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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 should be changed to “the plurality of slot parts of the stator core” to change state core to stator core.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR102164948, using US20210129709 for translation, “Lee”) in view of Kitayam (WO2022202546, “Kitayam”, using machine translation) and Miller et al. (US6123167, “Miller”).
Re claim 1, Lee discloses an electric seat driving device for moving an electric seat back and forth along a rod 1 in a straight line (fig 1, [0034-0035]), the electric seat driving device comprising:
a housing having both ends open (figs 1-2, [0036], employing rotor of fig 4 for rejection but has similar structure as fig 2; housing includes 110-112; both ends of housing are open for 161 & 162 and rod 1), a case 110 having a circular hollow portion (fig 2, [0036-0037], inner part for stator core 120), and first and second covers 111, 112 detachably coupled to both ends of the case 110 (fig 2, [0039]);
first and second bearings 181, 182 provided inside the first and second covers 111, 112, respectively (fig 1, [0039]);
a hollow nut shaft (fig 4, [0054], includes 161 & 151) in which an outer circumference of one end is rotatably supported by the first bearing 181 (figs 2 & 4) and an inner circumferential portion 151 is axially coupled to the rod 1 (figs 1-2 & 4);
a hollow rotor shaft 140 of which one end is press-fitted and coupled to the outer circumference of the nut shaft (fig 4, [0045-0046]) and the other end is rotatably supported by the second bearing 182 (figs 2 & 4, other end of 140 supported by 182 through 162);
a rotor 170 in which a plurality of N-pole and S-pole magnets are alternately installed on the outer circumferential portion of the rotor shaft 140 (figs 2 & 4-6, [0056-0057], each pole is a magnet); and
a stator embedded in the case 110 and having a coil 130 wound around a stator core 130 having a plurality of slot parts extended from an annular back yoke part with an air gap on the outside of the rotor 170 (fig 2, [0036-0037]), wherein
wherein the nut shaft and the rotor shaft 140 form a rotary shaft of the rotor (fig 4, along w/ 162 & 152).
Lee discloses claim 1 except for:
a stopper ring protruding in an annular shape from an outer circumferential surface of the hollow nut shaft to limit an inner position of the first bearing, the stopper ring being integrally formed with the hollow nut shaft as a single monolithic body.
the press-fitted portion is coupled by a D-cut coupling to prevent slippage.
Kitayam discloses providing a D-cut coupling between structures 18, 10 prevents slippage (figs 1-4, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the nut shaft and rotor shaft of Lee to be coupled by a D-cut coupling to prevent slippage, as disclosed by Kitayam, in order to prevent the nut shaft from rotating on the rotor shaft, as taught by Kitayam ([0044]).
Miller discloses a stopper ring protruding in an annular shape from an outer circumferential surface of the hollow nut shaft 140 to limit an inner position of the first bearing 146 (fig 2, col 3, lns 54-60), the stopper ring being integrally formed with the hollow nut shaft 140 as a single monolithic body (fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the nut shaft of Lee in view of Kitayam to have a stopper ring protruding in an annular shape from an outer circumferential surface of the hollow nut shaft to limit an inner position of the first bearing, the stopper ring being integrally formed with the hollow nut shaft as a single monolithic body, as disclosed by Miller, in order to reduce the number of parts for the nut shaft, as compared to the nut shaft of Kim (includes 161 & 151), as well as provide support for the bearing, as demonstrated by Miller.
Re claim 4, Lee in view of Kitayam and Miller disclose claim 1 as discussed above and further disclose the nut shaft comprises first and second D-cut parts having a planar shape by cutting some of the left and right sides of a circular outer circumferential portion (Lee disclose nut shaft; Kitayam, figs 3-4, [0044], discloses forming outer circumference), and the rotor shaft comprises a flat shape by adding ribs to the left and right sides of a circular inner circumferential portion (Lee discloses rotor shaft; Kitayam discloses adding ribs to inner circumference of 18), and include third and fourth D-cut parts which are surface-joined to the first and second D-cut parts (figs 1 & 4).
Re claim 5, Lee in view of Kitayam and Miller disclose claim 1 as discussed above and further disclose the nut shaft and the rotor shaft are coupled by a D-cut coupling on one side of a circumferential portion thereof (Lee, fig 4, discloses nut shaft & rotor shaft; Kitayam, figs 1 & 4, discloses D-cut coupling, as well as another D-cut coupling).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kitayam and Miller and in further view of Fukunaga (US20160294253, “Fukunaga”) and Aoyama et al. (US5808381, “Aoyama”).
Re claims 2 and 3, Lee in view of Kitayam and Miller disclose claim 1 as discussed above but is silent with respect to:
the rotor shaft comprises a carbon steel material for a mechanical structure to serve as a back yoke; and
the rotor shaft comprises S45C.
Fukunaga discloses the rotor shaft 31 comprises a magnetic steel material for a mechanical structure to serve as a back yoke (figs 1-2, [0035], since material of 31 is disclosed as magnetic it will inherently act as a back yoke).
Aoyama discloses carbon steel is a magnetic material (col 3, lns 39-44); and
S45C is carbon steel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the rotor shaft of Lee in view of Kitayam and Miller to comprise a magnetic steel material for a mechanical structure to serve as a back yoke, as disclosed by Fukunaga, in order to make the rotor shaft from a known material of a rotor shaft with permanent magnets and nut shaft, as demonstrated by Fukunaga; and to employ carbon steel as the magnetic material, especially S45C since it is known that carbon steel is magnetic and S45C is carbon steel, as taught by Aoyama.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kitayam and Miller and in further view of Yoshida et al. (US20080265695, “Yoshida”).
Re claim 6, Lee in view of Kitayam and Miller disclose claim 1 as discussed above. Lee further discloses the stator comprises:
the plurality of slot parts of the stator core are extended from the annular back yoke part (fig 2, [0036-0037]); and
the coil 130 wound around the stator core (fig 2, [0036-0037]).
Lee discloses claim 6 except for:
plurality of slot parts each having a T-shape;
first and second insulating members having shapes corresponding to each other and coupled to insulate slot portions of the stator core from both sides thereof; and
the coil wound around the first and second insulating members of the slot portions, wherein each of the first and second insulating members comprises: an annular body; and a plurality of legs extending from the annular body in parallel with the axial direction and surrounding a shoe and teeth except for a front surface of the shoe facing the magnet of the rotor.
Yoshida discloses plurality of slot parts 34 each having a T-shape (figs 2-3);
first and second insulating members 91, 92 having shapes corresponding to each other and coupled to insulate slot portions 34 of the stator core 31 from both sides thereof (figs 2-3 & 6-9, [0039]); and
the coil 32 wound around the first and second insulating members 91, 92 of the slot portions 34 (figs 2-4 & 6-7, [0039]), wherein
each of the first and second insulating members 91, 92 comprises:
an annular body 911B, 92B (figs 8-0, [0039]); and
a plurality of legs 91A, 92A extending from the annular body in parallel with the axial direction (figs 8-9, [0039]) and surrounding a shoe and teeth except for a front surface of the shoe facing the magnet of the rotor (figs 3 & 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the stator of Lee in view of Kitayam and Miller to comprise: plurality of slot parts each having a T-shape; first and second insulating members having shapes corresponding to each other and coupled to insulate slot portions of the stator core from both sides thereof; and the coil wound around the first and second insulating members of the slot portions, wherein each of the first and second insulating members comprises: an annular body; and a plurality of legs extending from the annular body in parallel with the axial direction and surrounding a shoe and teeth except for a front surface of the shoe facing the magnet of the rotor, as disclosed by Yoshida, in order to insulate the stator core from the coils, as taught by Yoshida ([0039]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5715. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5pm EST.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights