DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 8.31.26. Claims 1,3-6,8-15 are pending and have been examined.
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 and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendments to the independent claim 1, 10-11 which will be examined below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides arguments to which the Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: The present amendments directly address the Examiner's responses to Applicant's prior arguments. In particular, the Final Office Action stated that Applicant's "mass concentration" argument was moot because Claim 1 did not then recite that feature and that the asserted noise- level reduction would need to be added to the claim to be distinguishable. Applicant has now expressly amended independent Claims 1, 10, and 11 to require that the first webs converge toward a central region, define a concentration of material in that central region, and thereby change the oscillation spectrum so as to produce the recited reductions in overall noise level and peak level.
Examiner Response 1:Although Examiner understands instant Application structure, claim recitation “define a concentration of an amount of material in the central region” is broad as any given pattern will have “a concentration”. Further the recitation of noise level reduction is a relative measure, therefore indefinite, as the comparison is with “another pattern”.
Applicant Argument 2: Komoto does not disclose that its radial ribs converge to define a concentration of material in a central region, does not identify a resulting change in the cover's oscillation spectrum caused by such a central material concentration, and does not disclose the claimed reductions in overall noise level and peak level relative to an otherwise comparable lid having another web pattern. Thus, Komoto's general concern with resonance does not supply the particular claimed structure, mechanism, and result.
Examiner Response 2: See previous Examiner response related to “a concentration” and “claimed reduction in overall noise level”.
Applicant Argument 3: Komoto's disclosed design approach is also materially different from the claimed central concentration. Komoto selects the radius of annular rib 81 so as to reduce differences between the area of central recess 91 and the areas of outer recesses 92, thereby making the reinforcement effect more uniform. By contrast, the amended claims require the first webs to converge toward a central region and affirmatively define a concentration of material in that region for changing the oscillation spectrum. Komoto's effort to equalize recess-area differences and reinforcement does not teach or suggest deliberately concentrating material centrally to obtain the claimed acoustic result.
Examiner Response 3: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Changing of oscillation spectrum is inherent to structure and mass distribution and concentration. Claim recitation would need to have limitations regarding for e.g.,, mass concentration structure and baseline for acoustic improvements.
Applicant Argument 4: Wang's general disclosure of staggered reinforcing ribs for NVH optimization does not fill the remaining gap. Even accepting, solely for purposes of argument, the Examiner's identification of ribs 15 and 18 as staggered radial ribs and ribs 19a, 19b, and 10 as annular ribs, the rejection does not identify where Wang discloses that each claimed first web converges toward a central region and, through that convergence, defines a concentration of material in the central region. Nor does the rejection identify disclosure that this particular central concentration changes the oscillation spectrum to produce the claimed comparative reductions in overall noise level and peak level.
Examiner Response 4:The usage of Wang is only to read on “the first webs are each laterally offset in sections… “.
Applicant Argument 5: The stated rationale to reduce noise and optimize material explains, at most, why a skilled artisan might consider additional reinforcing ribs. It does not explain why the artisan would modify Komoto so that the same laterally offset first webs converge toward a central region in a manner that defines a concentration of material at that region, much less why the artisan would reasonably expect that specific modification to produce the claimed comparative reductions in overall and peak noise levels.
Examiner Response 5:Examiner will consider above argument in claim prosecution as the amendments cited above are new limitations. Further claim recitation does not connect the offset first web structure to noise reduction, it seems to connect the “first webs converge towards a central region” to noise reduction.
Applicant Argument 6: The rejection of Claims 13-15 additionally treats the recited occupied-area relationships as result-effective variables. The rejection, however, does not identify evidence that the particular relationship between the occupied-area fractions in the claimed inner and outward ring areas was recognized as affecting the relevant frequency response or noise result. Nor does the rejection identify numerical dimensions, calculations, or textual disclosure in Wang establishing the recited "more than 60%," "more than 80%," or "less than 40%" relationships.
Examiner Response 6: As was stated in previous Examiner responses, neither Specification nor claim recitation has any specific ratio which has led to unexpected results in frequency response. Therefore, the relationship between the inside and outside ring areas is a Result Effective Variable as stated in previous Office response. Even further, claim recitation does not have limitations that specifies a definite frequency response improvement due to claimed structure in comparison to a specific baseline structure. Claim 1 only has recitation of “another pattern” for baseline structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims below 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.
Claims 1 recites the limitations “ wherein the first webs converge towards a central region of the case lid and define a concentration of an amount of material in the central region, which is configured to change an oscillation spectrum of the case lid such that an overall noise level is reduced by up to 1 - 3 dB or more and a peak level is reduced by up to 5 dB or more, as compared with a case lid of the same design but having another pattern”. Usage of underlined limitation is a comparison with “another pattern”, therefore relative making it indefinite. To advance prosecution, Examiner with interpret claim without underlined portion. Claims 3-6, 8-9,13-15 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1. Claims 10, 11 have similar limitations as claim 1, therefore rejected for same reason as above.
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.
Claim 1,3-6,8,10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komoto in view of Wang.
Regarding Claim 1, Komoto discloses (Figs 3-6) a case lid (26) for a case assembly (22,24,26) of an electric motor (1) for driving a movable component in a vehicle [0002], comprising:
an at least partially planar lid wall (Fig 5, 80) having an inner face (In) facing a case (22,24) of the case assembly in a mounted state (Fig 4) and a corresponding outer face (Ou) facing away (Fig 4) from the case, both faces each comprising an edge (Oue, Ine); and
one or more engagement structures (263) connected with the case lid (26) for coupling corresponding engagement structures (72) provided at the case (22,24), in order to close an opening (above 24) of the case;
wherein a pattern of elevated webs (81,82) for reinforcing (81,82 has more material) the lid wall (80) and recesses (90) each formed between the webs (Fig 6) is arranged on at least one of: the inner face (Fig 6) and or the outer face;
wherein the pattern comprises a number of first webs (82) each extending in a substantially radial direction(Fig 6) outwards from a region (91) within at least one of: the inner face (In) and the outer face, respectively, to the edge (Ine) as well as second webs (81 portions intersecting with each 82) intersecting the first webs (82), wherein the first webs are along the radial direction (R).
wherein the case lid (26) is manufactured from at least one of: a plastic material and a resin and is injection-molded [Para 0045];
wherein the first webs (82) converge towards a central region (91) of the case lid and define a concentration (any concentration can be a concentration) of an amount of material in the central region, which is configured to change an oscillation spectrum of the case lid such that an overall noise level is reduced by up to 1 - 3 dB or more and a peak level is reduced by up to 5 dB or more, as compared with a case lid of the same design but having another pattern (See 35U.S.C 112(b) rejection) .
Komoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the first webs are each laterally offset in sections thereof along the radial direction and the second webs intersecting the first webs are arranged concentric with respect to each other and extend in a predetermined distance from each other within the inner face or the outer face, respectively, each of the second webs forming a ring.
Wang (Fig 4) discloses wherein the first webs (15,18) are each laterally offset in sections thereof (15 is laterally offset from 18) along the radial direction and wherein the second webs (19a, 19b,10) intersecting the first webs (18,15) are arranged concentric (Fig 4) with respect to each other and extend in a predetermined distance (Fig 4) from each other within the inner face or the outer face, respectively, each of the second webs forming a ring (Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed case lid of Komoto modified by offset radial first web and annular second web structure as taught by Wang in order to reduce excitation of noise, disperse noise radiation (Abstract of Wang) and optimize material while providing structural integrity (offsetting of radial first web reduces weakness along any particular radial direction which will reduce chance of fracture related failures where cracks can propagate) both in radial and circumferential directions depending upon chosen size of case id for given application.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
662
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
388
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
522
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
350
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 1. Komoto in view of Wang further discloses (Komoto,Figs 3,6) wherein the pattern is arranged having rotational symmetry (ribs 82 are separated equally angularly Para 0047) including a center of rotation (O), which at least one of: extends through the region (91) within at least one of: the inner face (In) and the outer face, respectively, and is positioned within this region (91 includes O).
Regarding Claim 4, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 3. Komoto in view of Wang further discloses wherein an opening (Para 0039 discloses “That is, a through hole may be provided in the cover 26 , and the upper end of the shaft 31 may pass through the through hole and protrude above the cover 26”) is formed in a distance from the edge within at least one of: the inner face and the outer face, respectively, and extends through (Para 0039) the lid wall (80), wherein the center of rotation (O) of the rotational symmetric pattern is positioned in a center of the opening.
Regarding Claim 5, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 1. Komoto in view of Wang further discloses wherein the pattern of webs (Komoto,81,82) and recesses (91,92) at least partially enclosed (Fig 6) by the webs includes a fraction of occupied surface area of at least one of: the inner face and the outer face, respectively, within the planar part of the lid wall of at least 80%(Fig 6 discloses 100% of inner planar face of 26 has webs or recesses).
Regarding Claim 6, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 1. Komoto in view of Wang further discloses wherein a local fraction of occupied surface area of the first webs (82) and the second webs (81 portions) relative to a surface area occupied by these webs (80) and the recesses (90) at least partially enclosed by the webs substantially decreases from the region (91) within at least one of: the inner face (Fig 6) and the outer face, respectively, in a direction radially outwards (R)( Surface area of recess 90 increases in Fig 6 moving radially outwards from central region 91 but surface area of webs remain relatively same).
Regarding Claim 8, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 1. Komoto in view of Wang further discloses wherein the case lid (Komoto,26) is formed as a single piece (Fig 6) [0047 discloses molding of entire cover 26].
Regarding Claim 10, Komoto discloses (Figs 1,4-6) a case assembly (22,24,26,100) for an electric motor (1) for driving a movable component in a vehicle [0002], comprising a gearbox casing (100) and a motor casing (22,24) as well as a case lid (26), the case lid comprising:
an at least partially planar lid wall (Fig 5, 80) having an inner face (In) facing a case (22,24) of the case assembly in a mounted state (Fig 4) and a corresponding outer face (Ou) facing away (Fig 4) from the case, both faces each comprising an edge (Oue, Ine); and
one or more engagement structures (263) connected with the case lid (26) for coupling corresponding engagement structures (72) provided at the case (22,24), in order to close an opening (above 24) of the case;
wherein a pattern of elevated webs (81,82) for reinforcing (81,82 has more material) the lid wall (80) and recesses (90) each formed between the webs (Fig 6) is arranged on at least one of: the inner face (Fig 6) and or the outer face;
wherein the pattern comprises a number of first webs (82) each extending in a substantially radial direction(Fig 6) outwards from a region (91) within at least one of: the inner face (In) and the outer face, respectively, to the edge (Ine) as well as second webs (81 portions intersecting with each 82) intersecting the first webs (82), wherein the first webs are along the radial direction (R);
wherein the first webs (82) converge towards a central region (91) of the case lid and define a concentration (any concentration can be a concentration) of an amount of material in the central region, which is configured to change an oscillation spectrum of the case lid such that an overall noise level is reduced by up to 1 - 3 dB or more and a peak level is reduced by up to 5 dB or more, as compared with a case lid of the same design but having another pattern (See 35U.S.C 112(b) rejection) .
Komoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the first webs are each laterally offset in sections thereof along the radial direction.
Wang (Fig 4) discloses wherein the first webs (15,18) are each laterally offset in sections thereof (15 is laterally offset from 18) along the radial direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed case lid of Komoto modified by offset radial first web and annular second web structure as taught by Wang in order to reduce excitation of noise, disperse noise radiation (Abstract of Wang) and optimize material while providing structural integrity (offsetting of radial first web reduces weakness along any particular radial direction which will reduce chance of fracture related failures where cracks can propagate) both in radial and circumferential directions depending upon chosen size of case id for given application.
Regarding Claim 11, Komoto discloses (Figs 1,4-6) an electric motor (1)for driving a movable component in a vehicle [0002], comprising a case assembly (22,24,26) as well as a gearbox (100)[Para 0039], a control unit (25) [0029 discloses “The circuit board 25 is an electric circuit board for supplying a driving current to the bus bar 23”] and components (25) operated by the control unit, including a stator (21) and a rotor (32), and a case lid (26)comprising:
an at least partially planar lid wall (Fig 5, 80) having an inner face (In) facing a case (22,24) of the case assembly in a mounted state (Fig 4) and a corresponding outer face (Ou) facing away (Fig 4) from the case, both faces each comprising an edge (Oue, Ine); and
one or more engagement structures (263) connected with the case lid (26) for coupling corresponding engagement structures (72) provided at the case (22,24), in order to close an opening (above 24) of the case;
wherein a pattern of elevated webs (81,82) for reinforcing (81,82 has more material) the lid wall (80) and recesses (90) each formed between the webs (Fig 6) is arranged on at least one of: the inner face (Fig 6) and or the outer face;
wherein the pattern comprises a number of first webs (82) each extending in a substantially radial direction(Fig 6) outwards from a region (91) within at least one of: the inner face (In) and the outer face, respectively, to the edge (Ine) as well as second webs (81 portions intersecting with each 82) intersecting the first webs (82), wherein the first webs are each laterally offset (Fig 6) in sections thereof (82-81-82) along the radial direction (R). Komoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the first webs are each laterally offset in sections thereof along the radial direction;
wherein the first webs (82) converge towards a central region (91) of the case lid and define a concentration (any concentration can be a concentration) of an amount of material in the central region, which is configured to change an oscillation spectrum of the case lid such that an overall noise level is reduced by up to 1 - 3 dB or more and a peak level is reduced by up to 5 dB or more, as compared with a case lid of the same design but having another pattern (See 35U.S.C 112(b) rejection) .
Wang (Fig 4) discloses wherein the first webs (15,18) are each laterally offset in sections thereof (15 is laterally offset from 18) along the radial direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed case lid of Komoto modified by offset radial first web and annular second web structure as taught by Wang in order to reduce excitation of noise, disperse noise radiation (Abstract of Wang) and optimize material while providing structural integrity (offsetting of radial first web reduces weakness along any particular radial direction which will reduce chance of fracture related failures where cracks can propagate) both in radial and circumferential directions depending upon chosen size of case id for given application.
Regarding Claim 12, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 5. Komoto in view of Wang further discloses wherein the fraction of the occupied surface area of at least one of: the inner face (In) and the outer face, respectively, within the planar part (80) of the lid wall of at least 90% %(Fig 6 discloses 100% of inner planar face of 26 has webs or recesses).
Regarding Claim 13, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 6. Komoto in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein in case of rotational symmetry , a local fraction (Examiner interprets this “local fraction” is not same as claim 6 “local fraction) of an inner ring area between two adjacent second webs close to and around the center of rotation amounts to more than 60% in a ring area between two adjacent second webs positioned comparatively more distantly outwards from the center of rotation.
Wang further discloses wherein in case of rotational symmetry (Fig 4) , a local fraction of an inner ring area (between 19a,19b) between two adjacent second webs(19a,19b) close to and around the center of rotation (Fig 4 center) amounts to more than 60% in a ring area between two adjacent second webs (between 19b,10) positioned comparatively more distantly outwards from the center of rotation (The proportion of these inner ring areas is a Result Effective Variable for e.g., reducing or increasing this ratio will change the stiffness characteristic of the lid which will affect its frequency response characteristics and manipulating this ratio to achieve a desired natural frequency outside the range of system resonant frequencies is well known in the art MPEP2144.05(II).B. Wang indicates [0004] “NVH optimization design” which further supports the experimental nature of arriving at an engineered solution for noise reduction. Further Examiner could not find any specific ratio in instant specification which has led to unexpected result as far as frequency response goes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed case lid of Komoto in view of Wang modified by NVH optimized solution as taught by Wang in order to arrive at a solution which is structurally well optimized for noise.
Regarding Claim 14, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 6. Komoto in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein in case of rotational symmetry , a local fraction (Examiner interprets this “local fraction” is not same as claim 6 “local fraction”) of an inner ring area between two adjacent second webs close to and around the center of rotation amounts to more than 80% in a ring area between two adjacent second webs positioned comparatively more distantly outwards from the center of rotation.
Wang further discloses wherein in case of rotational symmetry (Fig 4) , a local fraction of an inner ring area (between 19a,19b) between two adjacent second webs(19a,19b) close to and around the center of rotation (Fig 4 center) amounts to more than 80% in a ring area between two adjacent second webs (between 19b,10) positioned comparatively more distantly outwards from the center of rotation (The proportion of these inner ring areas is a Result Effective Variable for e.g., reducing or increasing this ratio will change the stiffness characteristic of the lid which will affect its frequency response characteristics and manipulating this ratio to achieve a desired natural frequency outside the range of system resonant frequencies is well known in the art MPEP2144.05(II).B. Wang indicates [0004] “NVH optimization design” which further supports the experimental nature of arriving at an engineered solution for noise reduction. Further Examiner could not find any specific ratio in instant specification which has led to unexpected result as far as frequency response goes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed case lid of Komoto in view of Wang modified by NVH optimized solution as taught by Wang in order to arrive at a solution which is structurally well optimized for noise.
Regarding Claim 15, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 6. Komoto in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein in case of rotational symmetry , a local fraction (Examiner interprets this “local fraction” is not same as claim 6 “local fraction”) of an inner ring area between two adjacent second webs close to and around the center of rotation amounts to less than 40% in a ring area between two adjacent second webs positioned comparatively more distantly outwards from the center of rotation.
Wang further discloses wherein in case of rotational symmetry (Fig 4) , a local fraction of an inner ring area (between 19a,19b) between two adjacent second webs(19a,19b) close to and around the center of rotation (Fig 4 center) amounts to less than 40% in a ring area between two adjacent second webs (between 19b,10) positioned comparatively more distantly outwards from the center of rotation (The proportion of these inner ring areas is a Result Effective Variable for e.g., reducing or increasing this ratio will change the stiffness characteristic of the lid which will affect its frequency response characteristics and manipulating this ratio to achieve a desired natural frequency outside the range of system resonant frequencies is well known in the art MPEP2144.05(II).B. Wang indicates [0004] “NVH optimization design” which further supports the experimental nature of arriving at an engineered solution for noise reduction. Further Examiner could not find any specific ratio in instant specification which has led to unexpected result as far as frequency response goes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed case lid of Komoto in view of Wang modified by NVH optimized solution as taught by Wang in order to arrive at a solution which is structurally well optimized for noise.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komoto in view of Wang and Otawara.
Regarding Claim 9, Komoto in view of Wang discloses the case lid according to claim 1. Komoto in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the inner face as well as the outer face comprise the pattern arranged in a mutually mirror-symmetrical fashion mirrored via the plane of the lid wall.
Otawara discloses (Figs 14A,14B) wherein the inner face (161a) as well as the outer face (161b) comprise the pattern arranged in a mutually mirror-symmetrical fashion [ Para 0099 ] mirrored via the plane of the lid wall (Plane of Page of Fig 14A 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed case lid of Komoto in view of Wang modified by planar symmetry of webs as taught by Otawara in order to not bias deformation and serve as case lid for two types of motors regardless of which surface is exposed to the outside depending upon motor configuration.
PNG
media_image6.png
452
766
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kondo et al (US20190103783A1) has relevant case lid structure with first and second webs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, Christopher M 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights