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 May 6, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 9-16 were previously pending; claims 11-12 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 May 6, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 5 of Remarks) amends claim 16 to include the limitations of claim 9 and put claim 16 into independent form. This overcomes the 112(d) rejection and is thus removed.
The Applicant's second point (page 7-10 of Remarks) argues that the interference and clearance fit of the present invention are not to be interpreted as a product by process as found in the MPEP 2113. The Examiner thanks the Applicant for their thorough explanation of clearance and interference fit, but fundamentally disagrees. By definition a clearance and interference fit are fastening methods, where two components are joined. Even the interference fit definition provided by the Applicant on page 8-9 of the Remarks filed on May 6, 2026 gives the method of an interference fit as part of the definition. Since the patentability of the product does not depend on its methods of production, the interference and clearance fit are interpreted as limitations of the final product.
The Applicant's third point (page 7-10 of Remarks) argues that HOSHINA does not teach the interference and clearance fit. The Examiner Disagrees with the Applicants assertion.
Firstly, HOSHIMA teaches, “an interference fit between said main edges of said assembly portion and said main edges of said assembly opening,” in the first claim of the prior art, “A rotary shaft having a shaft portion into which the gear member is fitted.”
Secondly, HOSHIMA teaches, “a clearance fit between said convex edges of said assembly portion and said convex edges of said assembly opening,” in Fig 7b of the prior art. As shown below a clear gap is provided between convex edge opening 65 and convex edge shaft 52. Please see annotation below:
PNG
media_image1.png
606
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, all the limitations of the newly amended claim one are taught by the previously presented prior art; thus the 103 rejection in maintained.
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 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
755
405
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
767
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
606
728
media_image1.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.
In regards to claim 10, RITTER, in view of HOSHINA, 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, 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.
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.
In regards to claim 14, RITTER, in view of HOSHINA, 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, 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights