DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 15-30 of U.S. Application 18/690709 filed on February 26, 2026 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 27, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on November 26, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 15-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The application number on the claims sheet is listed as “18/690079” it should be -- 18/690709 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, the applicant argues on pages 9-11 that the allowable features of claim 17 are included in claim 15 and therefore claim 15 should be allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that all the features that were indicated as allowable from claim 17 are not included in amended claim 15. Additionally, the features added to claim 15 are taught by primary reference Ikeno (see below for complete rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 15, 16 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeno (US 20130099609).
Regarding claim 15, Ikeno teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 below) a motor device (10) with a motor unit (40) and a servo drive unit (50) configured to be attached to the motor unit (40) (¶ 33 to ¶ 35; ¶ 63),
where the motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50) are configured to be electrically coupled via a plug connection (44, 44a) with one or more plugs (44a), with a preset plug direction (this is the axial direction so that male terminal extends into female terminal 53a) of the plug connection (44, 44a) running parallel to a motor shaft (46) of the motor unit (40) (fig. 2; ¶ 40; ¶ 41; ¶ 60); characterized by:
- an encoder system for providing information on the position of the motor shaft (46) with i) an encoder target (MG) which is fixed to the motor shaft (46) of the motor unit (40) as part of the motor unit (40) (¶ 45; ¶ 63) and
with ii) an encoder read head (54a) which is a part of the servo drive unit (50); where the encoder target (MG) is part of the motor unit (40) both in the attached state of motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50) and in an unattached state of motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50), and the encoder read head (54a) is part of the servo drive unit (50) both in the attached state of motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50) and in the unattached state of motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50) (figs. 2 and 3; ¶ 45; ¶ 63); and in that
- the motor unit (40) and the servo drive unit (50) are configured to be aligned, in an attached state of motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50), by means of an aligning contour (60) (¶ 64); and
the plug connection (44, 44a) comprises at least three separate individual plugs (44a), where three of the individual plugs (44a) are connected to respective motor phases (¶ 40; ¶ 41).
PNG
media_image1.png
884
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
822
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16/15, Ikeno teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 above) the servo drive unit (50) and motor unit (40) have respective single housings (41, 51), and the alignment contour (60) comprises one or more parts of one or both of the housings (41, 51) (¶ 64).
Regarding claim 25/15, Ikeno teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 above) an intersection between the motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50) is not crossed by a wire electric coupling of the motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50) in the attached state (figs. 2 and 3; ¶ 60; ¶ 63; ¶ 64).
Regarding claim 26/15, Ikeno teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 above) an intersection between the motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50) is not crossed by any wire in the attached state (figs. 2 and 3; ¶ 60; ¶ 63; ¶ 64).
Regarding claim 27/15, Ikeno teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 above) the motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50) are configured to be attached to each other (¶ 52).
Regarding claim 28/15, Ikeno teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 above) the motor unit (40) and servo drive unit (50) are configured to be attached to each other with four or fewer screws (S2) (¶ 52).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeno in view of Ito (US 20140091683).
Regarding claim 18/17/16/15, Ikeno teaches the device of claim 17 but does not explicitly teach the three separate individual plugs connected to the motor phases are separated, in a plane perpendicular to the motor shaft, by at least 10°, measured around the motor shaft.
However, Ito teaches (see fig. 2 below) the three separate individual plugs (13) connected to the motor phases are separated, in a plane perpendicular to the motor shaft (2), by at least 10°, measured around the motor shaft (2) (fig. 2; ¶ 73) in order to provide sufficient insulating space between terminals, thereby improving reliability (Ito, ¶ 73).
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 Ikeno and provide the three separate individual plugs connected to the motor phases are separated, in a plane perpendicular to the motor shaft, by at least 10°, measured around the motor shaft as taught by Ito in order to provide sufficient insulating space between terminals, thereby improving reliability (Ito, ¶ 73).
PNG
media_image3.png
717
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19/17/16/15, Ikeno teaches the device of claim 17 but does not explicitly teach the three separate individual plugs connected to the motor phases are separated, in a plane perpendicular to the motor shaft, by at least 45°, measured around the motor shaft.
However, Ito teaches (see fig. 2 above) the three separate individual plugs (13) connected to the motor phases are separated, in a plane perpendicular to the motor shaft (2), by at least 45°, measured around the motor shaft (2) (fig. 2; ¶ 73) in order to provide sufficient insulating space between terminals, thereby improving reliability (Ito, ¶ 73).
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 Ikeno and provide the three separate individual plugs connected to the motor phases are separated, in a plane perpendicular to the motor shaft, by at least 45°, measured around the motor shaft as taught by Ito in order to provide sufficient insulating space between terminals, thereby improving reliability (Ito, ¶ 73).
Regarding claim 20/17/16/15, Ikeno teaches the device of claim 17 but does not explicitly teach the three separate individual plugs connected to the motor phases are separated, in a plane perpendicular to the motor shaft, by at least 90°+/-10°, measured around the motor shaft.
However, Ito teaches (see fig. 2 above) the three separate individual plugs (13) connected to the motor phases are separated, in a plane perpendicular to the motor shaft (2), by at least 90°+/-10°, measured around the motor shaft (2) (fig. 2; ¶ 73) in order to provide sufficient insulating space between terminals, thereby improving reliability (Ito, ¶ 73).
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 Ikeno and provide the three separate individual plugs connected to the motor phases are separated, in a plane perpendicular to the motor shaft, by at least 90°+/-10°, measured around the motor shaft as taught by Ito in order to provide sufficient insulating space between terminals, thereby improving reliability (Ito, ¶ 73).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 21-24 and 30 are allowed.
11. Claims 17 and 29 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
12. 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 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