DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-18 of U.S. Application 18/722450 filed on June 20, 2024 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 .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 20, 2024, September 19, 2025 and December 15, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi (US 20220094234) in view of Niederer (US 20100117469).
Regarding claim 1, Oishi teaches (see fig. 10 below) a motor shaft current suppression mechanism (¶ 2; ¶ 3), applied to an electric drive system comprising a motor controller (3) and a motor (4) (¶ 25),
wherein the motor shaft current suppression mechanism comprises comprising: a first capacitor (16) for connecting each phase line (8) of three phase output in the motor controller (3) to a ground (11) (¶ 39 to ¶ 41; ¶ 57 to ¶ 59); and/or,
a second capacitor (17) for connecting each phase line (8) of three phase output in the motor (8) to a ground (12) (¶ 39 to ¶ 41; ¶ 57 to ¶ 59).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Oishi does not explicitly teach that the ground is the housing of the motor controller itself and/or the housing of the motor itself.
However, Niederer teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 below) the ground (12) is the housing (8) of the motor controller itself and/or the housing (2) of the motor itself (¶ 23 to ¶ 25) in order to reduce interference due to electromagnetic radiation (Niederer, ¶ 34).
PNG
media_image2.png
334
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 of Oishi and provide the ground is the housing of the motor controller itself and/or the housing of the motor itself as taught by Yamashita in order to reduce interference due to electromagnetic radiation (Niederer, ¶ 34).
Regarding claim 6/1, Oishi in view of Niederer teaches the device of claim 1, Oishi further teaches (see fig. 10 above) the suppression mechanism is configured to suppress a shaft current on a bearing, and the suppression mechanism is installed inside the housing of the motor controller, or installed on a PCB circuit board of the motor controller, or installed outside the housing of the motor controller, or installed inside the motor (Abstract; ¶ 8; ¶ 10, ¶ 36).
Regarding claim 9/1, Oishi in view of Niederer teaches the device of claim 1, Oishi further teaches (see fig. 10 above) the motor comprises at least one of any one or more of permanent magnet synchronous motors, asynchronous motors, or reluctance motors (¶ 63).
Regarding claim 10/1, Oishi in view of Niederer teaches an electric drive system comprising the motor shaft current suppression mechanism according to claim 1 (Oishi, ¶ 3; ¶ 4).
Regarding claim 15/6/1, Oishi in view of Niederer teaches an electric drive system comprising the motor shaft current suppression mechanism according to claim 6 (Oishi, ¶ 3; ¶ 4).
Regarding claim 18/9/1, Oishi in view of Niederer teaches an electric drive system comprising the motor shaft current suppression mechanism according to claim 9 (Oishi, ¶ 3; ¶ 4).
7. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Niederer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 218526226, see applicant provided English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 2/1, Oishi in view of Niederer teaches the device of claim 1, Oishi further teaches (see fig. 10 above) one end of the first capacitor (16) or the second capacitor (17) is connected to conductors of each phase line (8), and the other end is grounded (¶ 39 to ¶ 41; ¶ 57 to ¶ 59).
Oishi does not explicitly teach that the ground is through the housing.
However, Niederer further teaches (see figs. 2 and 3 above) the ground (12) is through the housing (8) (¶ 23 to ¶ 25) in order to reduce interference due to electromagnetic radiation (Niederer, ¶ 34).
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 of Oishi and provide the ground is through the housing as further taught by Yamashita in order to reduce interference due to electromagnetic radiation (Niederer, ¶ 34).
Oishi in view of Niederer the conductors are copper bars.
However, Li teaches the conductors are copper bars (Abstract) in order to improve motor life (Li, Abstract).
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 of Oishi in view of Niederer and provide the conductors are copper bars as taught by Li in order to improve motor life (Li, Abstract).
Regarding claim 11/2/1, Oishi in view of Niederer and Li teaches an electric drive system comprising the motor shaft current suppression mechanism according to claim 1 (Oishi, ¶ 3; ¶ 4).
8. Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Niederer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Makihara (US 20160156284).
Regarding claim 5/1, Oishi in view of Niederer teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a capacitance of the first capacitor or the second capacitor is chosen between 10 pF and 500 nF.
However, Makihara teaches a capacitance of the first capacitor or the second capacitor is chosen between 10 pF and 500 nF (¶ 96) in order to prevent or reduce electrolytic corrosion (Oishi, ¶ 8).
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 of Oishi in view of Niederer and provide a capacitance of the first capacitor or the second capacitor is chosen between 10 pF and 500 nF as taught by Makihara in order to prevent or reduce electrolytic corrosion (Oishi, ¶ 8).
Regarding claim 14/5/1, Oishi in view of Niederer and Makihara teaches an electric drive system comprising the motor shaft current suppression mechanism according to claim 5 (Oishi, ¶ 3; ¶ 4).
9. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Niederer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saber (US 20210351670).
Regarding claim 7/1, Oishi in view of Niederer teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the first capacitor and the second capacitor comprises a capacitor structure of perfluoroethylene or a capacitor structure of polytetrafluoroethylene.
However, Saber teaches a capacitor structure of polytetrafluoroethylene (¶ 28) in order to provide improved durability at high temperatures (Saber, ¶ 28).
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 of Oishi in view of Niederer and provide a capacitor structure of polytetrafluoroethylene as taught by Saber in order to provide improved durability at high temperatures (Saber, ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 16/7/1, Oishi in view of Niederer and Saber teaches an electric drive system comprising the motor shaft current suppression mechanism according to claim 7 (Oishi, ¶ 3; ¶ 4).
10. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oishi in view of Niederer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LaVelle (US 5656922).
Regarding claim 8/1, Oishi in view of Niederer teaches the device of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the first capacitor and the second capacitor comprise at least one of any one or more of organic dielectric capacitors, inorganic dielectric capacitors, electrolytic capacitors, electric thermal capacitors, and air dielectric capacitors.
However, Lavelle teaches the capacitor comprise at least one or more of electrolytic capacitors (col. 3: 19-30) in order to provide reduced size and low cost (Lavelle, col. 3: 19-30).
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 of Oishi in view of Niederer and provide the capacitor comprise at least one or more of electrolytic capacitors as taught by Lavelle in order to provide reduced size and low cost (Lavelle, col. 3: 19-30).
Regarding claim 17/8/1, Oishi in view of Niederer and LaVelle teaches an electric drive system comprising the motor shaft current suppression mechanism according to claim 8 (Oishi, ¶ 3; ¶ 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 3-4, 12 and 13 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. 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