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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 16 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmezer et al. (DE 10 2019 005 171) in view of Denefleh et al. (US 11,190,078).
With respect to claim 16, Schmezer et al. teach a drive, comprising an end shield (Fig.3, Item 3) that receives a bearing of a rotor shaft of the drive (Fig.1, Item 1); a stator housing (Fig.1, Item 2) connected to the end shield (text regarding Items 1 and 2); and an adapter (Fig.3, Item 14) connected to the stator housing and connected on a side facing away from the stator housing to a lower part that, with a cover part fitted on the lower part, forms a connection box of the drive, the adapter and/or the stator housing being arranged as a cast part made of metal; wherein the adapter includes a circumferential depression (Fig.3, Item 28), a complete circumferential depression, and/or a closed circumferential depression arranged on a side of the adapter facing the stator housing, the depression including a bottom region (Fig.3, Item 27) and two wall regions (Fig.3, Items 25 and 26) adjoining the bottom region; wherein an injection molded part (Fig.3, Item 29) is received in the depression and rests against a surface region of the stator housing; but fail to particularly disclose wherein the surface region and/or the depression is unmachined.
On the other hand, Denefleh et al. teach an electric motor housing components being unmachined (Col.2, Lines 44 – 68 and Col.3, Lines 11 – 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Denefleh et al. unmachined configuration with the Schmezer et al. because it would simplify and reduce cost of production of the motor.
With respect to claim 17, Schmezer et al. teach wherein the adapter (Fig.3, Item 3) is frame-shaped, arranged as a frame adapter, and/or arranged as a frame (Figs.1 and 3), the bearing rotatably supporting the rotor shaft of the drive (Fig.1, Item 1).
With respect to claim 18, Schmezer et al. teach wherein the surface region, the depression, the bottom region, and/or the two wall regions (Fig.3, Items 25 – 27) are arranged as unmachined, unfinished casting surface regions as disclosed by Denefleh et al..
With respect to claim 19, Schmezer et al. teach wherein the adapter (Fig.3, Item 3) and the lower part are arranged in one piece, integrally, and/or as a cast part. Furthermore, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
With respect to claim 20, Scmezer et al. teach wherein cable bushings (Fig.3, Item 46) adapted for passing through electrical power supply lines (Fig.3, Item 13) and data bus lines are arranged in the lower part.
With respect to claims 21 and 22, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the injection molded part being arranged as a plastic injection molded part; or wherein the injection molded part is formed of an elastomer because it would comply with the surface contour of the contact surfaces. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claims 23, 26 and 27, Schmezer et al. teach a connecting screw (Figs.1 and 2, Items 23 and 35a and 36a) being screwed into the threaded bore and pressing the adapter toward the stator housing. The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the surface region being planar, and a normal direction of the planar surface region has a first angle to a first direction, the magnitude of which is between 10° and 80°, the first direction being oriented parallel to a direction of a bore axis of a threaded bore of the end shield or stator housing; wherein the adapter is tapered toward the stator housing; and wherein a maximum surface area surrounded by the adapter in a plane having a normal direction parallel to the first direction increases monotonically as distance of the plane from the stator housing increases because it would provide a desired configuration as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application without departing from the scope and spirit of the Schmezer et al. and Denefleh et al. inventions. Also, it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 24, Schmezer et al. teach wherein the connecting screw (Figs.1 and 2, Items 23 and 35a and 36a) passes through a sealing ring that rests against the stator housing.
With respect to claim 25, Schmezer et al. teach wherein a first one (Fig.3, Item 26) of the two wall regions is shorter than a second one (Fig.3, Item 25) of the two wall regions.
With respect to claim 28, Schmezer et al. teach wherein the injection molded part (Fig.3, Item 29) rests against a further surface region (Fig.3, Item 24) of the stator housing, the further surface region being planar and having a normal direction having a second angle to the first direction that is inverted with respect to and/or has an opposite sign as the first angle, the first direction oriented parallel to the direction of a bore axis of a threaded bore (Fig.2, Items 23, 35a and 36a) of the end shield or stator housing, a connecting screw being screwed into the threaded bore and pressing the adapter towards the stator housing (Figs.1 and 2).
With respect to claims 29 and 30, Schmezer et al. teach wherein the end shield (Figs.1 and 3, Item 2) and/or the stator housing has a continuous recess through which an electrical line (Fig.3, Item 13) is guided from an interior of the stator housing to a connection device (Fig.3, Item 43) that is received in the lower part. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known in the art to employ a flat gasket being pressed by a fastening device against the end shield and/or the stator housing, the electrical line passing through an opening of the flat gasket because it would provide a watertight seal; and wherein the recess opens into the opening and/or the fastening device is a metal sheet part that is pressed against the flat gasket by two screws (Figs.1 and 2, Item 23, 35a and 36a) that are screwed into threaded bores of the end shield or stator housing.
With respect to claim 31, Schmezer et al. teach wherein the cover part includes a signal electronics component (Fig.36, Item 12) that is connected via a plug-in connection (Fig.3, Item 43) to a power electronics component (Fig.3, Item 5) that is arranged as an inverter and supplies the stator winding via an electrical line.
With respect to claim 32, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide tab regions are arranged on the injection molded part, each tab region projecting through a respective interruption in the wall region, each tab region being wider on a side of the wall region facing away from the depression, each tab region being elastically clamped in a respective interruption in the wall region because it would help maintain the injection molded part in place, in this manner facilitating assembly of the different components.
With respect to claims 33 – 37, Schmezer et al. teach wherein the injection molded part (Fig.3, Item 29) in the depression (Fig.3, Item 28) is limited by the adapter (Fig.3, Item 14) and by the stator housing and/or end shield (Fig.3, Item 3), wherein the wall regions are arranged circumferentially (Fig.1), wherein the wall regions (Fig.3, Items 25 and 26) are spaced apart from the stator housing and/or the end shield (Fig.3, Item 3); and wherein the injection molded part (Fig.3, Item 29) rests against the stator housing and/or the end shield (Fig.3, Item 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner still considers that the obvious combination of the patents to Schmezer et al. in view of Denefleh et al. teach the limitations described in the claims as discussed above.
The Examiner considers that there was no need to supply an English translation of the German patent to Schmezer et al. (DE 10 2019 005 171) since the reference was submitted by the Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 08/15/2024, additionally the Examiner presumed that, since the Applicant is German, it would be able to understand the Schmezer et al. patent. However, to advance prosecution and clear the record the Examiner has included an English translation of the Schmezer et al. patent herewith.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-39853985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
September 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights