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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract in the Instant Application is less than the 50 word minimum. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (Pub No. US 2018/0066736 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Ito teaches an electric actuator (See figure 2, ref # 21) for operating a movable portion (See figure 1, ref # 13) of a vehicle seat, (See paragraph 0030 & figure 1, ref # S) the electric actuator (See figure 2, ref # 21) comprises: an electric motor; (See figure 2, ref # 21) a first gear (See paragraphs 0034-0036, 0041 & figure 2, ref # 22) provided to an output shaft (See figure 2, ref # 22a) of the electric motor; (See figure 2, ref # 21) a second gear (See figure 2, ref # 23) meshing with the first gear, (See figure 2, ref # 22) the second gear (See figure 2, ref # 23) having a rotational axis parallel to a rotational axis of the output shaft; (See figure 2, ref # 22a) a worm (See figure 2, ref # 24) configured to receive a driving force from the second gear (See figure 2, ref # 23) to thereby rotate, the worm (See figure 2, ref # 24) having a rotational axis parallel to the rotational axis of the output shaft; (See figure 2, ref # 22a) a worm wheel (See figure 2, ref # 25) meshing with the worm, (See figure 2, ref # 24) the worm wheel (See figure 2, ref # 25) having a rotational axis parallel to a direction orthogonal to the rotational axis of the output shaft; (See figure 2, ref # 22a) and an output portion (See figure 2, ref # 26) configured to receive a driving force from the worm wheel (See figure 2, ref # 25) to thereby output a rotational force, the output portion (See figure 2, ref # 26) having a rotational axis parallel to the rotational axis of the worm wheel, (See figure 2, ref # 25) at least a part of the electric motor (See figure 2, ref # 21) projected on an imaginary plane orthogonal to the rotational axis of the worm wheel (See figure 2, ref # 25) overlapping at least one of the worm (See figure 2, ref # 24) projected on the imaginary plane or the worm wheel (See figure 2, ref # 25) projected on the imaginary plane. (See figure 2)
Regarding claim 2
Ito teaches further comprising a gear casing (See figure 2, ref # 28) accommodating therein the second gear, (See figure 2, ref # 23) the worm, (See figure 2, ref # 24) and the worm wheel, (See figure 2, ref # 25) wherein the electric motor (See figure 2, ref # 21) is supported by the gear casing (See figure 2, ref # 28) such that the electric motor (See figure 2, ref # 21) is arranged outside the gear casing. (See figure 2, ref # 28)
Regarding claim 3
Ito teaches further comprising two or more support portions (See figures 2 & 4B, ref # 28a & the unlabeled cavity/hole near the cylindrical part 42/46 between # 42/46 & 28a) supporting the electric motor, (See figure 2, ref # 21) the two or more support portions (See figures 2 & 4B, ref # 28a & the unlabeled cavity/hole near the cylindrical part 42/46 between # 42/46 & 28a) comprising a first support portion (See figures 2 & 4B, ref # the unlabeled cavity/hole near the cylindrical part 42/46 between # 42/46 & 28a) arranged on an output shaft (See figure 2, ref # 22a) side with respect to a motor main body (See figure 2, ref # 21) of the electric motor (See figure 2, ref # 21) and a second support portion (See figures 2 & 4B, ref # 28a) arranged on an opposite side to the output shaft (See figure 2, ref # 22a) with respect to the motor main body. (See figure 2, ref # 21; supporting on opposite sides of the shaft 22a)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (Pub No. US 2018/0066736 A1) as applied to claims 2 & 3 above, and further in view of Becker et al. (Pub No. US 2019/0152347 A1).
Regarding claim 4
Ito teaches wherein the first support portion (See figures 2 & 4B, the unlabeled cavity between ref # 42/46 & 28a) supports the motor main body (See figure 2, ref # 21) via a member. (See figure 2, unlabeled member between ref # 22a & 28)
Ito is silent about wherein the first support portion supports the motor main body via an elastic member.
However, Becker teaches wherein the first support portion (See paragraphs 0032, 0034-0035, 0037 & figures 1, 3, 5, & 8, ref # 44) supports the motor main body (See paragraphs 0032, 0034-0035, 0037 & figures 1, 3, 5, & 8, ref # 24) via an elastic member. (See paragraphs 0032, 0034-0035, 0037 & figures 1, 3, 5, & 8, ref # 46)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed inventor to have a first support portion supports the motor main body via an elastic member as taught by Becker in the vehicle of Ito, so as to cushionably support the electric motor to the gear casing.
Regarding claims 5, 6, & 7
Ito is silent about further comprising a slide bearing rotatably supporting a leading end side of the output shaft, the slide bearing being fixed to the gear casing.
However, Becker teaches further comprising a slide bearing (See paragraphs 0032, 0034-0035, 0037 & figures 1, 3, 5, & 8, ref # 48) rotatably supporting a leading end side of the output shaft, (See paragraphs 0032, 0034-0035, 0037 & figures 1, 3, 5, & 8, ref # 38) the slide bearing (See paragraphs 0032, 0034-0035, 0037 & figures 1, 3, 5, & 8, ref # 48) being fixed to the gear casing. (See paragraphs 0032, 0034-0035, 0037 & figures 1, 3, 5, & 8, ref # 42)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed inventor to have a slide bearing rotatably supporting a leading end side of the output shaft, the slide bearing being fixed to the gear casing as taught by Becker in the vehicle of Ito, so as to support the electric motor to the gear casing.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (Pub No. US 2018/0066736 A1) in view of Becker et al. (Pub No. US 2019/0152347 A1) as applied to claims 3 & 4 above, and further in view of Roos (Pub No. US 2015/0349617 A1).
Regarding claims 8 & 9
A modified Ito is silent about wherein the electric motor is a direct current motor comprising a commutator and a brush inside the electric motor main body on an opposite side to the output shaft with respect to the motor main body.
However, Roos teaches wherein the electric motor (See paragraphs 0002, 0023, 0025 & figure 1, ref # 2) is a direct current motor (See paragraphs 0002, 0023, 0025 & figure 1, ref # 2) comprising a commutator (See paragraphs 0002, 0023, 0025 & figure 1, ref # 8 & 9) and a brush (See paragraphs 0002, 0023, 0025 & figure 1, ref # 10) inside the electric motor main body (See paragraphs 0002, 0023, 0025 & figure 1, ref # 2) on an opposite side to the output shaft with respect to the motor main body. (See paragraphs 0002, 0023, 0025 & figure 1, ref # 2)
While Roos is silent about the brush being on an opposite side of the output shaft, The brush would either be on the opposite side or the same side of the output shaft, since there are a finite number of solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to try having the brush on the opposite side to the output shaft with respect to the motor main body, since there are a finite number of solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. (See MPEP 2143 I E)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed inventor to have an electric motor is a direct current motor comprising a commutator and a brush inside the electric motor main body on an opposite side to the output shaft with respect to the motor main body as taught by Roos in the modified vehicle of Ito, so as to supply power to the electric motor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference Koga (Pub No. US 2011/0023643 A1) discloses a vehicle seat, an electric actuator, an electric motor, an output shaft, a gear casing, a first gear, a second gear, the first gear is a worm, the second gear is a worm wheel, an output portion, and a slide bearing rotatably supporting a leading end side of the output shaft, the slide bearing being fixed to the gear casing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647