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 .
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(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over ASAI(US20100247349A1) in view of MARZANO(US9343250B2).
Regarding claim 1, Asai teaches an electric power unit(Para[0001]) accommodating an electric motor(Para[0056]) in a motor accommodating portion formed in a housing(2), and accommodating an inverter(Para[0059]) in an inverter accommodating portion(4) formed in an upper portion of the housing(2)(Figs. 1-2), and having an upper surface opening portion(Para[0059], open upper surface of the inverter accommodating portion covered with an inverter cover having a flat plate shape(Para[0059], plate-shaped cover member).
Asai is silent wherein a first region, a second region, and a third region sandwiched between the first region and the second region are formed on an upper surface of the inverter cover, and a first connection portion is arranged in the first region, a second connection portion is arranged in the second region, a plurality of ribs are arranged in parallel in the third region, and a first rib having one longitudinal end portion connected to the first connection portion and a second rib connected to the second connection portion are arranged in a direction in which the first rib and the second rib are arranged in parallel.
However, Marzano teaches a power unit wherein a first region(area around first pin terminal 106), a second region(area around second pin terminal 106), and a third region(area between first and second pin terminals 106) sandwiched between the first region and the second region are formed on an upper surface of the inverter cover(108), and a first connection portion(106) is arranged in the first region, a second connection portion(106) is arranged in the second region, a plurality of ribs(112) are arranged in parallel in the third region, and a first rib(1128) having one longitudinal end portion connected to the first connection portion(106) and a second rib(112) connected to the second connection portion(106) are arranged in a direction in which the first rib and the second rib are arranged in parallel(Figs. 1-5).
Marzano is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai because they are in the same field of power unit systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asai wherein a first region, a second region, and a third region sandwiched between the first region and the second region are formed on an upper surface of the inverter cover, and a first connection portion is arranged in the first region, a second connection portion is arranged in the second region, a plurality of ribs are arranged in parallel in the third region, and a first rib having one longitudinal end portion connected to the first connection portion and a second rib connected to the second connection portion are arranged in a direction in which the first rib and the second rib are arranged in parallel, as taught by Marzano. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this in order to improve electrical insulation, increase creepage distance, and enhance structural rigidity around terminal regions.
Regarding claim 2/1, Asai in view of Marzano teaches the electric power unit according to claim 1.
Marzano teaches wherein the first rib(112) and the second rib(112) are alternately arranged in a direction in which the first rib and the second rib are arranged in parallel(Figs. 1-2, show the ribs are parallel).
Regarding claim 3/1, Asai in view of Marzano teaches the electric power unit according to claim 1.
Marzano teaches wherein the first connection portion(106) and the second connection portion(106) have higher rigidity than the first rib(112) and the second rib(112)(Inherent that the solid metal pins are more rigid than the molded resin ribs of cover 108).
Regarding claim 4/1, Asai in view of Marzano teaches the electric power unit according to claim 1.
The combination does not directly teach wherein the first connection portion and the second connection portion are thicker than the first rib and the second rib.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the first connection portion and the second connection portion be thicker than the first rib and the second rib, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to do this because this structural relationship leads to increased mechanical strength and increased electrical reliability.
Regarding claim 5/1, Asai in view of Marzano teaches the electric power unit according to claim 1.
The combination does not directly teach wherein a height of another side in a longitudinal direction of the first rib and the second rib gradually decreases toward an end portion.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the height of another side in a longitudinal direction of the first rib and the second rib gradually decrease toward an end portion.], since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 E 3SPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One would be motivated to do this in order to have a tapered rib that reduced localized stress which increases fatigue life of the cover.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over ASAI(US20100247349A1) in view of MARZANO(US9343250B2) and further in view of MYUNG(US20200266402A1).
Regarding claim 7/1, Asai in view of Marzano teaches the electric power unit according to claim 1.
Asai in view of Marzano is silent wherein the first rib and the second rib include a pair of plates arranged close to each other.
However, Myung teaches wherein the first rib(600) and the second rib(600) include a pair of plates(610,620) arranged close to each other(Fig. 9).
Myung is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Asai in view of Marzano because they are in the same field of rib systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Asai in view of Marzano wherein the first rib and the second rib include a pair of plates arranged close to each other, as taught by Myung. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this in order to reinforce the ribs, increase stiffness and tolerance management.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
Regarding claim 6/1, the prior art of record does not teach the limitation, “wherein the first connection portion and the second connection portion are a cooling water pipe integrally provided in a projecting manner on an upper surface of the inverter cover”, in combination of the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect. uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/AHMED ELNAKIB/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834