unclear if the magnetic core is a part of the claimed housing? Please clarify. 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 2-4, 6 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.
Whether or not “a substrate” (claim 2-4, 6, line 2) as same as that in claim 1, lines 3-4, if it is then should be :--"the substrate”--.
Whether or not “a spray” (claim 2-4, 6, line 2) as same as that in claim 1, lines 3-4, if it is then should be :--"the spray”--, for clarity of the method claim formats.
Whether “a plurality of iron-containing particles” (claim 5, line 2) as same as that in line 3 of claim 1?
Whether or not “a nonstructural element on a mold core” “is part of the housing as claimed in claim 1? Since there is no interconnection between this process and the previous substrate.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosek et al (20130002085) in view of Kliman et al (CN 1771436) or Hofmeister et al (20170045105)
Hosek et al discloses the claimed method of fabricating housing for a motor, the method comprising:
depositing a plurality of iron-containing particles on a substrate (as support 40, 320, 644) using a spray deposition technique to form a magnetic core (see discussion in ¶ [0144] for spray coating includes depositing particles of metal); and
Regarding to the “machining at least one surface of the magnetic core to provide at least one surface for receiving a winding of the motor” (see Fig. 24 of the Hosek et al for the product by process for motor housing 806 configured to receive a winding 810 of the motor).
Further if it is argued that no machining step occurs in Hosek et al then Applicant refers to Kliman et al for the teaching of machining at least one surface of the magnetic core by conventional process (see Figs 1, 3 and discussed in page 3, about ¶ [0005] of the translate[ion], and/ or discussion in ¶ [0061] of the Hofmeister et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary sl=kill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the welly known process as noted by either of Kliman et al or Hofmeister et al onto the invention of Hosek et al in order to facilitate the fabrication process by utilizing with that known and available process. The motivation for the combination can be obtained from either reference since they are in same endeavor field invention.
As applied to claims 2-4 appears to meet by the combination teaching of above refer to Hosek et al considering ¶ [0144] about lines 8-23. Thus, the subject-matter of claims is/are therefore not inventive when departing from the Hosek et al and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
As applied to claim 5, refer to ¶ [0147] of the Hosek et al for the teaching of removing support or substrate as to form the motor parts including housing.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood it appears to meet by the combination teaching as set forth in base claim 1 since there is no inventive method feature when departing from the modified Hosek et al/ of Kliman et al and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
