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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2024 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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Briscoe et al. (US 2022/0239206).
Regarding claim 1, Briscoe et al. disclose:
An apparatus for securing a rotor core (abstract, Fig 2), the apparatus comprising:
an upper plate (52, Fig 2); and
a lower plate (54) spaced apart from the upper plate and configured to support the rotor core (30) between the upper plate and the lower plate,
the lower plate (54) having an upper side facing in a first direction toward the upper plate (52) and a lower side facing in a second direction away from the upper plate,
the upper side comprising a pocket (by 84,85 Fig 5, paras 34-36) recessed in the second direction relative to an upper surface of the upper side,
wherein the upper side comprises a plurality of tabs (31, para 34) configured to engage the rotor core (30) and extending from an inner periphery of the lower plate into the pocket (para 34).
Briscoe et al. discloses the invention as discussed above, but in different embodiments.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of combining Briscoe et al.’s teachings to make applicant’s above claimed invention, as it would permit one to achieve assembly efficiency for high volume production (para 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine Briscoe et al.’s teachings to make applicant’s above claimed invention.
The motivation to do so is it would allow one to achieve assembly efficiency for high volume production (para 5 of Briscoe et al.).
Regarding claim 2/1, Briscoe et al. disclose further comprising a central mandrel (82) extending between the upper plate (52, Fig 4) and the lower plate (54) and configured to extend through the rotor core (30, para 34).
Regarding claim 3/1, Briscoe et al. disclose wherein the lower plate includes a plurality of openings (85, para 36) extending therethrough, the openings are circumferentially spaced apart around the lower plate (54, Fig 5), and wherein the openings are located within the pocket (84,85).
Regarding claim 6/1, Briscoe et al. disclose further comprising the rotor core, the rotor core comprising a plurality of stacked laminations secured to each other (paras 12-13, Figs 1-7).
Regarding claim 7/1, Briscoe et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the tabs have a triangular shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the tabs have a triangular shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
The motivation to do so would be based on cost, available space surrounding adjacent components and ease of manufacture.
Regarding claim 8/1, Briscoe et al. disclose wherein the tabs (31, para 34 – not shown in Fig 5) are positioned circumferentially around the upper side of the lower plate (based on para 34 and Fig 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
In claim 9 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…each tab of the plurality of tabs engaging the rotor core at a location beneath a respective cavity of the plurality of cavities to cover the respective cavity.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 10-17 are also allowable for depending on claim 9.
In claim 18 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the lower plate comprises a plurality of tabs engaging a lowermost lamination of the stack of laminations and extending from an inner periphery of the lower plate into the pocket, each tab engaging the lowermost lamination at a location beneath a respective cavity of the plurality of cavities to cover the respective cavity.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 19-20 are also allowable for depending on claim 18.
Claims 4, 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 4/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein each tab includes a proximal end extending from the inner periphery of the lower plate and a distal end located within the pocket, and wherein the tab is tapered from the proximal end toward the distal end.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 5/1 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein: the lower plate includes a plurality of openings extending therethrough, the openings are circumferentially spaced apart around the lower plate, and each tab includes a proximal end extending from the inner periphery of the lower plate and a distal end located between two openings of the plurality of openings.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights