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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 6/3/26. Regarding the amendment, claims 1-12 are canceled, claims 13-24 are present for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant argument that “Yamasaki describes the resin guide as follows: "A resin guide 16 is provided at the end part of the motor case 10, which is at the electronic control unit 3 side. The resin guide 16 is formed in a substantially annular shape having its central part, which is open." Yamasaki, [0062]. The resin guide 16 is merely a guide that does not constitute a second housing. See Figures 2, 4, and 6 of Yamasaki.” Examiner disagrees with that because in a plain meaning “a second housing” is a second enclosure, a casing, a shell or a structure. Therefore, “a resin guide 16 is formed in a substantially annular shape having its central part, which is open” can read as the claimed second housing.
In response to applicant argument that “Beyond not constituting a second housing, the resin guide 16 does not accommodate the control circuit substrate 40 (asserted second board). The control circuit substrate 40 is located above the resin guide 16. The resin guide 16 includes a protrusion part 18 positioned corresponding to a notch 111 of the cover 110, but that mere protrusion part 18 does not "accommodat[e] therein the second board" ”. Examiner disagrees with that because the claim recited that “a second housing accommodating therein the second board”. Examiner interpreted the limitation “a second housing accommodating therein the second board” requires the second housing to define or provide an interior space in which the second board is accommodated. It is importantly that “accommodating” does not necessarily require that the second board be completely enclosed by the housing, unless the claim language or specification indicates otherwise. Therefore, Yamasaki’s second board 40, fig. 2 read on the claim language “a second housing accommodating therein the second board”.
In response to applicant argument that “Yamasaki teaches that the control circuit substrate 40 and the power circuit substrate 70 are part of an electronic control unit 3 (see [0041]), and that the "electronic control unit 3 is accommodated within the cover 110 (see FIGS. 5 and 6)." Yamasaki, [0094] (emphasis added). Stated another way, Yamasaki expressly describes that substrates 40 and 70 (asserted first and second boards) are part of the electronic control unit 3 that is accommodated in the cover 110, the asserted first housing. This further refutes the Office Action's assertion that the resin guide 16 accommodates therein the second board (control circuit substrate 40).” Examiner agrees that substrates 40 and 70 are part of the electronic control unit 3, and the electronic control unit 3 is accommodated in the cover 110, however, substrate 40 interpreted as second board is also accommodated in second housing 16 (fig 2, at least protrusion part 18 and circumferential wall of resin guide16 forming an inner space for board 40).
In response to applicant argument that “as made clear in paragraph [0088] of Yamasaki, the "power connector 79 [is] mounted on a surface of the power circuit substrate 70." In addition, paragraph [0072] of Yamasaki states that the "control connector 45 is attached to the control circuit substrate 40 on the opposite side of the motor 2." Thus, instead of being provided at the asserted first housing or asserted second housing, these connectors 79 and 45 are provided at the asserted boards themselves.” Examiner disagrees with that because the limitation “the first connector provided at the first housing” and “the second connection provided at the second housing” do not, by its plain language, require the first connector and the second connector to be directly mounted on or physically attached to the first housing and the second housing. Rather, “provided at” reasonably encompasses a first connector positioned at the first housing and a second connector positioned at the second housing, including the connectors supported by a circuit board accommodated within the housing. Here, Yamasaki discloses a first connector disposed at a side of the first housing and mounted on the first board positioned within the first housing, and a second connector disposed at a side of the second housing and mounted on the second board positioned within the second housing. The first connector and the second connector are therefore provided at the first housing and the second housing. Nothing in the claim expressly requires the first connector and the second connector to be directly secured to the first housing and the second housing or to be mounted on the first housing and the second housing. See MPEP §2111 “the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 13-14, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki et al. (US 2012/0104886 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yakasaki teaches a motor-integrated electronic control device structured by combining a motor (2) and an electronic control device (3) that drives and controls the motor (2), the motor-integrated electronic control device comprising:
a circuit board (40, 70) mounting thereon electronic components (76 -78, 91-94) for driving and controlling the motor (2), wherein the circuit board (40-70) includes a first board (70) and a second board (40) that are arranged so as to face each other in a rotation axis direction of the motor (2);
a housing (16, 110) having a divided structure arranged so as to face each other in the rotation axis direction of the motor (2), wherein the housing (16, 110) includes a first housing (110) accommodating therein the first board (70) and a second housing (16) accommodating therein the second board (40);
a first connector (79) provided at the first housing (110) on a side opposite to the motor (2) and configured for external connection of the first board (70); and
a second connector (45) provided at the second housing (16) on a side facing the motor (2) and configured for external connection of the second board (40, fig 2).
Regarding claim 14, Yakasaki teaches the first housing (110) is made of metal material (para [0094]), the first board (70) has a power circuit (76-78) configured to supply power to the motor (2), and is arranged on a side opposite to the motor (2) in the rotation axis direction of the motor (2), and the second board (40) has a control circuit (91-94) configured to drive and control the motor (2), and is arranged between the first board (70) and the motor (2) in the rotation axis direction of the motor (2).
Regarding claim 20, Yakasaki teaches the first board (70) and the second board (40) are electrically connected through an internal connection connector (64-65, fig 9).
Regarding claim 21, Yakasaki teaches the internal connection connector (64-66) includes a first internal connection connector (65, 66) provided at the first board (70) and a second internal connection connector (64, 66) provided at the second board (40) so as to be able to be fitted to the first internal connection connector (65-66), and the second internal connection connector (64, 66) is provided so as to be able to float in a horizontal direction of the second board (70).
Regarding claim 22, Yakasaki teaches a method of manufacturing the motor-integrated electronic control device comprising:
a first step of forming a first housing assembly (110) by accommodating the first board (70) in the first housing (110) to which the first connector (79) has been attached and fixing the first board (70) to the first housing (110);
a second step of forming a second housing assembly (16) by accommodating the second board (40) in the second housing (16) to which the second connector (45) has been attached and fixing the second board (40) to the second housing (16);
a third step of forming an ECU assembly (3) by electrically connecting the first board (70) and the second board (40) and coupling the first housing assembly (110) and the second housing assembly (16); and
a fourth step of forming the motor-integrated electronic control device by combining the ECU assembly (3) and the motor (2).
Regarding claim 23, Yakasaki teaches a first inspection step of inspecting the ECU assembly (3) between the third step and the fourth step.
Regarding claim 24, Yakasaki teaches a second inspection step of inspecting the motor-integrated electronic control device after the fourth step.
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) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakasaki in view of Ito et al. (US 2014/0091683 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yakasaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 14, Yakasaki further teaches the first board (70) is connected to the first housing (110) with a plurality of first metal screws (56, 57) penetrating respective first fixing holes formed at the first board so as to penetrate the first board (70), and is structured so that a first board copper foil (para [0085]) constituting the power circuit on the first board (70) is exposed to a hole edge portion of each first fixing hole, then by the connection of the first board (70) to the first housing (110) by the first screws (56, 57), the first screws (56, 57), the first board copper foil and the first housing (110) are connected, and the first board is grounded (via terminal 66), and
the second board (40) is connected to the second housing (16) with a plurality of second metal screws (47) penetrating respective second fixing holes formed at the second board (40) so as to penetrate the second board (40), and is structured so that a second board copper foil constituting the control circuit (91-94) on the second board (40) is exposed to a hole edge portion of each second fixing hole, then by the connection of the second board (40) to the second housing by the second screws (47), the second screws (47), the second board copper foil (para [0071]) and the second housing (16) are connected, and the second board is grounded. However, Yakasaki does not teach the second housing is made of metal material.
Ito teaches an electric drive unit having a second housing (36) is made of metal material (para [0034]) to improve heat dissipated (para [0090]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yakasaki’s motor with the second housing is made of metal material as taught by Ito. Doing so would improve heat dissipated (para [0090]).
Regarding claim 16, Yakasaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 14, except for the added limitation of the motor is connected to the first board with the motor penetrating the second housing.
Ito teaches an electric drive unit having a motor (3-5) is connected to the first board ((25) with the motor (4) penetrating the second housing (36) to assist torque to s steering wheel of a vehicle (para [0001]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yakasaki’s motor with the motor is connected to the first board with the motor penetrating the second housing as taught by Ito. Doing so would assist torque to steering wheel of a vehicle (para [0001]).
Regarding claim 17, Yakasaki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 14, Yakasaki further teaches a power module (60) configured for power conversion for the motor. However, Yakasaki does not teach the power module is arranged between the first housing and the first board, and heat of the power module is dissipated through the first housing.
Ito teaches an electric drive unit having a power module (21) is arranged between the first housing (35) and the first board (33), and heat of the power module (21) is dissipated through the first housing (35, fig 1) to improve heat dissipated (para [0090]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yakasaki’s motor with the power module is arranged between the first housing and the first board, and heat of the power module is dissipated through the first housing as taught by Ito. Doing so would improve heat dissipated (para [0090]).
Regarding claim 18, Yakasaki in view of Ito teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 17, except for the added limitation of the power module is located at an inner surface of the first housing so as to be in contact with the inner surface of the first housing through a heat dissipation sheet.
Ito further teaches an electric drive unit having the power module (21) is located at an inner surface of the first housing (35) so as to be in contact with the inner surface of the first housing (35) through a heat dissipation sheet (fig 1, para [0048]) to improve heat dissipated (para [0090]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yakasaki in view of Ito’s motor with the power module is located at an inner surface of the first housing so as to be in contact with the inner surface of the first housing through a heat dissipation sheet as further taught by Ito. Doing so would improve heat dissipated (para [0090]).
Regarding claim 19, Yakasaki in view of Ito teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 18, except for the added limitation of the heat dissipation sheet has insulation properties.
Ito further teaches an electric drive unit having the heat dissipation sheet has insulation properties (para [0048]) to improve heat dissipation (para [0090]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yakasaki in view of Ito’s motor with the heat dissipation sheet has insulation properties as further taught by Ito. Doing so would improve heat dissipated (para [0090]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato (US 2019/0140520 A1) teaches a motor apparatus in which an increase in its size in a radial direction of a rotation shaft of a motor can be suppressed while securing redundancy of control of driving of the motor. A motor apparatus includes a motor having a rotation shaft, a first control circuit board where a first power circuit and a first control circuit are mounted, and a second control circuit board where a second power circuit and a second control circuit are mounted. The control circuit boards are arranged with an overlapping portion when viewed along an axial direction on an extension line of an axis of the rotation shaft. The overlapping portion intersects the extension line of the rotation shaft of the motor.
Hamada (US 2019/0028004 A1) teaches an electrical connection terminal assembly and an electromotive drive device, a connector-side terminal is divided into two portions along an insertion direction of the connector-side terminal, thereby constituting divided terminal pieces. These divided terminal pieces are inserted between elastic terminal pieces of a base-board-side terminal, thereby electrically connecting the two parties. In this manner, the connector-side terminal is divided into the two portions to constitute the divided terminal pieces, and thus the rigidity of each of the divided terminal pieces can be decreased. Even if the connector-side terminal has been connected to the base-board-side terminal by prying, the divided terminal pieces of the connector-side terminal deform readily to follow the shape of the base-board-side terminal and thus it is possible to suppress an increased change in an electrical resistance and/or a thermal resistance between the base-board-side terminal and the connector-side terminal.
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 LEDA T PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/LEDA T PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights