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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed September 10, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 9-10 and 13-16 were previously pending; no claims were cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 9-10 and 13-16 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 6-9 of Remarks) amends claim 9 and 16 to include the limitation, “said barrel-shaped cross section of said assembly portion being entirely constant along said rotor axis”. The Applicant goes on to argue that this limitation of the present invention is not anticipated by HOSHINA. While this may be true for HOSHINA, the concept of a consistent cross section down its axial axis is not novel. It is taught and shown in other prior art given below. Additionally, it is well known in the art that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). For those reasons a new rejection is provided below in light of the amendment.
The Applicant's second point (page 9-10 of Remarks) amends claim 13 to include the limitation, “said gear wheel has an increased wall thickness in a region of each of said corners, and troughs between said teeth each radially and tangentially neighbor a respective one of said corners.” The Applicant goes on to argue that this limitation is not taught by RITTER or HOSHINA. While the Examiner agrees for the case of RITTER, Fig 5 of HOSHINA clearly teaches the limitation. The annotated figure of HOSHINA below shows that the cross area wall thickness of the gear wheel increases at the corners 63/64. Since the limitation is taught by HOSHINA the rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
341
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The Examiner points out the limitation of an interference fit in claim 11 and a clearance fit in claim 12, are considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RITTER (US 20140054996 A1) in view of HOSHINA (JP 2020118179 A), in further view of UCHIMURA(JP 2008167585 A).
In regards to claim 9, RITTER teaches:
An electric motor (Fig 1; 10) of an ancillary unit or electromechanical brake booster of a motor vehicle[0002], the electric motor (Fig 1; 10) comprising: a rotor shaft (Fig 1; 26)disposed along a rotor axis(Fig 1; A), said rotor shaft (Fig 1; 26)including:
a cylindrical main portion (Fig 1; 26) having a round cross section perpendicular to said rotor axis(Fig 1; A)(Fig 1 shows a cylindrical shaft)
a gear wheel (Fig 1; 42)
PNG
media_image2.png
384
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RITTER does not teach:
an assembly portion adjoining said main and having a barrel- shaped cross section perpendicular to said rotor axis, two mutually parallel main edges, and two convex edges; and
a gear wheel disposed on said assembly portion, said gear wheel having a central assembly opening with a barrel-shaped cross section perpendicular to said rotor axis
said assembly opening has main edges, and an interference fit is established between said main edges of said assembly portion and said main edges of said assembly opening, and
said assembly opening has convex edges, and a clearance fit is established between said convex edges of said assembly portion and said convex edges of said assembly opening.
HOSHINA teaches:
a cylindrical main portion(Fig 5; 55) (Fig 1; 26) having a round cross section perpendicular to said rotor axis(Fig 1; A)(Fig 1 shows a cylindrical shaft)(Fig 5 shows a circular cross section of main portion 55), and
an assembly portion (Fig 5; 51)adjoining said main portion (Fig 5; 55) (Fig 7 shows parts adjoined)and having a barrel- shaped cross section perpendicular to said rotor axis(Fig 5 shows a barrel cross section of assembly portion 51), two mutually parallel main edges(Fig 5; 53), and two convex edges(Fig 5; 52); and
a gear wheel (Fig 1; 42) (Fig 5; 60)disposed on said assembly portion(Fig 5; 51), said gear wheel(Fig 1; 42) (Fig 5; 60) having a central assembly opening (Fig 5; 62)with a barrel-shaped cross section perpendicular to said rotor axis(Fig 5 shows a barrel cross section of assembly opening 62);
said assembly opening(Fig 5; 62) has main edges(Fig 5; 65’), and an interference fit(interference fit is a product by process) is established between said main edges(Fig 5; 53) of said assembly portion and said main edges(Fig 5; 65’) of said assembly opening, and
said assembly opening (Fig 5; 62)has convex edges(Fig 5; 65), and a clearance fit(Fig 7b; gap) (clearance fit is a product by process) is established between said convex edges (Fig 5; 52)of said assembly portion and said convex edges (Fig 5; 65)of said assembly opening.
PNG
media_image3.png
606
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
755
405
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
767
438
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor shaft of RITTER by adding the assembly portion taught by HOSHINA and using the gear wheel taught by HOSHINA in order to preventing rattling of gear parts mounted on a rotary shaft and concentrically disposing the rotary shaft and the gear parts [0005 HOSHINA].
Additionally, the Applicant should note that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a “Double-D shaft” or “flat shaft” since it was known in the art that a “Double-D shaft” or “flat shaft” is a common structure used in machine design to fix rotation.
Combination RITTER/HOSHINA do not teach:
said barrel-shaped cross section of said assembly portion being entirely constant along said rotor axis
UCHIMURA teaches:
said barrel-shaped cross section of said assembly portion (Fig 4; 45) being entirely constant along said rotor axis
PNG
media_image6.png
464
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor shaft of HOSHINA by changing the shape of the assembly portion making said barrel-shaped cross section of said assembly portion to be entirely constant along said rotor axis as taught by UCHIMURA in order to effectively absorb the backlash in the axial direction [0008 UCHIMURA].
Additionally, the Applicant should note that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). For
In regards to claim 10, RITTER, in view of HOSHINA, in further view of UCHIMURA, teaches the electric motor according to claim 9:
wherein said gear wheel (Fig 1; 42)is helically toothed(shown in Fig 1) relative to said rotor axis(Fig 1; A).
In regards to claim 13, RITTER, in view of HOSHINA, in further view of UCHIMURA, teaches the electric motor according to claim 9.
RITTER does not teach:
wherein said assembly opening has main edges, convex edges and corners each formed between a respective one of said main edges and a respective adjacent one of said convex edges, said gear wheel has teeth, and each tooth is disposed adjacent to a respective one of said corners in a radial direction; and
said gear wheel has an increased wall thickness in a region of each of said corners, and troughs between said teeth each radially and tangentially neighbor a respective one of said corners.
HOSHINA teaches:
wherein said assembly opening (Fig 5; 62)has main edges(Fig 5; 65’), convex edges (Fig 5; 65)and corners (Fig 5; 63/64)each formed between a respective one of said main edges (Fig 5; 65’)and a respective adjacent one of said convex edges(Fig 5; 65), said gear wheel(Fig 5; 60) has teeth(Fig 5; 61), and each tooth(Fig 5; 61) is disposed adjacent to a respective one of said corners(Fig 5; 63/64) in a radial direction; and
said gear wheel (Fig 5; 60)has an increased wall thickness in a region of each of said corners(Fig 5; 63/64), and troughs between said teeth (Fig 5; 61)each radially and tangentially neighbor a respective one of said corners(Fig 5; 63/64).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, RITTER, in view of HOSHINA, in further view of UCHIMURA, teaches the electric motor according to claim 9.
RITTER does not teach:
wherein said rotor shaft has a circumferentially encircling step formed between said assembly portion and said main portion.
HOSHINA teaches:
wherein said rotor shaft (Fig 5; 50)has a circumferentially encircling step(step shown in Fig 7) formed between said assembly portion (Fig 7; 51)and said main portion(Fig 7; 55).
In regards to claim 15, RITTER, in view of HOSHINA, in further view of UCHIMURA, teaches the electric motor according to claim 9.
RITTER does not teach:
wherein said assembly portion has a beveled end facing away from said main portion.
HOSHINA teaches:
wherein said assembly portion(Fig 7; 51) has a beveled end(step shown in Fig 7) facing away from said main portion(Fig 7; 55).
In regards to claim 16, RITTER teaches:
an ancillary unit or electromechanical brake booster of a motor vehicle[0002], the ancillary unit or electromechanical brake booster [0002]comprising an electric motor including:
a rotor shaft (Fig 1; 26)disposed along a rotor axis(Fig 1; A), said rotor shaft (Fig 1; 26)including:
a cylindrical main portion (Fig 1; 26) having a round cross section perpendicular to said rotor axis(Fig 1; A)(Fig 1 shows a cylindrical shaft)
a gear wheel (Fig 1; 42).
RITTER does not teach:
a gear wheel disposed on said assembly portion, said gear wheel having a central assembly opening with a barrel-shaped cross section perpendicular to said rotor axis;
said assembly opening having main edges, and an interference fit between said main edges of said assembly portion and said main edges of said assembly opening, and
said assembly opening having convex edges, and a clearance fit between said convex edges of said assembly portion and said convex edges of said assembly opening.
HOSHINA teaches:
a gear wheel (Fig 1; 42) (Fig 5; 60)disposed on said assembly portion(Fig 5; 51), said gear wheel(Fig 1; 42) (Fig 5; 60) having a central assembly opening (Fig 5; 62)with a barrel-shaped cross section perpendicular to said rotor axis(Fig 5 shows a barrel cross section of assembly opening 62);
said assembly opening(Fig 5; 62) has main edges(Fig 5; 65’), and an interference fit(interference fit is a product by process) is established between said main edges(Fig 5; 53) of said assembly portion and said main edges(Fig 5; 65’) of said assembly opening, and
said assembly opening (Fig 5; 62)has convex edges(Fig 5; 65), and a clearance fit (clearance fit is a product by process) is established between said convex edges (Fig 5; 52)of said assembly portion and said convex edges (Fig 5; 65)of said assembly opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor shaft of RITTER by adding the assembly portion taught by HOSHINA and using the gear wheel taught by HOSHINA in order to preventing rattling of gear parts mounted on a rotary shaft and concentrically disposing the rotary shaft and the gear parts [0005 HOSHINA].
Additionally, the Applicant should note that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a “Double-D shaft” or “flat shaft” since it was known in the art that a “Double-D shaft” or “flat shaft” is a common structure used in machine design to fix rotation.
Combination RITTER/HOSHINA do not teach:
said barrel-shaped cross section of said assembly portion being entirely constant along said rotor axis
UCHIMURA teaches:
said barrel-shaped cross section of said assembly portion (Fig 4; 45) being entirely constant along said rotor axis
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor shaft of HOSHINA by changing the shape of the assembly portion making said barrel-shaped cross section of said assembly portion to be entirely constant along said rotor axis as taught by UCHIMURA in order to effectively absorb the backlash in the axial direction [0008 UCHIMURA].
Additionally, the Applicant should note that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). For
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (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 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
