DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 4.7.26. 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, 11 and its dependents 11-15 which will be examined below.
Drawing objection from previous Office action is withdrawn in light of clarification in Remarks dated 4.7.26.
Claim objection from previous Office action is withdrawn in light of claim 12 amendment.
Claim 11, 13-15 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to claims 11 and 13.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 rejections, the Applicant provides several arguments to which the
Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: Komoto's ribs do not disclose or suggest a single radial web having multiple, laterally offset radial sections as defined above. Instead, Komoto depicts separate radial ribs and annular ribs, not a meandering radial web segmented into laterally offset sections. Therefore Komoto does not anticipate the "laterally offset in sections thereof' limitation as properly construed in light of Applicant's specification.
Examiner Response 1: In light of argument, clarification and amendment of claim 1, Examiner agrees that Komoto by itself is not sufficient to read on amended claim 1.
Applicant Argument 2: Even assuming, arguendo, that Wang teaches multiple concentric rings, Applicant's specification explains that the concentric second webs function as transverse connectors between laterally offset sections of the same radial first web, enabling the segmented/meandering geometry that disrupts vibration transmission. The Office Action's rationale to 'optimize material while providing structural integrity' does not address this functional relationship or why one would integrate Wang's annular ring structures into Komoto in a manner that yields the claimed segmented, laterally offset radial-web configuration. The combination is therefore not a mere predictable design choice as it would require adopting Applicant's specific architecture in which ring-shaped second webs cooperate with laterally offset radial sections to impede direct radial propagation and enhance damping
Examiner Response 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees, especially in relation to last part of argument. As Komoto discloses in Para 0045 and 0052, “resonance” or vibration and noise related outcomes is of concern to Komoto. Further Wang in Abstract discloses “ The end cover is characterized in that the plurality of first radial reinforcing ribs and the plurality of second radial reinforcing ribs are distributed in a staggered manner, so that the end cover changes a drum plane, disperses noise radiation, reduces excitation of noise, and improves the noise problem” also therefore it will be natural to combine with Wang which offers other ways of reducing noise and vibration related issues. With respect to rationale used by Examiner regarding material optimization, Examiner continues to believe material optimization is always a goal, however will consider Applicant argument in light of claim amendment and argument.
Applicant Argument 3: In Komoto, however, the cover serves only as a shield against impacts and certainly also against dirt (this also applies to the protrusion 75 in FIG. 6, which, moreover, does not move but merely supports the circuit board 25). However, it does not bear any load. Therefore, the skilled person will hardly apply the measure from Wang to Komoto, since there is no noise generation caused by a shaft mounted in the cover.
Examiner Response 3: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Komoto and Wang disclose ways to reduce vibration and noise based on cited paragraphs above. Whether the noise originates due to a rotating shaft or from other source is not relevant unless it is made part of claim recitation. Further Komoto’s cover or lid is part of the motor assembly, hence it is part of the path of vibration and noise induced by the motor and it will be natural to mitigate this noise using various methodologies as suggested by Para 0045 and 0052.
Applicant Argument 4: As noted in the as-filed application, vibrations may occur that are introduced from the outside via the engagement structures and the edge and are damped by the special pattern via a mass concentration in the center. However, Komoto shows no engagement structures. Nor is the problem described. In currently amended independent Claim 1, by contrast, the central mass increase in the center of the lid is combined with the lateral offset of the radial ribs. Nothing of this sort can be inferred from Komoto.
Examiner Response 4: W.r.t “engagement structures” as shown in previous Office Action, “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”. There are no claim limitations related to “vibrations may occur that are introduced from the outside via the engagement structures and the edge and are damped by the special pattern via a mass concentration in the center” and Examiner is unable to read specification into the claims.
Applicant Argument 5: In Wang, the radial ribs appear to be very thin (which would require them to be made of metal), and the radial spacing of the annular ribs 10, 19 even seems to decrease toward the outside, so that a central mass concentration in Wang is hardly detectable at all due to the ribs. Further, it is also not even needed there, since the shaft bearing 12, 13 and the mounting 17 are provided. As a result, a person skilled in the art would not be led to combine Komoto and Wang in such a way as to arrive at the subject matter of currently amended independent Claim 1. Accordingly, Wang, alone or in combination with Komoto, does not disclose or suggest the claimed "wherein the case lid is manufactured from at least one of: a plastic material and a resin and is injection-molded"
Examiner Response 5: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Wang Examiner could not find any support for “the radial ribs appear to be very thin (which would require them to be made of metal)”, so person skilled in the art can take the noise alleviating structural solution of Wang and apply to Komoto without having to restrict to a specific type of material. “Mass concentration” argument is moot as there are no limitations related to this feature in claim1.
Applicant Argument 6:The Applicant notes that with the combined measures (web convergence/mass
accumulation and sectional lateral offset) as claimed in currently amended independent Claim 1 "the overall noise level can be reduced by 1-3 dB. In particular, however, the levels of the peaks in the spectrum can be flattened by up to 5 dB" (as-filed application Specification at paragraph [0019])
Examiner Response 6: Argument related to noise level reduction need to be added into claim recitation to be distinguishable. Rest of argument above is responded to in previous arguments.
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].
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 radial and annular 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 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). 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 radial and annular 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 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.
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 radial and annular 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 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 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 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 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
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights