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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yokoyama et al. (US 20180159403) in view of Takeuchi et al. (WO 2016075789).
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) 1, 6, 7, 17 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 20180159403) in view of Takeuchi et al. (WO 2016075789).
1. Yokoyama et al. teach:
A device 1 comprising:
an electric motor 3, comprising:
an inverter 5;
a rotor (para 0054 1st sentence) comprising a rotor shaft (the rotor shaft is inherent along with bearings, MPEP 2112);
a stator (para 0024 5th sentence) comprising stator coils (para 0058 whole para); and
a housing (11 + 19),
wherein the inverter comprises:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (para 00582nd sentence);
power switches (inside of power module 25, MPEP 2112); and
one or more phase conductors (also inherent since the motor is 3-phase, para 0023 whole para and MPEP 2112),
wherein the housing comprises a first part 11 and a second part 19,
wherein the first part comprises a first chamber (the chamber is cylindrical, fig 1) that incorporates the rotor and the stator,
wherein the second part comprises a second chamber (see figs 1, 2, 4 & 5) that incorporates the inverter,
wherein the second part comprises a lid 15 and a connector (the connector is inherent as the power source, a battery is outside of both housings, see para 0023 whole para and MPEP 2112),
wherein the first part and the second part each comprise coolant channels (27, 39, and 21, figs 2, 5 & 8),
wherein the coolant channels are interconnected (via connection 39,23 or 83, see figs 2, 5, and 8) to supply a coolant (water, para 0022) to/towards the stator coils,
wherein the coolant channels of the second part are on a first side (see figs 2 & 5) of the second part and the power switches are on a second side (see figs 2 & 5) of the second part; but does not teach that the second part comprises an extension of the rotor shaft.
Takeuchi teaches that the second part/plate 50 & housing 430 comprises an extension of the rotor shaft/rotation sensor rotor 5a (fig 8). The person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use this housing/shaft design over Yokoyama to reduce radial dimensions since Yokoyama’s housing configuration is stacked radially.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yokoyama et al. so that the second part comprises an extension of the rotor shaft, as taught by Takeuchi et al. so as to reduce the radial dimensions of the device.
6. Yokoyama et al. in view of Takeuchi et al. teach:
The device of claim 1, wherein the rotor 21 (of Takeuchi et al.) comprises bearings, a first of the bearings (annotated figure below of Takeuchi et al.) is located on the first part (annotated figure below of Takeuchi et al.) and a second of the bearings (annotated figure below of Takeuchi et al.) is located on the second part (annotated figure below of Takeuchi et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
7. Yokoyama et al. in view of Takeuchi et al. teach:
The Device of claim 1, wherein the extension (of Takeuchi et al.) faces the PCB/control board 4.
17. Yokoyama et al. teach:
The device of claim 1, wherein the inverter comprises a plurality of flexible leads (the examiner is taking official notice in that flexible leads from a connector to the PCB and from an inverter to other parts on the PCB is well known and it is done so that the wires don’t break as easily), and wherein the power switches are electrically connected to the PCB using the plurality of flexible leads (the examiner is taking official notice in that it is also known to use flexible leads to connect power switches such as BJTs or MOSFETs to the PCB is well known and it is done so that the wires don’t break as easily).
19. Yokoyama et al. teach:
A device 1 comprising:
a housing (11 + 19) including a first part 11 defining a first chamber (the chamber is cylindrical, fig 1) and a second part 19 defining a second chamber (see figs 1, 2, 4 & 5);
an electric motor 3 including a rotor (para 0054 1st sentence) including a rotor shaft (the rotor shaft is inherent along with bearings, MPEP 2112), and a stator (para 0024 5th sentence) including stator coils (para 0058 whole para) disposed around the rotor, the rotor and stator disposed in the first chamber (this is inherent , see fig 3, MPEP 2112) and;
an inverter 5 disposed in the second chamber, and including a printed circuit board (PCB) (para 00582nd sentence), power switches (inside of power module 25, MPEP 2112), and one or more phase conductors (also inherent since the motor is 3-phase, para 0023 whole para and MPEP 2112); and
coolant channels (27, 39, and 21, figs 2, 5 & 8) extending through the first part and the second part of the housing (see fig 2) and interconnected to supply a coolant (water, para 0022) to/toward the stator coils; but does not teach that the rotor shaft includes an extension extending into the second chamber.
Takeuchi teaches that the second part/plate 50 & housing 430 comprises an extension of the rotor shaft/rotation sensor rotor 5a (fig 8). The person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use this housing/shaft design over Yokoyama to reduce radial dimensions since Yokoyama’s housing configuration is stacked radially.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yokoyama et al. so that the rotor shaft includes an extension extending into the second chamber, as taught by Takeuchi et al. so as to reduce the radial dimensions of the device.
Claim(s) 2 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. in view of Takeuchi et al. and in further view of Varain et al. (US 20220332166).
2. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach a spring, and wherein the power switches are pressed against the second side of the second part using the spring.
Varain et al. teach that a spring 18, and wherein the power switches are pressed against/onto the second side (the side that the switching element is inContact with the housing, abstract) of the second part 14 using the spring so as to bias the switching element towards a cooling element (abstract) which would prolong the life of the switching element.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it with a spring, and wherein the power switches are pressed against the second side of the second part using the spring, as taught by Varain et al. so as to prolong the life of the switching element.
4. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 2; but does not teach that the spring is fastened to the second part or the lid.
Varain et al. teach that the spring is fastened to the second part (via openings 18-3 and attachment elements, fig 2A and paras 0101 and 0102) or the lid so as to bias the switching element towards a cooling element (abstract) which would prolong the life of the switching element.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it so that the spring is fastened to the second part or the lid, as taught by Varain et al. so as to prolong the life of the switching element.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. in view of Takeuchi et al. and in further view of Wang et al. (US 10066800).
3. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that a thermal paste is placed between the power switches and the second side of the second part.
Wang et al. teach that a thermal paste is placed between the power switches/LED board 50 and the second side of the second part/base 10 to help dissipate heat from the switches (col 7 2nd para) which would prolong the life of the switching.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that a thermal paste is placed between the power switches and the second side of the second part, as taught by Wang et al. so as to prolong the life of the switching element.
Claim(s) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. in view of Takeuchi et al. and in further view of Hasegawa et al. (US 20210036577).
8. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 7; but does not teach that the extension comprises a fiducial marker.
Hasegawa et al. teach that the extension comprises a fiducial marker (this is apparent due to there being the option for an optical sensor, see para 0020) to improve the performance of the motor
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the extension comprises a fiducial marker, as taught by Hasegawa et al. so as to improve the performance of the motor.
9. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 8; but does not teach that the fiducial marker is a visual mark, an indentation, a protuberance, or a magnetic material.
Hasegawa et al. teach that the fiducial marker is a visual mark, an indentation, a protuberance, or a magnetic material (this is apparent due to there being multiple options for an optical sensor, see para 0020) to improve the performance of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the fiducial marker is a visual mark, an indentation, a protuberance, or a magnetic material, as taught by Hasegawa et al. so as to improve the performance of the motor.
10. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 8; but does not teach that the PCB comprises a sensor configured to monitor the fiducial marker, wherein the sensor faces the extension.
Hasegawa et al. teach that the PCB comprises a sensor (this is inherent since there numerous Hasegawa et al. discloses numerous methods for a rotary encoder, see para 0020) configured to monitor the fiducial marker, wherein the sensor faces the extension (since the signal line is passed through the pcb, para 0023) to improve the performance of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the PCB comprises a sensor configured to monitor the fiducial marker, wherein the sensor faces the extension, as taught by Hasegawa et al. so as to improve the performance of the motor.
11. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the connector comprises signal terminals and power terminals.
Hasegawa et al. teach that the connector comprises signal terminals 17 and power terminals 16 to improve the performance of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the connector comprises signal terminals and power terminals, as taught by Hasegawa et al. so as to prolong the life of the motor.
12. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 11; but does not teach that the connector comprises a signal shield surrounding the signal terminals.
Hasegawa et al. teach that the connector comprises a signal shield surrounding the signal terminals (para 0022 last two sentences) to improve the performance of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the connector comprises a signal shield surrounding the signal terminals, as taught by Hasegawa et al. so as to improve the performance of the motor.
13. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 11; but does not teach that the connector comprises a power shield surrounding the power terminals.
Hasegawa et al. teach that the connector comprises a power shield surrounding the power terminals (para 0022 last two sentences) to improve the performance of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the connector comprises a power shield surrounding the power terminals, as taught by Hasegawa et al. so as to improve the performance of the motor.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. in view of Takeuchi et al. and in further view of Hasegawa et al. and in further view of Ichikawa (US 20200139831).
14. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 11; but does not teach that the power terminals comprise a positive power terminal and a negative power terminal.
Ichikawa et al. teach that the power terminals T51-T53 comprise a positive power terminal T51 and a negative power terminal T52 (fig 1). By having this terminal setup in the connector of Yokoyama et al., a DC power supply can be implemented for the motor which would improve the motor’s versatility.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the power terminals comprise a positive power terminal and a negative power terminal, as taught by Ichikawa et al. so as to improve the motor’s versatility.
15. Yokoyama et al. has been discussed above, re claim 14; but does not teach that the negative power terminal is closer to the signal terminals than the positive power terminal.
Ichikawa teaches that the negative power terminal is closer to the signal terminals than the positive power terminal (fig 1) to improve the motor’s versatility.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Yokoyama et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the negative power terminal is closer to the signal terminals than the positive power terminal, as taught by Ichikawa so as to improve the motor’s versatility.
16. Yokoyama et al. teach:
The device of claim 11, wherein the power terminals comprise a plurality of interlock terminals (The Examiner is taking official notice in that it is also known to have the power terminals in the form of interlock terminals and this is done so that the power can be disconnected and reconnected safely). Still further, this appears to be inherent with every connector (of Hasegawa et al.) as power cannot be supplied to the motor to run it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-22 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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 Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights