DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 10-20 of U.S. Application 18/628999 filed on June 11, 2024 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 8, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 10, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfeiffer (US 20170133906).
Regarding claim 10, Pfeiffer teaches (see figs. 1, 4 and 5 below) an electric motor (1) for an ancillary unit of a motor vehicle (intended use limitation not given patentable weight) (Abstract; ¶ 31),
the electric motor (1) comprising: a sensor (17, 20) having a plurality of fastening holes (see annotated fig. 5 below) formed therein (¶ 31);
a sensor support (8) made of a plastics material and having a body on which said sensor being held (¶ 24; ¶ 31); and
a plurality of contact pins (28, 29) embedded in said body by press-fitting technology (press-fitting is a process not given patentable weight in the apparatus claim, see below) (¶ 35),
said contact pins (28, 29) being in each case guided through one corresponding one of said fastening holes (see annotated fig. 5 below) of said sensor (17, 20) (fig. 5; ¶ 31; ¶ 35).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “embedded in said body by press-fitting” is 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
724
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
540
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11/10, Pfeiffer teaches (see figs. 1, 4 and 5 above) said sensor (17, 20) has a circuit board (17) in which said fastening holes (see annotated fig. 5 above) are formed (¶ 31).
Regarding claim 19, Pfeiffer teaches (see figs. 1, 4 and 5 above) an ancillary unit of a motor vehicle (intended use limitation not given patentable weight) (Abstract; ¶ 31),
the ancillary unit comprising: an electric motor (1), containing: a sensor (17, 20) having a plurality of fastening holes (see annotated fig. 5 above) formed therein (Abstract; ¶ 31);
a sensor support (8) made of a plastics material and having a body on which said sensor is held (¶ 24; ¶ 31); and
a plurality of contact pins (28, 29) embedded in said body by press-fitting technology (press-fitting is a process not given patentable weight in the apparatus claim, see below) (¶ 35),
said contact pins (28, 29) being in each case guided through one corresponding one of said fastening holes (see annotated fig. 5 above) of said sensor (17, 20) (fig. 5; ¶ 31; ¶ 35).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “embedded in said body by press-fitting” is 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer in view of Kifer (US 20200328648).
Regarding claim 18/10, Pfeiffer teaches the device of claim 19 but does not explicitly teach the ancillary unit is an electromechanical brake booster.
However, Kifer teaches the ancillary unit is an electromechanical brake booster (¶ 3; ¶ 37) in order to provide quicker, simpler assembly with improved reliability (Pfeiffer, ¶ 7; ¶ 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Pfeiffer and provide the ancillary unit is an electromechanical brake booster as taught by Kifer in order to provide quicker, simpler assembly with improved reliability (Pfeiffer, ¶ 7; ¶ 8).
Regarding claim 20/19, Pfeiffer teaches the device of claim 19 but does not explicitly teach the ancillary unit is an electromechanical brake booster.
However, Kifer teaches the ancillary unit is an electromechanical brake booster (¶ 3; ¶ 37) in order to provide quicker, simpler assembly with improved reliability (Pfeiffer, ¶ 7; ¶ 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Pfeiffer and provide the ancillary unit is an electromechanical brake booster as taught by Kifer in order to provide quicker, simpler assembly with improved reliability (Pfeiffer, ¶ 7; ¶ 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-0243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Seye 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.
/ALEXANDER A SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights