DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examin-ed under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 May 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-2 & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ohshita al. (US 11,063,503).
Ohshita teaches a circuit-integrated motor, comprising:
a motor 10;
a control board 42 for controlling the motor;
a casing (metal center piece) 18 including a partition wall portion (plate) 38 made of metal (abstract; c.4:12-14) and dividing a board housing chamber for housing the control board 42 from a placement space for the motor (c.4:35-37);
a terminal 62 for connecting the control board 42 to an external device (c.5:19-26); and
a terminal holder (connector) 44 formed of resin and holding the terminal 62 (abstract; c.5:19-26; Figs.2-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the feature of the terminal holder 44 “being molded integrally with the partition wall portion [38] by insert molding with the partition wall portion and the terminal [62] being insert parts”, this product-by-process feature does not distinguish from the product of Ohshita since the terminal holder 44 is fixed to and therefore integral with partition wall portion 38 (abstract; c.2:14-15; Figs.2-3). Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the claimed process of insert-molding the terminal holder 44 integrally with the partition wall portion 38 does not distinguish from the product.
Regarding claim 2, the partition wall portion 38 includes: a board facing surface (not numbered) facing the control board 42; and an outer peripheral edge (not numbered) protuberantly disposed on a side of the board housing chamber so as to surround the board facing surface, and the terminal holder 44 includes: a base portion (not numbered) joined to the board facing surface of the partition wall portion 38; an intermediate portion joined to the outer peripheral edge of the partition wall portion; and an extension portion extending outward of the board housing chamber so as to be located on an opposite side of the intermediate portion from the base portion.
Regarding claim 8, the center piece 18, including partition wall portion 38, is made of metal such as aluminum (c.4:12-13).
Regarding claim 9, the motor includes: a stator 12 attached to the partition wall portion 38 so as to be located on an opposite side of the partition wall portion from the board housing chamber, and including a stator core 28; a stator coil 32 wound around the stator core; and a rotor 14 including a magnet 22 disposed on an outer peripheral side of the stator core so as to face the stator core in a radial direction, and a vent (not numbered) is formed between the rotor 14 and the partition wall portion 38 (Figs.2-3).
Claims 1-3 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tominaga et al. (US 9.674,408).
Tominaga teaches a circuit-integrated motor, comprising:
a motor 1;
a control board 20 for controlling the motor;
a casing including a partition wall portion (heat sink) 28 made of metal (e.g., aluminum; c.3:48) and dividing a board housing chamber (not numbered) for housing the control board 20 from a placement space for the motor (i.e., inside motor casing 12);
a terminal 25a for connecting the control board 20 to an external device (i.e., battery and torque sensor; c.5:37-44); and
a terminal holder (power connector) 33 formed of resin and holding the terminal 25a (c.5:44-52).
Regarding the feature of the terminal holder 33 “being molded integrally with the partition wall portion [28] by insert molding with the partition wall portion and the terminal being insert parts”, this product-by-process feature does not distinguish from the product of Tominaga. Per MPEP 2113 (I), product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. "[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, Tominaga’s terminal holder 33 is integral with partition wall portion 28 (Figs.1-2). Embodiment 3, Fig.6, shows a similar arrangement.
PNG
media_image2.png
557
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the partition wall portion 28 includes: a board facing surface facing the control board 20; and an outer peripheral edge (denoted by 11; Fig.1) protuberantly disposed on a side of the board housing chamber so as to surround the board facing surface, and the terminal holder 33 includes: a base portion (not numbered) joined to the board facing surface of the partition wall portionv28; an intermediate portion joined to the outer peripheral edge of the partition wall portion; and an extension portion extending outward of the board housing chamber so as to be located on an opposite side of the intermediate portion from the base portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
355
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the terminal 25a includes: a first end portion protruding from the base portion and connected to the control board 20; and a second end portion 25a extending radially outward along the extension portion so as to protrude from the terminal holder 33, and a tip of the first end portion of the terminal bends in a direction from the board facing surface toward the control board 20 and is inserted into a through hole disposed in the control board (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 5, a portion of the terminal 25a embedded in the terminal holder 33 is disposed inside the intermediate portion of the terminal holder so as to “ride over” [sic] the outer peripheral edge of the partition wall portion s8 (Fig.2).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohshita as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kano (US 7,554,235).
Ohshita’s electronic device of the control board 42 is thermally connected…to the partition wall portion 18/38 serving as a heat sink (i.e., center piece 18 is made of metal to improve heat dissipation property of the control board 42; c.16:57-61) but is not connected “via a heat-dissipating member”.
But, Kano teaches a motor cover including a control board 51 with electronic parts 51b that is connected to a heat sink 35 via a heat-dissipating member (connecting portion) 35b that protrudes towards the control board 51 to fix the control board and emit heat from the parts to the outside via the heat sink (c.8:23-28; Fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to connect Ohshita’s electronic parts via a heat-dissipating member to the partition wall portion/heat sink since Kano teaches this would have fixed the control board and emitted heat.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohshita as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ozaki (US 10,008,909).
Ohshita does not further teach “a ground terminal of the control board [42] is electrically connected to the partition wall portion [38].”
But, Osaki teaches a motor 12 including a partition wall portion (heat sink/end portion) 20/20A dividing a board housing chamber for housing a control board 18 from a placement space for the motor, and a ground terminal 54A of the control board is electrically connected to the partition wall portion via connection terminal connection portion 54N to provide a ground region for the circuit board, the rotating body and shaft (abstract; c.7:29-60; Figs.4-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Ohshita with a ground terminal of the control board electrically connected to the partition wall portion since Ozaki teaches this would have provided a ground region for the circuit board, the rotating body and shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
The prior art does not further teach “the outer peripheral edge of the partition wall portion [60] includes a notch [68] through which a portion of the terminal [70] embedded in the terminal holder [80] passes, and the intermediate portion [84] of the terminal holder is disposed integrally with the outer peripheral edge [64] of the partition wall portion so as to fill the notch of the partition wall portion” (Fig.5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834