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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I directed to claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. There are no specific arguments and the claims directed to Groups II and III have been canceled.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “asymmetric element” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 discloses an asymmetric element wherein the specification does not describe a fixed frame of reference to define what point or feature this element is asymmetric to. Without this fixed frame of reference, any arbitrary point or feature or line can be defined as the origin for the axis of symmetry and the asymmetric element may be any point on the can that is asymmetric with respect to this imaginary axis of symmetry.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as they depend on a rejected claim.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 discloses an asymmetric element wherein it is unclear what point or feature this element is asymmetric to. Without this fixed frame of reference, any arbitrary point or feature or line can be defined as the origin for the axis of symmetry and the asymmetric element may be any point on the can and/or the bearing seat that is asymmetric with respect to this imaginary axis of symmetry.
Claim 3 recites: “wherein the asymmetric element comprises an eccentric position of the O-rings that serve for mounting and sealing the can.” It is unclear how an eccentric position of O-rings (i.e., a spatial configuration) can define a structural element forming the asymmetric element. Furthermore, it is unclear which point of reference is being used to define the eccentric position of these O-rings. It is also unclear where exactly these O-rings are located in the electric rotating machine with respect to the can. Furthermore, it is unclear how multiple O-rings can have a single eccentric position or of all the O-rings share a common eccentric position.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the O-rings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites: “the can is partly symmetrical.” It is unclear how the phrase “partly symmetrical” is to be interpreted since there is no axis of symmetry mentioned and it is not known which part or portion of the can is considered symmetrical since there are no drawings.
Claim 7 recites: “further comprising regions with glass fiber reinforcement in combination.” It is unclear what exactly these regions are in combination with.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as they depend on a rejected claim.
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) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krompass et al. (herein Krompass) (WO 2012085281, English translation appended). Regarding Claim 1:In Figures 1a-9 Krompass discloses a can (1) for an electric rotating machine (see abstract), the can (1) comprising: a bearing seat (8); and an asymmetric element on the can (as seen in Figure 9, the can has thickened asymmetric regions adjacent to the winding heads 6, see page 7, paragraphs 8-9 of the translation. Each such thickened region can be considered an asymmetric element since the thickened portion(s) is asymmetric with respect to the other thinner regions of the can) and/or on the bearing seat (these thickened regions along with O-rings on the bearing seat 8 are asymmetric since the thickened regions are expanding radially inward or radially outward with respect to each bearing seat as seen in Figure 9); wherein the asymmetric element counteracts an expected deformation in loaded regions of the can (thickened regions on the can prevent deformation (see for example page 7, paragraph 8), the expected deformation identified by measurement data and/or deformation simulation calculated in advance (calculation and/or simulation of the deformation is shown in Figures 1a-1b that shows that external pressure acting on the can causes it deform).Regarding Claim 2:In Figures 1a-9 Krompass discloses the can (1), wherein the asymmetric element (thickened portions of the can shown in Figure 9) on the can comprises a negative form of a likely outward buckling and/or upward bending of the can (likely areas of deformation due to outward buckling are thickened indicating that they are the negative form, see page 7, paragraphs 8-9).Regarding Claim 3:In Figures 1a-9 Krompass discloses the can (1), wherein the asymmetric element comprises an eccentric position of the O-rings (12) that serve for mounting and sealing the can (the O-rings can have a center defined at an eccentric position with respect to to one another since the O-rings appear to be of a different size. Furthermore, these O-rings are flexible such that their centers can shit relative to one another even by a small distance such that their centers are eccentric).NOTE: See 112b rejection of this claim wherein several issues exist and the term eccentric position is not clearly defined. Regarding Claim 4:In Figures 1a-9 Krompass discloses the can (1), wherein the asymmetric element comprises an arrangement and/or distribution of fiber reinforcement within the can (as mentioned in the abstract and on page 3 in paragraph 4, the can is made of fiber-reinforced plastics which would include the thickened regions forming the asymmetric element).Regarding Claim 5:In Figures 1a-9 Krompass discloses the can (1), wherein the can is party symmetrical (as seen in Figure 9, the portion of the can between the winding heads 6 is symmetrical).Regarding Claim 9:In Figures 1a-9 Krompass discloses the can (1), with an entirely or partially complex form (as seen in Figure 9, portions of the can form thickened regions of a complex form).
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krompass et al. (herein Krompass) (WO 2012085281, English translation appended) as evidenced by Sakurai et al. (herein Sakurai) (US 2016/0156251).Regarding Claims 6-8:Krompass discloses fiber reinforced reinforcement in the can but is silent regarding the use of glass fiber reinforcement (per claims 6-7) or ultrahigh modulus carbon fibers (per claim 8).However, in paragraph [0055] and Figure 5, Sakurai discloses a can (16) comprising fiber-reinforced epoxy plastic. As stated in paragraph [0055]: “Preferably, a high modulus of stiffness fibre reinforced epoxy plastic may be used. The sleeve may include fibres of glass, Kevlar or carbon, or combinations of fibres of different materials. Carbon may be preferred due to its high elastic modulus.” Hence, based on the evidenced cited by Sakurai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the can with glass fiber reinforcement (or regions thereof, per claims 6-7) or with ultrahigh modulus carbon fiber regions (per claim 8) (as evidence by Sakurai these are known materials for a can reinforcement wherein the term high elastic modulus would include ultrahigh elastic modulus), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 109474152 – Motor shell with asymmetric reinforcement structures determined by finite element analysis. GB 2361998 – Motor can with predetermined deformation properties. See appended PTO-892 for more relevant prior art related to motor cans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights