DETAILED ACTION
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
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 1 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashita et al. (US 8,823,232) (hereinafter Terashita) in view of Ludwig et al. (US 2014/0035506) (hereinafter Ludwig) and further in view of DE10024021.
Regarding claim 1, Terashita discloses a drive for system having at least one movable element, the drive comprising: a motor unit comprising a housing (elements 140 and 130), a stator (element 110 including element 112) stationarily received in the housing, a rotor (element 120) arranged to be rotationally-movable in the housing, and an output shaft (element 122) extending from the housing; wherein the motor unit comprises a cuboid formed at least by a first housing portion (element 130) and a second housing portion (element 140) connected together (See at least Figures 12-16, Examiner notes that all elements of the motor assembly, including elements 130 and 140 are necessarily “connected together” for the motor assembly to function as intended); wherein the output shaft extends perpendicularly from the housing through an end surface of the housing (See at least Figures 13-14); and wherein the stator includes at least one surface section (See Figure 14, area of element 112d) and the housing includes at least one recess extending through at least one lateral surface of the housing (Examiner notes that this configuration is clearly illustrated in Figure 13), the at least one stator surface section protruding through the at least one housing recess (See Figure 13, element 122 clearly extends through the housing recess).
Terashita does not explicitly disclose wherein the drive arrangement is a door drive for a door system, wherein at least one leaf element of the door system is movable, and wherein the output shaft is in operative connection in a driving manner with the leaf element. Ludwig, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a door drive for arrangement on or in connection with a door system, wherein at least one leaf element (element 1) of the door system is movable, including a motor unit (element 3) with a housing (element 19), in which a stator (element 18) is stationarily received, and wherein a rotor (element 16) is arranged so as to be rotationally-movable in the housing and includes an output shaft (element 15), wherein the output shaft is in operative connection in a driving manner with the leaf element (See Figure 1, See at least paragraph [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the motor unit of Terashita such that it is arranged for use as a door drive for a door system, wherein at least one leaf element of the door system is movable, and wherein the output shaft is in operative connection with the leaf element, as taught by Ludwig, since it is well known in the art for motor units to be used as a door drive, and since the motor unit of Terashita would function as intended when arranged for use as a door drive, and would provide a compact motor unit which would be discrete, versatile, and aesthetically desirable. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. See MPEP 2143.
Further, although the housing halves of Terashita are not “directly connected” (i.e. in direct contact with each other), DE10024021 teaches that it is known in the art to configure a motor unit with a housing, in which a stator (element 11) is stationarily received, and wherein a rotor (Figure 1, element 3) is arranged so as to be rotationally-movable in the housing and includes an output shaft (Figure 1, element 4), wherein the motor unit has the basic shape of a cuboid, which is formed at least by two housing halves (Considered elements 2 and 5) connected to each other, and wherein the stator and the rotor are received on the inside between the housing halves and wherein the housing halves are formed to rest directly on each other (See Figures 1 and 2). 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 the housing halves of Terashita such that they are “directly connected together” as taught by DE10024021, (i.e. in direct contact with each other, potentially in the areas of elements 143c and 132c), since this configuration would function as intended for the purpose of Terashita, and since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and slight modification of the dimensional configuration of the housing, based on the needs of the user or application would have been a predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of results.
Examiner additionally notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing halves of Terashita such that they are “directly connected”, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well.
Regarding claim 4, Terashita discloses at least one flange (Figure 12, element 133 includes multiple “flanges” and therefore includes “at least one flange”) for positioning the motor unit (Examiner notes that element 133 is “arranged exclusively adjacent the at least one lateral surface” and includes numerous components that satisfy the term “flange”, See at least Figure 13), the at least one flange arranged exclusively adjacent the at least one lateral surface of the housing (See at least Figures 12-13).
Regarding claim 5, Terashita discloses further comprising a power unit and a controller, the power unit and the controller arranged adjacent to the at least one lateral surface of the housing (See at least column 14, lines 7-17, “In the connector support portion 133, a circuit board 134 attached to the insulator 118 arranged below the stator 110 and a connector 135 mounted on the circuit board 134 are accommodated. Ends of the windings 114 are electrically connected to the circuit board 134 by, for example, soldering or the like, thereby being connected to the terminals of the connector 135. Thus, it is possible to supply an electrical current to the windings 114 and to control the amount of current in the windings 114 by supplying a power from an external power supply and signals to the windings 114”. Examiner notes that “a power unit” is connected at element 133 and supplies power to the motor unit, and element 134 is considered to satisfy the term “a controller”).
Regarding claim 6, Terashita discloses wherein the at least one flange comprises a first flange element and a second flange element (See Figure 12, element 133 includes numerous “flanges”) each connected to a support profile (Examiner notes that element 130 is considered to satisfy the broad term “support profile”) of the door drive, the first flange element arranged on a first lateral surface of the housing and receiving the power unit (Figure 13 considered area of element 135), and the second flange element (Figure 13, considered element on which element 134 is mounted) arranged on a second lateral surface of the housing and receiving the controller.
Regarding claim 7, Terashita discloses wherein the housing includes a first edge dimension, a second edge dimension, and a third edge dimension (See at least Figure 12, Examiner notes that the housing of Terashita includes numerous “edges”). Although Terashita does not give explicit dimensions with regard to the housing, such that the first edge dimension is greater than the second edge dimension and wherein the second edge dimension is greater than the third edge dimension, Examiner notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the art in this way, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. Additionally, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the housing of Terashita such that the first edge dimension is greater than the second edge dimension and wherein the second edge dimension is greater than the third edge dimension, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and modification of the edge dimensions of the housing based on needs of the user or application for use would be an identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of results, and slight modification of the housing dimensions based on the needs of the application would have been a predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of results.
Regarding claim 8, Terashita does not explicitly disclose wherein the second edge dimension has a length of 70% to 98% of the first edge dimension and the third edge dimension has a length of 30% to 60% of the first edge dimension. However, Examiner notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the art in this way, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Such modifications are not critical to the design and would have produced no unexpected results. In addition, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. Examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second edge dimension has a length of 70% to 98% of the first edge dimension and the third edge dimension has a length of 30% to 60% of the first edge dimension, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Terashita discloses wherein the first edge dimension and the second edge dimension define the end surface of the housing (See at least Figure 12, considered “first edge dimension and the second edge dimension” as shown defining surface through which element 122 extends).
Regarding claim 10, Terashita discloses wherein the second edge dimension and the third edge dimension define the at least one lateral surface of the housing (See at least Figures 12-14).
Regarding claim 11, Terashita discloses wherein the stator comprises a substantially round shape defining at least one corner area (area of element 112e) in the housing in which at least one fastener (element 136) is arranged (See at least Figure 21, element 112 comprises a “substantially round shape”, since multiple portions 112c define a “substantially round shape”, additionally exterior of element 112 includes rounded corners and is considered to be “substantially round”).
Regarding claim 12, Terashita discloses wherein the stator comprises a substantially round shape (See at least Figure 21, exterior of element 112 includes rounded corners and is considered to be “substantially round”) defining a circumferential heat transition gap between the stator and at least one inner surface of the housing (Examiner notes that element 112 includes numerous “heat transition gaps” (between multiple element 112c, for example, which are between at least a portion of element 112 and the housing. Additionally, at least Figure 16 illustrates “heat transition gaps” in corners between element 110 and 140, further, the exterior corners of element 112, see Figure 21, include recessed surfaces that are considered to satisfy the broad term “heat transition gaps”).
Regarding claims 13-14, Terashita does not explicitly disclose at least one connecting element arranged on the output shaft directly adjacent to the end surface of the housing, the at least one connecting element for connecting the motor unit with the at least one movable leaf element. Ludwig, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure at least one connecting element arranged on the output shaft directly adjacent to the end surface of the housing (See Figures 1 and 2, element 15 necessarily connects to a belt driving element that is configured “on the output shaft directly adjacent to the end surface of the housing”, See at least paragraph [0034], “the electric motor 3 drives a belt connected to the door 1 and tensioned via an idler pulley 11. In this way the rotational movement of the electric motor 3 is converted into a translational movement of the door 1”), the at least one connecting element for connecting the motor unit with the at least one movable leaf element, and wherein the at least one connecting element comprises a belt pulley (See Figure 1, Drive pulley and idler pulley are illustrated for driving belt). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the drive system of Terashita as modified by Ludwig above, such that at least one drive pulley is arranged on the output shaft directly adjacent to the end surface of the housing, the at least one drive pulley connects the motor unit with the at least one movable leaf element, as taught by Ludwig (See Ludwig, Figure 1), since this would be a obvious and logical drive configuration for the door driving device of Terashita as modified above, and since this configuration would function as intended for the purpose of driving the door system of Terashita as modified above. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 15, Terashita discloses a printed circuit board (element 134) connected to the housing on a PCB surface opposite the end surface of the housing.
Regarding claim 16, Terashita discloses wherein the at least one lateral surface of the housing comprises at least one fin structure (See at least Figure 12, the term “fin structure” is considered to be very broad, and at least element 133 includes various components considered to satisfy the broad term “fin structure”).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashita et al. (US 8,823,232) (hereinafter Terashita) in view of Ludwig et al. (US 2014/0035506) (hereinafter Ludwig) and further in view of DE10024021 and further in view of Wagner et al. (US 2016/0123064) (hereinafter Wagner).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Terashita does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one stator surface section is in direct heat-transferring contact with a component adjacent to the motor unit, and wherein the component comprises a support profile of the door drive. Wagner, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a door drive for a door system having at least one movable leaf element (element 4), the door drive comprising: a motor unit (element 5) comprising a housing (See Figure 2, 8, considered structure enclosing element 5), a stator stationarily received in the housing (See paragraph [0052], “the electrical drive 5 is an electric motor, in particular a brushless electrical motor”. A stator is not explicitly shown but necessarily required for functionality of the system), a rotor (See paragraphs [0052] and [0076]) arranged to be rotationally-movable in the housing, and an output shaft (element 15) extending from the housing and in operative connection with the at least one movable leaf element. Additionally, Wagner teaches that it is known in the art to configure a heat transferring arrangement between the motor unit and the supporting drive profile (See paragraphs [0023], “Advantageously, a heat-conducting material is inserted between the drive unit and the drive profile. Thereby, the drive profile serves as a heat-conducting body and therefore as a cooling body for the drive unit… This circumstance translates in particular into avoiding or at least into retarding any overheating of the electrical drive of the drive unit, even with heavy door leaves”, and [0103], “As the support element 11 supports moreover the electrical drive 5, an optimum heat-conduction from the electrical drive 5 is provided via the support element 11 to the drive profile 20. Thereby, a comprehensive cooling of the electrical drive 5 is realized”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the motor unit of Terashita such that the at least one stator surface section is in direct heat-transferring contact with a component adjacent to the motor unit, and wherein the component comprises a support profile of the door drive, since this would improve the reliability and functionality of the system by providing improved cooling for the motor unit, which would help prevent the motor unit from overheating, which would be highly desirable for the system. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “Applicant respectfully asserts that the Office has not established that all elements of Applicant's claimed invention are disclosed in the art of record. Mainly, none of Terashita, Ludwig, or DE 21, taken alone or in combination teach or disclose "a first housing portion and a second housing portion directly connected together"”. Examiner disagrees, and notes that DE10024021 explicitly teaches that it is known in the art to configure a motor unit with a housing, in which a stator (element 11) is stationarily received, and wherein a rotor (Figure 1, element 3) is arranged so as to be rotationally-movable in the housing and includes an output shaft (Figure 1, element 4), wherein the motor unit has the basic shape of a cuboid, which is formed at least by two housing halves (Considered elements 2 and 5) connected to each other, and wherein the stator and the rotor are received on the inside between the housing halves and wherein the housing halves are formed to rest directly on each other (See Figures 1 and 2). See rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding the argument “One of ordinary skill in the art would never adopt the two-piece housing structure of DE 21 with Terashita because this combination would not allow any heat transfer from the sides of stator 10 to an external environment.”. This argument is unclear, as DE10024021 is simply relied upon for the teaching that it is known in the art to configure a motor unit with a housing, in which a stator (element 11) is stationarily received, and wherein a rotor (Figure 1, element 3) is arranged so as to be rotationally-movable in the housing and includes an output shaft (Figure 1, element 4), wherein the motor unit has the basic shape of a cuboid, which is formed at least by two housing halves (Considered elements 2 and 5) connected to each other, and wherein the stator and the rotor are received on the inside between the housing halves and wherein the housing halves are formed to rest directly on each other (See Figures 1 and 2). Therefore, the modification of Terashita in view of DE10024021 is not to “adopt the two-piece housing structure of DE 21 with Terashita”, but rather simply modifying the existing housing structure of Terashita such that the housing halves touch each other, and are therefore “directly connected together” as taught by DE10024021, (i.e. in direct contact with each other, for example in the areas of elements 143 and 132. See Figures 12, 14, 16, as these elements are already nearly touching as shown), since this configuration would function as intended for the purpose of Terashita, and since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and slight modification of the dimensional configuration of the housing, based on the needs of the user or application would have been a predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of results. Examiner additionally notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing halves of Terashita such that they are “directly connected”, since it has been held that changes in shape, form, or configuration of components of a device are obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape, form, or configuration would be found significant to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes that it has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969), and a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention [a particular feature or structure] but does not "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" investigation into the invention [a particular feature or structure] claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed.Cir.2004).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights