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 filed 9/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding filing a human translation for Takemoto, this is not found persuasive because applicant has not provided any evidence as to any errors in the machine translated excerpt as required by the very section of the MPEP that applicant’s representative quoted (MPEP 2120 II 2nd para). As such, a machine translation of the entire document will be provided with this rejection.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the limitations of the tubular part in claim 18, this appears to be lumped with the argument that a human translation should be required. As mentioned previously, a machine translation will be provided with this rejection and if applicant should find an error, a human translation will be provided. As for the argument that Takemoto does not teach a tubular part that is force-locked to a tube, this is not found persuasive for a few reasons. Namely, the is no special definition of “force-locked” provided in applicant’s specification. Combining this fact with the examiner giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “in light” of applicant’s specification (as required by the MPEP), the examiner is interpreting the limitation at question to be taught by Takemoto. Still further, the term “force-locked” qualifies the claim as a product by process claim where the term “force-locked” does not add any structure to the claimed invention that would distinguish it over the prior art (MPEP 2113). Perhaps the claim could be amended to reflect how the tubular part and tube are force-locked together or amend the claim to recite the stainless-steel and aluminum materials which may overcome the prior art (the examiner tried contacting applicant’s representative for an examiner’s amendment to claim 18 but was unsuccessful in reaching applicant’s representative). As such, Takemoto teaches the claimed structure.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Takemoto’s disclosure of differing densities of the materials used for the intermediate ring and the housing body being inaccurate, this is not found persuasive because in terms of aluminum, the purity of the aluminum of the housing body is greater than the purity of the intermediate ring which means in terms of aluminum, the material of the housing body has a greater density the material of the intermediate ring. As such, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 20-24, this is found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 26, this is found persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 27, this is found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 28, 31 & 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takemoto et al. (JP 2006333614).
18. Takemoto et al. teach:
An electric motor 1, comprising:
a stator housing 43 + 47;
wherein (a) the stator housing is arranged as a composite part and/or (b) the stator housing includes a tubular part 47 arranged inside and force-locked (being that they are fixed together to be made integral) to a tube 43; and wherein the tube is formed of a first material (aluminum with purity of 99.996 %, excerpt below), the tubular part is formed of a second material (aluminum with purity of 99.5 %, excerpt below), and a density of the first material is greater than a density of the second material (inherent since the purity of the first material is higher than that of the second material, MPEP 2112).
PNG
media_image1.png
149
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
19. Takemoto et al. teach:
The electric motor according to claim 18, wherein a radial outer side of the composite part is arranged as a tube 43 and a radially inner side of the composite part is arranged as a tubular part 47.
28. Takemoto et al. teach:
The electric motor according to claim 18, wherein a rotor shaft of the electric motor is rotatably supported by a first bearing 42 accommodated in a bearing flange 46a of the electric motor and by a second bearing 41 accommodated in a housing part 45.
31. Takemoto et al. teach:
The electric motor according to claim 28, wherein the tubular part is arranged in the housing part (fig 1), partially arranged in the housing part, and/or arranged in a cylindrical cutout of the housing part.
41. Takemoto et al. teach:
The electric motor according to claim 28, wherein a cover 46 is arranged on the housing part at an end region facing away from the tubular part (fig 1), so that a connection area (between items 46 and 30, fig 1) is surrounded by the cover and the housing part to form a housing (fig 1).
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.
Claim(s) 30, 32-40, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto et al. in view of Speggiorin (WO 2020109897).
30. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 28; but does not teach that the tubular part is arranged in the bearing flange, partially arranged in the bearing flange, and/or arranged in a cylindrical cutout of the bearing flange.
Speggiorin teach that the tubular part 4 is arranged in the bearing flange 5, partially arranged in the bearing flange, and/or arranged in a cylindrical cutout 4b of the bearing flange to provide sealed surface which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that the tubular part is arranged in the bearing flange, partially arranged in the bearing flange, and/or arranged in a cylindrical cutout of the bearing flange, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
32. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 28; but does not teach that a tensioning device presses the bearing flange and the housing part onto the tubular part, and the tubular part is arranged between the bearing flange and the housing part.
Speggiorin teach that a tensioning device 25 presses the bearing flange and the housing part 9 onto the tubular part 4, and the tubular part is arranged between the bearing flange and the housing part (fig 2) to provide sealed surface which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that a tensioning device presses the bearing flange and the housing part onto the tubular part, and the tubular part is arranged between the bearing flange and the housing part, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
33. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 28; but does not teach that a seal and/or an O- ring is arranged on the tubular part and seals the tube from the housing part and/or from the environment.
Speggiorin teach that a seal 19 and/or an O- ring 18 is arranged on the tubular part and seals the tube from the housing part (fig 2) and/or from the environment to provide sealed surface which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that a seal and/or an O- ring is arranged on the tubular part and seals the tube from the housing part and/or from the environment, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
34. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 33; but does not teach that the seal is arranged in an annular groove of the tubular part.
Speggiorin teach that the seal is arranged in an annular groove of the tubular part (fig 2) to provide sealed surface which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that the seal is arranged in an annular groove of the tubular part, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
35. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 33; but does not teach that the seal is axially interposed between the tube and the housing part.
Speggiorin teach that the seal is axially interposed between the tube and the housing part (fig 2) to provide sealed surface which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that the seal is axially interposed between the tube and the housing part, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
36. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 33; but does not teach that a further seal and/or O-ring is arranged on the tubular part and seals the tube from the bearing flange and/or from the environment.
Speggiorin teach that a further seal 19 and/or O-ring 19 is arranged on the tubular part and seals the tube from the bearing flange and/or from the environment (fig 2) to provide sealed surface which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that a further seal and/or O-ring is arranged on the tubular part and seals the tube from the bearing flange and/or from the environment, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
37. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 33; but does not teach that the further seal is arranged in an annular groove of the tubular part.
Speggiorin teach that the further seal is arranged in an annular groove of the tubular part (fig 2) to provide sealed surface which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that the further seal is arranged in an annular groove of the tubular part, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
38. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 36; but does not teach that the further seal is axially interposed between the tube and the bearing flange.
Speggiorin teach that the further seal is axially interposed between the tube and the bearing flange (fig 2) to provide sealed surface which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that the further seal is axially interposed between the tube and the bearing flange, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
39. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 28; but does not teach that an axial area covered by the tubular part in an axial direction overlaps with an area covered by the housing part in the axial direction, and an area covered by the tube in the axial direction is spaced from an area covered by the housing part in the axial direction.
Speggiorin teach that an axial area covered by the tubular part in an axial direction overlaps with an area covered by the housing part in the axial direction, and an area covered by the tube in the axial direction is spaced from an area covered by the housing part in the axial direction to provide corrosion resistance which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that an axial area covered by the tubular part in an axial direction overlaps with an area covered by the housing part in the axial direction, and an area covered by the tube in the axial direction is spaced from an area covered by the housing part in the axial direction, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
40. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 28; but does not teach that an axial area covered by the tubular part in an axial direction overlaps with an area covered by the bearing flange in the axial direction, and an area covered by the tube in the axial direction is spaced from an area covered by the bearing flange in the axial direction.
Speggiorin teach that an axial area covered by the tubular part in an axial direction overlaps with an area covered by the bearing flange in the axial direction, and an area covered by the tube in the axial direction is spaced from an area covered by the bearing flange in the axial direction to provide corrosion resistance which prolongs the life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that an axial area covered by the tubular part in an axial direction overlaps with an area covered by the bearing flange in the axial direction, and an area covered by the tube in the axial direction is spaced from an area covered by the bearing flange in the axial direction, as taught by Speggiorin so as to prolong the life of the motor.
42. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 41; but does not teach that a connection device is arranged in the connection area to connect lines of a supply cable led into the connection area through a cable bushing and/or a cable gland of the cover to stator winding lines, a stator winding wire, and/or a stator winding.
Speggiorin teach that a connection device (pg 10 last para) is arranged in the connection area (between items 27 and 6, fig 6) to connect lines of a supply cable 29 led into the connection area through a cable bushing 29 and/or a cable gland 29 of the cover 27 or 6 to stator winding lines (not shown but implicitly disclosed or the motor would not work, MPEP 2112), a stator winding wire 21, and/or a stator winding 21 (fig 2) to provide power to the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that a connection device is arranged in the connection area to connect lines of a supply cable led into the connection area through a cable bushing and/or a cable gland of the cover to stator winding lines, a stator winding wire, and/or a stator winding, as taught by Speggiorin so as to power to the motor.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto et al. in view of Terauchi et al. (US 20070210658).
43. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 41; but does not teach that a sensor adapted to detect an angular position of the rotor shaft is arranged at an axial end region of the rotor shaft, a sensor housing of the housing protruding into the connection area.
Terauchi et al. teach that a sensor 18 adapted to detect an angular position of the rotor shaft 6 is arranged at an axial end region of the rotor shaft (fig 1), a sensor housing 43 of the housing protruding into the connection area (fig 1) to provide efficient operation of the motor which improves the motor’s longevity.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that a sensor adapted to detect an angular position of the rotor shaft is arranged at an axial end region of the rotor shaft, a sensor housing of the housing protruding into the connection area, as taught by Terauchi et al. so as to improve the longevity of the motor.
Claim(s) 44 & 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto et al. and Speggiorin and in further view of McMillan et al. (US 5430338).
44. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 32; but does not teach that the tensioning device protrudes through an axially continuous recess arranged in the tubular part.
McMillan et al. teach that the tensioning device 41 protrudes through an axially continuous recess 19 arranged in the tubular part 12 (fig 5) to provide a stable clamping of the housing which improves the service life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that the tensioning device protrudes through an axially continuous recess arranged in the tubular part, as taught by McMillan et al. so as to improve the service life of the motor.
45. Takemoto et al. has been discussed above, re claim 32; but does not teach that the tensioning includes an elongated screw screwed into a threaded bore of the bearing flange and having a screw head at a first axial end region and an external thread at a second axial end region, includes a tension rod with screwed-on nuts, and/or includes an elongated long screw with a screwed-on nut.
McMillan et al. teach that the tensioning includes an elongated screw 41 screwed into a threaded bore of the bearing flange and having a screw head at a first axial end region and an external thread at a second axial end region, includes a tension rod with screwed-on nuts (fig 5), and/or includes an elongated long screw 41 with a screwed-on nut (fig 5) to provide a stable clamping of the housing which improves the service life of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Takemoto et al. so that the tensioning includes an elongated screw screwed into a threaded bore of the bearing flange and having a screw head at a first axial end region and an external thread at a second axial end region, includes a tension rod with screwed-on nuts, and/or includes an elongated long screw with a screwed-on nut, as taught by McMillan et al. so as to improve the service life of the motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 29 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for allowing claim 25 is that applicant’s arguments regarding the claim found on pages 10 & 11 were found persuasive. The combination of Takemoto in view of Huter et al. is counterproductive to the teaching of Takemoto, which is devoted to having only aluminum for its linear expansion. Having Steel would defy those teachings.
The primary reason for allowing claim 29 is for the same reason claim 25 is allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 20-24, 26 & 27 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights