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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goeke (EP 3273577).
As to claim 1, Goeke discloses a motor device (14) with a motor unit and a servo drive unit (68) attached to the motor unit, wherein the servo drive unit comprises a servo drive housing (70) and a first printed circuit board (74) with one or more electronic elements (76); the motor unit comprises a motor housing (Fig. 2) and a rotor (36); and an intermediate unit (54) is arranged between the motor unit and at least a first part of the servo drive unit, with a main extension plane perpendicular to an axial direction of the rotor (Fig. 2); characterized in that the intermediate unit is a multi-functional intermediate unit which comprises an injection-mold element (Para 0015), the intermediate unit being configured to provide at least two of the following functionalities: a sealing functionality, with the intermediate unit configured to seal a body of the motor device against an external environment (Para 0010 and 0026); and v) a load bearing functionality, with the intermediate unit configured to be a load bearing part of the motor device (Para 0043).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 14, Goeke discloses the motor device of claim 1, characterized in that, the injection-mold element comprises an alignment structure for aligning the servo drive unit with the intermediate unit by means of using a form-fit mechanical interaction with the servo drive unit (Fig. 5; 84; Para 0046).
PNG
media_image2.png
457
423
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 15, Goeke discloses a combination of the intermediate unit, the servo drive unit, and the motor unit of claim 1, for a motor device (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 16, Goeke discloses the motor device of claim 14, characterized in that, the alignment structure aligns the servo drive unit and/or the motor unit with the intermediate unit using a form-fit mechanical interaction with the servo drive housing and/or the first printed circuit board, and/or the motor unit (para 0046).
As to claim 17, Goeke discloses the motor device of claim 14, characterized in that, the alignment structure aligns the servo drive unit and/or the motor unit with the intermediate unit using a form-fit mechanical interaction with the servo drive housing and/or the first printed circuit board, and/or the motor unit (para 0046).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeke and in view of Ando (JP 2021191050).
As to claim 2, Goeke discloses the motor device of characterized in that the intermediate unit is configured to provide at least two of the different functionalities of claim 1.
Goeke fails to discloses at least three of the different functionalities of claim 1.
Ando, however, discloses an electromagnetic shielding functionality, with the intermediate unit configured to electromagnetically shield at least the first part of the servo drive unit from the motor unit (Para 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Goeke with an electromagnetic shielding functionality, with the intermediate unit configured to electromagnetically shield at least the first part of the servo drive unit from the motor unit, as disclosed by Ando, to reduce electromagnetic interference.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeke and in view of Wagman (US 20150302971).
As to claim 4, Goeke discloses the motor device of any of claim 1.
Goeke fails to disclose a ferromagnetic shielding element, characterized in that, the ferromagnetic shielding element is overmolded by the injection-mold element, with a main extension plane of the ferromagnetic shielding element running perpendicular to the axial direction.
Wagman, however, discloses a ferromagnetic shielding element, characterized in that, the ferromagnetic shielding element is overmolded by the injection-mold element, with a main extension plane of the ferromagnetic shielding element running perpendicular to the axial direction (Para 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Goeke with a ferromagnetic shielding element, characterized in that, the ferromagnetic shielding element is overmolded by the injection-mold element, with a main extension plane of the ferromagnetic shielding element running perpendicular to the axial direction, as disclosed by Wagman, to reduce electromagnetic interference.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeke and in view of VÖLKER (DE 102018118478).
As to claim 5, Goeke discloses the motor device of claim 1.
Goeke fails to disclose the injection-mold element comprises a plastic, with the plastic having a thermal conductivity lower than the servo drive housing, and where in particular the plastic forms a plastic layer with a main extension plane perpendicular to the axial direction.
VÖLKER, however, discloses the injection-mold element comprises a plastic (Para 0012), with the plastic having a thermal conductivity lower than the servo drive housing (Para 0012), and where in particular the plastic forms a plastic layer with a main extension plane perpendicular to the axial direction (Para 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Goeke with the injection-mold element comprises a plastic, with the plastic having a thermal conductivity lower than the servo drive housing, and where in particular the plastic forms a plastic layer with a main extension plane perpendicular to the axial direction, as disclosed by VÖLKER, to optimize heat dissipation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goeke and in view of Binder (EP 2649229).
As to claim 6, Goeke discloses the motor device of claim 1.
Goeke fails to disclose the injection-mold element comprises a multitude of blind holes, arranged in a honeycomb structure, with the open side orientated in the same direction, towards the motor unit, with the motor closing said blind holes.
Binder, however, discloses the injection-mold element comprises a multitude of blind holes, arranged in a honeycomb structure, with the open side orientated in the same direction, towards the motor unit, with the motor closing said blind holes (Para 0071-0073).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, and 7-13 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.
As to claims 3, Goeke discloses the motor device of claim 1.
Goeke fails to disclose the injection-mold element is a multi-component injection-mold element which comprises a first soft component that is part of a first circumferential seal, a second soft component that is part of a second circumferential seal, and a hard component that is part of a circumferential body section of the body of the motor device; with the first and second soft components being softer than he hard component; and the first circumferential seal sealing a gap between the servo drive housing and the circumferential body section; and the second circumferential seal sealing a gap between the circumferential body section and the motor housing.
As to claim 7-13, Goeke disclose the motor device of claim 1.
Goeke fails to disclose to provide the light guide functionality, a component of the injection- mold element comprises a translucent material, and is shaped such that a light emitted by at least one light source arranged on the first printed circuit board is guided to an external environment of the motor device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can
normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 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,
Christopher M Koehler can be reached on 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.
/ETHAN NGUYEN VO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights