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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 March 2026 have been fully considered but the amendment required the new grounds of rejection shown below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (“Nishikawa”; US 2013/0134841), in view of Yokoyama et al. (“Yokoyama”; US 2010/0270872) and Hallerback (US 3,735,462).
Regarding claim 1: Nishikawa discloses a support system, comprising:
a housing (10, Fig. 1),
where the housing directly supports a resolver stator (32);
a rotor bearing support cup (portion of the housing supporting 11),
where the resolver stator is concentric with the rotor bearing support cup (along the central rotor) (as shown in Fig. 1, they are all integrated within 10).
Nishikawa does not explicitly disclose a housing comprised of an electric insulating material, the housing directly supports a rotor bearing support cup, where the rotor bearing support cup is in direct contact with the housing; where the rotor bearing support cup is constructed out of a metal and the housing is constructed out of plastic; and where a rotor bearing directly contacts the rotor bearing support cup and a rotor shaft.
However, Yokoyama discloses a housing (50) comprised of an electric insulating material (paragraph 0017 – plastic).
And, where a rotor bearing support cup (40) is in direct contact with the housing (50, shown in Fig. 1);
and the housing is constructed out of plastic (paragraph 0017); and
where a rotor bearing (41) directly contacts the rotor bearing support cup (42) and a rotor shaft (at 43, which is referred to a ‘sensor shaft’, but it is merely the upper portion of the motor/rotor shaft 33, see paragraph 0016).
And, Hallerback discloses where the rotor bearing support cup is constructed out of a metal (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of Nishikawa to comprise and insulating material and bearing support cup, as disclosed by Yokoyama, in order to ensure no current is transferred to the housing and to better support the bearing and to construct the bearing support cup out of metal, as disclosed by Hallerback, in order to increase the durability.
Regarding claim 2: Nishikawa discloses the housing is molded over at least a portion of the resolver stator (see arrow in annotated Fig. 1, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3: Nishikawa discloses the resolver stator is held within the housing via a retainer (14).
Regarding claim 4: Nishikawa discloses the rotor bearing support cup comprises steel or aluminum (paragraph 0018, the housing walls are made of aluminum alloy).
Regarding claim 5: Nishikawa discloses the housing and the bear support cup but does not explicitly disclose the housing is molded over the rotor bearing support cup.
However, Yokoyama discloses the housing (50) is molded over the rotor bearing support cup (40, Fig. 2, paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing and bearing cup of Nishikawa to have the housing molded over the support cup, as disclosed by Yokoyama, in order to increase the strength between the housing and bearing (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 6: Nishikawa disclose an interface (35) for an electrical connector seamlessly integrated into the housing (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 7: Nishikawa discloses electrical conductors (not labelled, see the arrow in Fig. 2 below, as 36 and 38 are connected to 32 conductors are inherently located in the arrow location) extending from the resolver stator (32) to the interface (35).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa, in view of Yokoyama, Hallerback, and Choi (US 2001/0033111).
Regarding claim 8: Nishikawa discloses a method for constructing a support system, comprising:
molding the support such a resolver stator (32) and the rotor bearing support cup (part of housing supporting bearing 11) when assembled with the support are concentric about a resolver stator center line (along the rotor) and a rotor bearing support cup centerline (also, along the rotor, as shown in Fig. 1).
Nishikawa does not explicitly disclose a housing comprised of an electric insulating material, the housing directly supports a rotor bearing support cup, where the rotor bearing support cup is in direct contact with the housing; where the rotor bearing support cup is constructed out of a metal and the housing is constructed out of plastic; and where a rotor bearing directly contacts the rotor bearing support cup and a rotor shaft.
However, Yokoyama discloses a housing (50) comprised of an electric insulating material (paragraph 0017 – plastic).
And, where a rotor bearing support cup (40) is in direct contact with the housing (50, shown in Fig. 1);
and the housing is constructed out of plastic (paragraph 0017); and
where a rotor bearing (41) directly contacts the rotor bearing support cup (42) and a rotor shaft (at 43, which is referred to a ‘sensor shaft’, but it is merely the upper portion of the motor/rotor shaft 33, see paragraph 0016).
And, Choi discloses injection molding a housing for an electric machine (paragraph 0002).
And, Hallerback discloses where the rotor bearing support cup is constructed out of a metal (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of Nishikawa to comprise and insulating material and bearing support cup, as disclosed by Yokoyama, in order to ensure no current is transferred to the housing and to better support the bearing, to have the housing injection molded as disclosed by Choi in order to construct the housing efficiently, and to construct the bearing support cup out of metal, as disclosed by Hallerback, in order to increase the durability.
Regarding claim 9: Nishikawa modified by Yokoyama disclose electric insulation material, Yokoyama further discloses the electric insulation material is plastic (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 10: Nishikawa modified by Choi disclose injection molding, Nishikawa further discloses where injection molding the support includes: molding electric conductors in the support (see annotated Fig. 2, above); and
molding the electric connector interface (35) into the support,
where the electrical conductors extend from the electric connector interface to a resolve (see annotated Fig. 2, above).
Regarding claim 13: Nishikawa discloses molding the support over the resolver stator (see annotated Fig. 1, above).
Regarding claim 14: Nishikawa discloses a bearing support cup but does not explicitly disclose molding the support over a bearing support cup.
However, Yokoyama discloses molding the support (50) over a bearing support cup (40, Fig. 2, paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing and bearing cup of Nishikawa to have the housing molded over the support cup, as disclosed by Yokoyama, in order to increase the strength between the housing and bearing (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 15: Nishikawa discloses pressing a bearing (11) into the rotor bearing support cup (inherent, paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 16: Nishikawa discloses a support system (Fig. 1), comprising:
an electric machine housing (5);
an electric machine rotor shaft (12);
a housing (10), the housing including a resolver stator (32) and a rotor bearing support cup directly integrated therein (paragraph 0015, supporting 11), the resolver stator concentric with the rotor bearing support cup (along the rotor centerline), the housing coupled to the electric machine housing (as shown in Fig. 1, 5 and 10 are clearly connected).
Nishikawa does not explicitly disclose the housing constructed out of plastic, a retainer press-fit into the housing and holding the resolver stator in place; where the rotor bearing support cup is constructed out of a metal; where the rotor bearing support cup is constructed out of a metal; and where a rotor bearing directly contacts the rotor bearing support cup and a rotor shaft.
However, Yokoyama discloses a housing (50) constructed out of plastic (paragraph 0017), and where a rotor bearing (41) directly contacts the rotor bearing support cup (42) and a rotor shaft (at 43, which is referred to a ‘sensor shaft’, but it is merely the upper portion of the motor/rotor shaft 33, see paragraph 0016).
And, Choi discloses a retainer (7 and 8’) press-fit into the housing (4) and holding the resolver stator in place (as the housing would not be intact without the retainers, paragraph 0036).
And, Hallerback discloses where the rotor bearing support cup is constructed out of a metal (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of Nishikawa to comprise plastic and a bearing support cup, as disclosed by Yokoyama, in order to ensure no current is transferred to the housing and to better support the bearing, to have the press-fit retainer as disclosed by Choi in order to construct the housing efficiently, and to construct the bearing support cup out of metal, as disclosed by Hallerback, in order to increase the durability.
Regarding claim 17: Nishikawa discloses a bearing (11), the bearing pressed into the rotor bearing support cup (paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 18: Nishikawa discloses the electric machine rotor shaft is inserted into the rotor bearing support cup (as it goes through 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 19: Nishikawa discloses resolver lobes coupled to the electric machine rotor shaft (inherent as the shaft rotates within the stator 32, there must be lobes to interact with the stator).
Regarding claim 20: Nishikawa discloses an electrical connector receiver (35) formed in the housing, an electrical connector coupled to the electric machine housing (see annotated Fig. 2, above), the electrical connector mated to the electrical connector receiver (38, connected to 19, Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834