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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on March 18, 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application, and claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on March 18th, 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I and Group II are not a sub-combination and combination because Group I contains the limitations of Group II in subsequent dependent claim 7. This is not found persuasive because while what the Applicant argument is accurate it leaves claims 1-6 of Group I still wholly independent from Group II. If the limitations of claim 7 were written in independent claim 1 than the application would no longer contain two distinct inventions.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I and Group III are not a distinct product and process because the process claim (Group III) has been amended to mirror the product claims(Group I). This is not found persuasive because while what the Applicant amended Group III to make the process less distinct from the product of Group I it still remains distinct. In the instant case, the stator resolver of Group I refers to any generic fluid while the process of Group III strictly refers to a corrosive fluid.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s); no new matter should be entered:
an electric circuitry
a first terminal
a second terminal
a counterpart with an inner surface
the inner surface opposing the mounting surface
wherein the counterpart comprises a separation protruding from the inner surface
a first exciter contact holder
a second exciter contact holder
a first y-phase contact holder
a second y-phase contact holder
a fork contact having a slot
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the phase coil" in the first paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “the creepage distance for avoiding the generation of short circuits between the first contact and the second contact when the mounting surface is contacting a fluid that could generate a conductive path between the first and second contacts.” of claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because while the limitation includes limited structure with mostly functional limitation, but there is no key invoking verbiage such as “mean” or “step”. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA(US 20180316235 A1) in view of HOCHSTETLER (US 20140306560 A1).
In regards to claim 1, YAMADA teaches:
Circuitry holder (Fig 1; 30A) of a stator (Fig 1; 3A)of a resolver(Fig 1; 1), the circuity holder (Fig 1; 30A) for coupling coils (Fig 1; 40) of the resolver (Fig 1; 1)to an electric circuitry[0029-0030], the circuitry holder comprises:
a mounting surface (Fig 1; 30A’)with a first contact holder (Fig 1; 31a’)that clamps (means of insert molding [0037]) a first contact (Fig 1; 31a)(Figure 1 shows the contact holders are the space surrounding the contact 31) for connecting a first terminal of the resolver to the electric circuitry [0030] and a second contact holder (Fig 1; 31b’)that clamps a second contact (Fig 1; 31b) for connecting a second terminal of the resolver to the electric circuitry[0030], the first contact holder (Fig 1; 31a’)abutting to the second contact holder(Fig 1; 31b’);
wherein a creepage distance between the first contact (Fig 1; 31a) and the second contact (Fig 1; 31b) is greater than or equal to 4 mm (walls 37 are in place to make the creeper larger than necessary) , the creepage distance is a shortest distance between the first contact (Fig 1; 31a) and the second contact(Fig 1; 31b) along the mounting surface of the circuitry holder(the definition of creepage is innate), the creepage distance for avoiding generation of short circuits between the first contact (Fig 1; 31a) and the second contact (Fig 1; 31b)when the mounting surface(Fig 1; 30A’) is contacting a fluid that could generate a conductive path between the first and second contacts(Fig 1; 31a/b).
PNG
media_image1.png
769
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
727
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
YAMADA discloses the claimed device except for a creepage distance equal to or greater than 4mm. HOCHSTETLER discloses that it is known in the art to provide a isolation wall in order to extend the creepage and clearance distances distance [HOCHSTETLER 0033]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the creepage distance greater than or equal to 4mm with the insulation wall in order to prevent short circuiting.
Additionally, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) .
Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value (creepage distance) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 2, YAMADA, in view of HOCHSTETLER, teaches the circuitry holder according to claim 1:
wherein a clearance distance between the first contact and the second contact is shorter than the creepage distance(YAMADA discloses an identical vertical wall as the present invention therefor the geometry of creepage and clearance is the same), the clearance distance is the shortest distance between the first contact (Fig 1; 31a) and the second contact(Fig 1; 31b) along an imaginary line directly connecting the first contact and the second contact(the definition of clearance is innate).
In regards to claim 3, YAMADA, in view of HOCHSTETLER, teaches the circuitry holder according to claim 2:
further comprising a wall (Fig 1; 37) protruding from the mounting surface(Fig 1; 31A)
YAMADA does not teach:
the wall for increasing the creepage distance compared to the clearance distance.
HOCHSTETLER teaches:
further comprising a wall (Fig 4; 59) protruding from the mounting surface(Fig 4; 56A), the wall (Fig 4; 59) for increasing the creepage distance compared to the clearance distance[HOCHSTETLER 0033].
PNG
media_image3.png
345
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, YAMADA, in view of HOCHSTETLER, teaches the circuitry holder according to claim 2:
further comprising a counterpart (Fig 1; 60) with an inner surface, the inner surface opposing the mounting surface, wherein the counterpart comprises a separation (Fig 1; 61)protruding from the inner surface[0062], the separation for increasing the creepage distance compared to the clearance distance(preventing short circuit of contacts 31 [0062]).
In regards to claim 6, YAMADA, in view of HOCHSTETLER, teaches the circuitry holder according to claim 1:
wherein the clearance distance between the first contact (Fig 1; 31a) and the second contact (Fig 1; 31b)is less than or equal to 5 mm.
YAMADA discloses the claimed device except for a clearance distance equal to or less than 5mm. HOCHSTETLER discloses that it is known in the art to provide a isolation wall in order to extend the creepage and clearance distances distance [HOCHSTETLER 0033]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the creepage distance less than or equal to 5mm with the insulation wall in order to prevent short circuiting.
Additionally, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) .
Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value (clearance distance) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA(US 20180316235 A1) in view of HOCHSTETLER (US 20140306560 A1), in further view of EISMANN (DE 2515711 B1).
In regards to claim 4, combination YAMADA/ HOCHSTETLER, teaches the circuitry holder according to claim 2.
Combination YAMADA/HOCHSTETLER does not teach:
a trench formed in the mounting surface, the trench for increasing the creepage distance compared to the clearance distance.
EISMANN teaches:
further comprising a trench(Fig 10; 32) formed in the mounting surface, the trench (Fig 10; 32)for increasing the creepage distance compared to the clearance distance[0027].
PNG
media_image4.png
471
539
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination YAMADA/ HOCHSTETLER by using the trench structure taught by EISMANN, in order to replace the walls on the mounting surface of YAMADA to differently extend the creepage distance between the clamping bodies [0027 EISMANN], thus reducing the chance of short circuit.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA(US 20180316235 A1) in view of HOCHSTETLER (US 20140306560 A1), in further view of SCHMIDT (US 20230412054 A1).
In regards to claim 9, combination YAMADA/ HOCHSTETLER, teaches the circuitry holder according to claim 1.
Combination YAMADA/ HOCHSTETLER does not teach:
wherein at least one of the first and second contact is a fork contact having a slot for receiving an end of a wire of the phase coil in the slot.
SCHMIDT teaches:
wherein at least one of the first and second contact (Fig 7; 42) is a fork contact having a slot (Fig 7; 42A)for receiving an end of a wire (Fig 7; 11) of the phase coil in the slot(Fig 7; 42A).
PNG
media_image5.png
544
525
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination YAMADA/ HOCHSTETLER by using the fork shaped contact taught by SCHMIDT, in order to form conductive connection to a coil wire thus securing electrical connection [0212 SCHMIDT].
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace a the connector pin found in YAMADA with a the fork found in SHMIDT since the examiner takes Official Notice on the equivalence of a they are both contact points for electrical conduction for their use in the art would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 10, combination YAMADA/ HOCHSTETLER, teaches the circuitry holder according to claim 1.
Combination YAMADA/ HOCHSTETLER does not teach:
wherein the first and second contacts are releasable clamped in the first and second contact holders.
SCHMIDT teaches:
wherein the first and second contacts (Fig 7; 42) are releasable clamped in the first and second contact holders(the shape of contacts 42 clearly show that the wire 11 can be inserted and removed, but in additional it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwih v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination YAMADA/ HOCHSTETLER by using the fork shaped contact taught by SCHMIDT, in order to form conductive connection to a coil wire thus securing electrical connection [0212 SCHMIDT].
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace a the connector pin found in YAMADA with a the fork found in SHMIDT since the examiner takes Official Notice on the equivalence of a they are both contact points for electrical conduction for their use in the art would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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.
Regarding claim 7, The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art teaches:
the first contact holder is a first x-phase contact holder and the first contact is a first x-phase contact, the first x-phase contact holder clamps the first x-phase contact for connecting a first end of an x-phase coil to the electric circuitry;
the second contact holder is a second x-phase contact holder and the second contact is a second x-phase contact, the second x-phase contact holder clamps the second x-phase contact for connecting a second end of an x-phase coil to the electric circuitry;
a first exciter contact holder that clamps a first exciter contact for connecting a first end of an exciter coil to the electric circuitry and a second exciter contact holder that clamps a second exciter contact for connecting a second end of the exciter coil to the electric circuitry.
However, the prior art does not teach:
the creepage distance is at least one of a creepage distance between first x-phase contact and the second x-phase contact and a creepage distance between the second x-phase contact and the first exciter contact;
an exciter creepage distance between the first exciter contact and the second exciter contact is less than the creepage distance.
Claim 7 is objected to, and not rejected, because the limitation of different creepage lengths among various excited and x-phase contacts is too specific which makes it novel.
Claims 8 are objected to, and not rejected, because they depend from a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-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, Oluseye 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights