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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 26 and 27 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species.
Species I has the guide element 8 formed as a cut and angled part of the cover 6 has some flexibility (figs 1 & 3), that is not disclosed by Species II. Species II (claim 26) has the guide element formed by a fastening clip (not shown in figures), that is not disclosed by Species I.
Species I has the guide element 8 formed as a cut and angled part of the cover 6 has some flexibility (figs 1 & 3), that is not disclosed by Species III. Species III (claim 27) has the guide element formed by an elastic element installed in front of the cover 6 and spring loaded (not shown in figures), that is not disclosed by Species I.
Species II (claim 26) has the guide element formed by a fastening clip (not shown in figures), that is not disclosed by Species III. Species III (claim 27) has the guide element formed by an elastic element installed in front of the cover 6 and spring loaded (not shown in figures), that is not disclosed by Species II.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 26 and 27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 19-22, 24 and 28 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.
In claim 19 “the cover: i) is screwed onto the drive module, ii) is locked with clips and/or adhesively bonded, iii) at least partially covers the cable connection assembly, and iv) encloses the entire cable connection assembly.” is unclear.
As claimed all the items i-iv are required for the cover 6. From the specification the cover being locked with clips and/or adhesively bonded is an alternate embodiment ([0011]). Therefore it is unclear how the cover is screwed and locked with clips and/or adhesively bonded, when the limitations are disclosed as not employed together. In order to further prosecution examiner will interpret the limitation as including at least one of i-iv.
In claim 20 “the element comprises a sealing ridge on which the screwed cable glands are arranged.” is unclear. Claims 10 and 11 do not recite screwed cable glands. It is not clear from the claim where the sealing ridge is arranged since no screwed cable glands are previously recited in the claims. In order to further prosecution examiner will interpret the limitation as the element inherently having a sealing ridge on which the screwed cable glands are arranged.
In claim 21 “cable tubes extend from the screwed cable glands into the connection chamber.” is unclear. Claims 10 and 11 do not recite screwed cable glands. It is not clear from the claim what the cable tubes are and where the cable tubes extend from since it is not clear where or what the screwed cable glands are. In order to further prosecution examiner will interpret limitation as the claimed structure inherently having the limitation.
In claim 22 “the sealing ridge has a seal element on each of its outer sides that bears sealingly against the cover” is unclear. Claims 10 and 11 do not disclose a sealing ridge. It is not clear from the claim what the sealing ridge is or how a seal element on the sealing ridge bears on the cover. In order to further prosecution examiner will interpret the limitation as the claimed structure inherently having the limitation.
In claim 24 “the connection portion of the cable is always positioned lower than the screwed cable gland” is unclear. Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 do not recite screwed cable glands. It is not clear from the claim where a screwed cable gland is located and how the connection portion is oriented with respect to a screwed cable gland location. In order to further prosecution examiner will interpret the limitation as the claimed structure inherently having the limitation.
In claim 28 “the guide element reacts elastically to upward application of force without breaking” is unclear.
The specification does not disclose what material the cover 6 and therefore the guide element 8 is made of (note: examining species I that has the guide element as part of the cover). It is clear that since the guide element 8 has some flexibility since it only has one side connected to the cover 6, it is not clear how the guide element reacts elasticity. For example the guide element 8 may be made of a metal or plastic material that has some stiffness and will move a small amount when an upward force is applied, but remain the same shape as before the force is applied. Although the stiffness allows some movement, it is not really elastic in view of the definition (see 9/15/25 OA, pg 3). In order to further prosecution examiner will interpret the limitation as the guide element has some flexibility for at least a small movement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-13, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wada et al. (JP2018023193, “Wada”, using machine translation).
Re claim 10, Wada discloses an electric motor comprising:
a drive module 12, which has a connection chamber (figs 1-2, [0010-0011], chamber inside walls of 12; from fig 2 there is at least terminal 30 & control means to control power to motors) and a cable connection assembly 18 (fig 2, [0011]), wherein the connection chamber is closed with a cover 16 (figs 1-3, [0011], 16 closes opening 28 to chamber), and the cover 16 projects beyond the cable connection assembly 18 (figs 1-2).
Re claim 11, Wada discloses claim 10 as discussed above and further discloses the connection chamber is spatially separated from the cable connection assembly 18 by an element (figs 2 & below, wall of 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 12, Wada discloses claim 11 as discussed above and further discloses the cover 16 spatially encloses the cable connection assembly 18 (fig 2).
Re claim 13, Wada discloses claim 12 as discussed above and further discloses the cover has at least one opening (fig 2, openings for 10 & 36).
Re claim 19, Wada discloses claim 10 as discussed above and further discloses the cover 16 (as best understood by examiner the cover discloses at least one of i-iv): i) is screwed onto the drive module ([0015]), ii) is locked with clips and/or adhesively bonded, iii) at least partially covers the cable connection assembly 18 (figs 1-2), and iv) encloses the entire cable connection assembly 18 (figs 1-2).
Re claim 20, Wada discloses claim 11 as discussed above and further discloses the element comprises a sealing ridge on which the screwed cable glands are arranged (as best understood by examiner the element inherently having a sealing ridge on which the screwed cable glands are arranged).
Re claim 21, Wada discloses claim 11 as discussed above and further discloses cable tubes extend from the screwed cable glands into the connection chamber (as best understood by examiner the claimed structure inherently has the limitation).
Re claim 22, Wada discloses claim 11 as discussed above and further discloses the sealing ridge has a seal element on each of its outer sides that bears sealingly against the cover (as best understood by examiner the claimed structure inherently has the limitation).
Re claim 23, Wada discloses claim 13 as discussed above and further discloses the opening is sized to provide sufficient space for cable entry while minimizing ingress of dirt (fig 2, where portion 34 of cable 10 enters 16 capable of minimizing ingress of dirt).
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 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.
Claims 14-16, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Maier et al. (EP0107025, “Maier”).
Re claim 14, Wada discloses claim 13 as discussed above but does not disclose the cover is formed as a single piece.
Maier discloses forming two halves of a cover 2, 3 from one piece (figs 3-5, [0016], 2 & 3 connected by hinges 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the cover of Wada to be formed as a single piece, as disclosed by Maier, in order to reduce the number of parts of the cover, as demonstrated by Maier.
Re claim 15, Wada in view of Maier disclose claim 14 as discussed above. Wada further discloses the drive module 12 has a guide element 52 that orients a connection portion of a cable 10 of the cable connection assembly 18 downward (figs 2 & below, [0017]).
PNG
media_image2.png
304
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 16, Wada in view of Maier disclose claim 15 as discussed above. Wada further discloses the guide element 52 orients the cable 10 downward at an angle between a horizontal of the cable feed (figs 2 & below) and a straight line between a contact point of the guide element 52 on the cable 10 (figs 2 & below) and a highest point of the cable 10 directly at the exit point from a fixing element 26 (figs 2 & below, [0017]), of more than 5° and/or less than 80° (figs 2 & below, angle of approx.. 15 degrees).
PNG
media_image3.png
292
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 24, Wada in view of Maier disclose claim 15 as discussed above. Wada further discloses the connection portion of the cable 10 is always positioned lower than the screwed cable gland (as best understood by examiner the claimed structure inherently having the limitation).
Re claim 25, Wada in view of Maier disclose claim 15 as discussed above. Wada further discloses droplets of liquid running along the cable 10 drip from a lowest point of the cable 10 before the connection portion (figs 2 & above for claim 15, any drop running along the cable will be outside of 16 & not run toward the connection portion).
Claims 17-18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Maier and in further view of Adachi et al. (US20100248529, “Adachi”).
Re claim 17, Wada in view of Maier disclose claim 16 as discussed above but is silent with respect to the guide element is configured to flex upward by an amount in response to an applied force and to return to its original position after the force is removed.
Adachi discloses cover 8 is formed of resin (figs 1-2, [0038]) and configured to flex by an amount in response to an applied force and to return to its original position after the force is removed ([0041], has some flexibility for at least a small movement and return to its original position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the cover and guide element of Wada in view of Maier of resin and configured to flex by an amount in response to an applied force and to return to its original position after the force is removed, as disclosed by Adachi, in order to provide a level of swinging motion absorption, as taught by Adachi ([0041]). It is pointed out that the cover of Wada in view of Maier and Adachi is capable of flexing upward since it is made of resin that is capable of flexing.
Re claim 18, Wada in view of Maier and Adachi disclose claim 17 as discussed above. Wada further discloses the cover 16 has at least one seal element 46 (fig 2, 46 prevents or seals opening 36 from debris are liquid from entering 36).
Re claim 28, Wada in view of Maier and Adachi disclose claim 17 as discussed and further discloses the guide element 52 does not have sharp edges (Wada, fig 2), and the guide element 52 reacts elastically to upward application of force without breaking (as best understood by examiner the guide element has some flexibility for at least a small movement).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Adachi and Trago et al. (US5806169, “Trago”).
Re claim 29, Wada discloses claim 10 as discussed above and but is silent with respect to the cover is manufactured from a plastic, and the plastic is a polycarbonate, and the cover is manufactured by injection-molding and/or additive manufacturing.
Adachi discloses the cover 8 is formed of resin (figs 1-2, [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the cover of Wada of resin, as disclosed by Adachi, in order to provide a level of swinging motion absorption, as taught by Adachi ([0041]). It is pointed out that resin is inherently a plastic and is capable of being manufactured at least by injection-molding.
Trago discloses polycarbonate is a suitable resin (col 12, lns 45-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the resin of the cover of Wada in view of Adachi as polycarbonate, in order to employ a suitable resin material, as taught by Trago.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that reference number 12 cannot be the drive module having a connection chamber and a cable connection assembly (pg 7, last para to pg 8, lns 1-2). Examiner disagrees.
Applicant states that “12 is an inverter housing for power electronics”. Housings holding electronic elements inherently have a chamber for holding the electronic elements, with the housing forming walls. Therefore 12 inherently has a connection chamber within its walls or else 12 would be a solid structure and not capable to store anything within it. Additionally since most elements are electrical they include electrical connections within the chamber. Applicant further argues that 18 is not part of the drive module 12. This is not persuasive since when the structure is functioning, 18 is connected to or part of 12. Additionally applicant recites [0011] as proof that 18 is part of the cable, but the citation recites “A connector 18 is provided at the end of the power cable 10”, not that 18 is part of the cable 10.
Applicant argues that 28 is not the connection chamber (pg 8, 1st full paragraph). Examiner replies to this argument in the same manner discussed above. Additionally in the claim 10 rejection examiner refers to 28 as the opening to the chamber, not the entire chamber.
Applicant argues that 16 cannot be the claimed cover (pg 8, 2nd full paragraph & pg 9, 1st paragraph). This argument is not persuasive since the cover 16 closes the opening 28 to the chamber and therefore closes the chamber. There is no further structural limitations with respect to the cover.
Applicant argues that 16 does not project beyond the cable connection assembly (pg 9, 2nd paragraph). This argument is not persuasive since fig. 2 clearly shows 16 projecting past 18 to cover the end of cable 10.
Applicant argues that Wada does not disclose the connection chamber is spatially separated from the cable connection assembly by an element (pg 10 to pg 12, 1st paragraph). This argument is not persuasive since the wall of 12 indicated by examiner separates the chamber as discussed above in the first argument from the cable connection assembly 18 (figs 2 & annotated fig 2 of OA mailed 9/15/25, pg 5).
Applicant argues that Wada does not disclose the cover 16 spatially encloses the cable connection assembly 18 (pg 12, last paragraph to pg 15, lns 1-2). This argument is not persuasive since 16 clearly spatially encloses 18 as shown in fig 2.
Applicant argues that Wada does not disclose at least one opening (pg 15, 1st full paragraph to pg 17, 2nd full paragraph). This argument is not persuasive since 16 has an opening for 10 and an opening for 36 as clearly shown in fig 2.
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 extension fee 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 ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights