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 August 31, 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-9 were previously pending; claim 2 was cancelled and no claims were added by amendment; and thus, claims 1 and 3-9 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 31-2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant's first point (page 6 of Remarks) amends the title and abstract to overcome the specification objections. The amendments make the objections moot, thus they are removed.
The Applicant's second point (page 6 of Remarks) amends claim 9 to overcome the 112b rejection. The amendments make the rejection moot, thus it is removed.
The Applicant's third point (page 7 of Remarks) amends claim 8 to overcome the 112b rejection. The amendments make the rejection moot, thus it is removed.
The Applicant's forth point (page 7-8 of Remarks) amends claim 1 to include the substantive material of claim 2. The Applicant goes on to argue that it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the reversible covers of NAKAZAWA to the aperture of KANEKO. Specifically, the Applicant argues that, the inlets of KANEKO are not incidental openings but operative cooling-air inlets that remain open during normal operation. While the Examiner concedes this is true the claim language is purely structural and contains no functional limitations. Additionally, the Applicant goes on to state that, “closing those inlets with a reversible cover as proposed in the Office Action would interfere with the cooling airflow on which KANEKO relies.” The Examiner agrees with this logical conclusion, however that is the entire purpose of the covers being reversible. It is the belief of the Examiner that it is well within the ability of one skilled in the art to know when the covers should be open and closed during operation or not.
The Applicant's fifth point (page 8-9 of Remarks) argues that there is no reason for modification of NAKAZAWA. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However,' there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be e}~pressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken' as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art'. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). references are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In i.e Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA)1969. In this case however, the reversible plug would help prevent entry of debris to ensure better motor operation as stated on page 8 of the prior office action. This motivation does not render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because while not in operation the plug would function as intended (to prevent debris) while also keeping the prior arts intended purpose intact. Additionally, since KANEKO has a multitude of apertures, not all are necessarily closed or open during operation; and can be closed or open in combination depending on what one skilled in the art would deem appropriate for operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8-9 are 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 8 recites the limitation " the electric traction motor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is also rejected solely based on its dependency on claim 8.
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 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANEKO (US 20230412049 A1) in view of NAKAZAWA(US 20160105069 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KANEKO teaches:
An electric traction motor(Fig 11; 4), comprising:
a motor shaft (Fig 11; 11) extending along a main axis(Fig 11; AX);
a rotor (Fig 11; 12) extending around the motor shaft(Fig 11; 11) and fixed to said motor shaft[0031], the rotor(Fig 11; 12) including at least one ventilation channel (Fig 11; 15a) extending substantially parallel to the main axis(Fig 11; AX)[0065];
a stator(Fig 11; 13) coupled to the rotor(Fig 11; 12), the stator defining a cylindrical inner space, extending along the main axis(Fig 11; AX) and enclosing the rotor(Fig 11; 12);
a motor frame (Fig 11; 19/20) fixed to the stator (Fig 11; 13)and enclosing the rotor (Fig 11; 12)and the stator(Fig 11; 13), the motor shaft (Fig 11; 11)being able to rotate relative to the motor frame(Fig 11; 19/20) around the main axis[0032];
air vents opening (Fig 11; 19a) on the motor frame (Fig 11; 19) and allowing passage for an air flux through the at least one ventilation channel(Fig 11; 15a) of the rotor(Fig 11; 12)[0032]; and
a first aperture (Fig 11; 19a) formed in the motor frame(Fig 11; 19), the first aperture (Fig 11; 19a) being included in the cylindrical inner space defined by the stator(Fig 11; 13)(KANEKO has a plurality of first aperture 19a and air vent opening 19a as shown in Fig 3. Some holes may operate as apertures and some may operate as air vents).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
542
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KANEKO does not teach:
a first cover reversibly coupled to the first aperture, between an open configuration and a closed configuration of said first aperture.
NAKAZAWA teaches:
a first cover(Fig 1; 28) reversibly coupled to the first aperture(Fig 1; 24), between an open configuration and a closed configuration of said first aperture[0045].
PNG
media_image3.png
369
557
media_image3.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 KANEKOI by using the teaching of a reversible plug to clean the motor taught by NAKAZAWA, in order to plug the first apertures; thus, prevent entry of debris to better motor operations and ease of maintenance [0045 NAKAZAWA].
In regards to claim 3, KANEKO, in view of NAKAZAWA, teaches the electric traction motor according to claim 1:
wherein the first aperture(Fig 11; 19a) comprises a concave surface.
KANEKO does not teach:
the first cover is a plug comprising a convex surface, so that, in the closed configuration, the plug is inserted in the first aperture and the concave and convex surfaces are in contact with each other.
NAKAZAWA teaches:
wherein the first aperture (Fig 1; 24) comprises a concave surface and the first cover (Fig 1; 28) is a plug comprising a convex surface[0045], so that, in the closed configuration, the plug(Fig 1; 28) is inserted in the first aperture(Fig 1; 24) and the concave and convex surfaces are in contact with each other(shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, KANEKO, in view of NAKAZAWA, teaches the electric traction motor according to claim 1:
comprising a second aperture (Fig 3; 20a)formed in the motor frame(Fig 11; 20).
In regards to claim 5, KANEKO teaches the electric traction motor according to claim 4.
KANEKO does not teach:
comprising a second cover reversibly coupled to the second aperture, between an open configuration and a closed configuration of said second aperture.
NAKAZAWA teaches:
comprising a second cover (Fig 1; 30)reversibly coupled to the second aperture(Fig 1; 26), between an open configuration and a closed configuration of said second aperture[0045].
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 KANEKOI by using the teaching of a reversible plug to clean the motor taught by NAKAZAWA, in order to plug the first apertures; thus, prevent entry of debris to better motor operations and ease of maintenance [0045 NAKAZAWA].
In regards to claim 6, KANEKO, in view of NAKAZAWA, teaches the electric traction motor according to claim 5.
KANEKO does not teach:
wherein the second cover is a hatch, articulated to the motor frame.
NAKAZAWA teaches:
wherein the second cover (Fig 1; 30)is a hatch, articulated to the motor frame(Fig 1; 20).
NAKAZAWA discloses the claimed invention except for a hatch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace a plug with a hatch since the examiner takes Official Notice on the equivalence of a plug and a hatch for their use in the art would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, KANEKO, in view of NAKAZAWA, teaches the electric traction motor according to claim 1:
comprising a fan (Fig 11; 14)fixed to the motor shaft (Fig 11; 11)and enclosed in the motor frame(Fig 11; 19/20), said fan(Fig 11; 14) being able to generate the air flux through the at least one ventilation channel (Fig 11; 15a)of the rotor[0065-0067].
Regarding claim 8, KANEKO teaches:
a vehicle comprising a body and the electric traction motor assembled to said body[0005],
the electric traction motor(Fig 11; 4), comprising:
a motor shaft (Fig 11; 11) extending along a main axis(Fig 11; AX);
a rotor (Fig 11; 12) extending around the motor shaft(Fig 11; 11) and fixed to said motor shaft[0031], the rotor(Fig 11; 12) including at least one ventilation channel (Fig 11; 15a) extending substantially parallel to the main axis(Fig 11; AX)[0065];
a stator(Fig 11; 13) coupled to the rotor(Fig 11; 12), the stator defining a cylindrical inner space, extending along the main axis(Fig 11; AX) and enclosing the rotor(Fig 11; 12);
a motor frame (Fig 11; 19/20) fixed to the stator (Fig 11; 13)and enclosing the rotor (Fig 11; 12)and the stator(Fig 11; 13), the motor shaft (Fig 11; 11)being able to rotate relative to the motor frame(Fig 11; 19/20) around the main axis[0032];
air vents opening (Fig 11; 19a) on the motor frame (Fig 11; 19) and allowing passage for an air flux through the at least one ventilation channel(Fig 11; 15a) of the rotor(Fig 11; 12)[0032]; and
a first aperture (Fig 11; 19a) formed in the motor frame(Fig 11; 19), the first aperture (Fig 11; 19a) being included in the cylindrical inner space defined by the stator(Fig 11; 13)(KANEKO has a plurality of first aperture 19a and air vent opening 19a as shown in Fig 3. Some holes may operate as apertures and some may operate as air vents).
KANEKO does not teach:
a first cover reversibly coupled to the first aperture, between an open configuration and a closed configuration of said first aperture.
NAKAZAWA teaches:
a first cover(Fig 1; 28) reversibly coupled to the first aperture(Fig 1; 24), between an open configuration and a closed configuration of said first aperture[0045].
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 KANEKOI by using the teaching of a reversible plug to clean the motor taught by NAKAZAWA, in order to plug the first apertures; thus, prevent entry of debris to better motor operations and ease of maintenance [0045 NAKAZAWA].
In regards to claim 9, KANEKO, in view of NAKAZAWA, teaches the electric traction motor according to claim 8:
wherein the electric traction motor comprises a second aperture (Fig 11; 20a) formed in the motor frame (Fig 11; 20).
KANEKO does not teach:
wherein the main axis of the motor shaft is disposed horizontally, and wherein the second aperture is disposed at a bottom end of the motor frame.
NAKAZAWA teaches:
wherein the electric traction motor comprises a second aperture (Fig 1; 26) formed in the motor frame(Fig 1; 20), wherein the main axis (Fig 1; O) of the motor shaft (Fig 1; 12)is disposed axially, and wherein the second aperture (Fig 1; 26)is disposed radially outside the motor frame(Fig 1; 20).
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 KANEKOI by using the teaching of a second aperture disposed at a bottom end of the motor frame taught by NAKAZAWA, in order to clean the dusts adhering to the air path and the fan; thus, prevent entry of debris to better motor operations and ease of maintenance [0049 NAKAZAWA].
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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