DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 11.12.24. In view of this communication, claims 10-26 are now pending in this application.
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 .
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.
Claim 12 recites “U-shaped internal slot”, however there is no element referral in specification. Examiner interprets element 42,46 to be “U-shaped internal 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Electric motor with electronics compartment locking structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims below 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 16 recites the limitations” The electric motor according to claim 10, wherein said lug base portion of said lug is inclined with respect to the vertical direction at a second angle of inclination lying between 0.1 and 5°” where recitation of “a second angle of inclination” Is indefinite as there is no recitation of first angle of inclination in claim 16 or claim 10. To advance prosecution, Examiner interprets “angle of inclination”. Claim 18 is rejected due to their dependency on Claim 16 .
Claim 21 recites the limitations” The electric motor according to claim 10, wherein a side of said snap-in nose that faces said lug forms a guide surface for assembling the snap-in element and is inclined with respect to the vertical direction at a third angle of inclination” where recitation of “a third angle of inclination” Is indefinite as there is no recitation of first or second angle of inclination in claim 21 or claim 10. To advance prosecution, Examiner interprets “angle of inclination”. Claims 22-23 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 21 .
Claim 26 recites “electronics compartment cover is formed from EN AW 5754” which seems to be a regional standard, however there is no recitation of alloy % composition of individual elements either in specification or in claim recitation. To advance prosecution, Examiner interprets Al-Mg alloy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-12,15,19-21,24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfister et al(DE102013022020A1 English translation), hereinafter Pfister.
Regarding Claim 10, Pfister discloses (Figs 1-3,5a,5b) an electric motor (10), comprising:
a motor carrier (26) formed with an electronics compartment (28) for motor electronics (30), the electronics compartment having an electronics compartment base (26b) and a side wall (26 in Fig 5b,44) projecting in a vertical direction (44 runs perpendicular to 26b in 54 direction) relative to said electronics compartment base;
an electronics compartment cover (32) configured for closing said electronics compartment;
said electronics compartment cover having a channel-shaped receptacle (68) for receiving a free end (44 in Fig 5b) of said side wall of said electronics compartment, said receptacle having an outer wall (32 w) arranged on an outside of said side wall;
a lug (50,56,58,62,32p) extending from said outer wall, counter to the vertical direction (opposite 54); and
said lug having a lug base portion (58) and a snap-in element (62) arranged thereon for a snap-in connection (46) with a snap-in nose (48) of said motor carrier.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
438
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
520
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
356
398
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
362
362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 10. Pfister further discloses wherein said lug (50,56,58,62) extends vertically (54) from a free end (60) of said outer wall (32 w) of said receptacle (68).
Regarding Claim 12, Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 10. Pfister further discloses wherein said lug (50,56,58,62) is formed with a U-shaped [Para 0039] internal slot, and wherein a portion of said lug that is enclosed by said internal slot is inclined toward or away from said side wall at a first angle of inclination, forming said snap-in element (Fig 5b discloses 62 is inclined to 54).
Regarding Claim 15, Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 10. Pfister further discloses where said lug base portion (56,58) of said lug spans a plane which is oriented parallel to a free end (60) of said outer wall (32w) of said receptacle (58 is parallel to 60).
Regarding Claim 19, Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 10. Pfister further discloses wherein said snap-in nose (48) is formed by said side wall (26 in Fig 5b,44) of said electronics compartment (28).
Regarding Claim 20, Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 10. Pfister further discloses wherein said snap-in nose (48) is disposed at a distance (Fig 5b) from said side wall (32w), and wherein said lug projects (32p) between said side wall (32w) and said snap-in nose (48).
Regarding Claim 21, Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 10. Pfister further discloses wherein a side (66) of said snap-in nose (48) that faces said lug (62) forms a guide surface for assembling the snap-in element and is inclined with respect to the vertical direction at a
Regarding Claim 24, Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 10. Pfister further discloses the electric motor according to claim 10 configured as a motor for a radiator fan [Abstract].
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 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.
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.
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 13-14,16-18, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Pfister.
Regarding Claim 13 , Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 12. Pfister further discloses said first angle of inclination (Fig 5b discloses 62 is inclined to 54) but does not explicitly disclose it lies between 20° and 35°.
Pfister further discloses first angle of inclination lies between 20° and 35°[Para 0040 discloses non zero angle and Fig 5b discloses an angle that seems close to 20°. Further specification and claim recitation does not indicate any unexpected results at above angle. Therefore the choice of first angle of inclination is a Result Effective Variable (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) wherein a higher angle would reduce force needed to engage snap fit but reduce retention and may lead to vibration, noise and related failures and vice versa and the appropriate angle can be arrived at by experimentation depending upon the choice of material and dimensional characteristics along with snap fit force and retention force over life of product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric motor of Pfister with first angle of inclination between 20 and 35 degrees as further taught by Pfister in order to have the optimal snap fit design that will take into account retention forces, insertion forces needed to address vibration profile and endurance profile of specific application.
Regarding Claim 14 , Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 13. Pfister further discloses said first angle of inclination (Fig 5b discloses 62 is inclined to 54) but does not explicitly disclose it lies between 25° and 30°.
Pfister further discloses first angle of inclination lies between 25° and 30°[Para 0040 discloses non zero angle and Fig 5b discloses an angle that is approaching 25°. Further specification and claim recitation does not indicate any unexpected results at above angle. Therefore the choice of first angle of inclination is a Result Effective Variable (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) wherein a higher angle would reduce force needed to engage snap fit but reduce retention and may lead to vibration, noise and related failures and vice versa and the appropriate angle can be arrived at by experimentation depending upon the choice of material and dimensional characteristics along with snap fit force and retention force over life of product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric motor of Pfister with first angle of inclination between 25 and 30 degrees as further taught by Pfister in order to have the optimal snap fit design that will take into account retention forces, insertion forces needed to address vibration profile and endurance profile of specific application.
Regarding Claim 16 , Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 10. Pfister further discloses said lug base portion (58) of said lug is inclined with respect to the vertical direction (54) at a second angle of inclination (Fig 5b discloses 58 is in relation to 54) but does not explicitly disclose it lies between 0.1° and 5°.
Pfister further discloses second angle of inclination lies between 0.1° and 5°[ Fig 5b discloses 58 at an angle that seems approaching 0.1° (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Further specification and claim recitation does not indicate any unexpected results at above angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric motor of Pfister with second angle of inclination between 0.1° and 5° as further taught by Pfister in order to have a profile of snap fit elements that does not stick out which can be a source of interference with other components in the vicinity.
Regarding Claim 17 , Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 16. Pfister further discloses said lug base portion (58) of said lug is inclined with respect to the vertical direction (54) at a second angle of inclination (Fig 5b discloses 58 is in relation to 54) but does not explicitly disclose it lies between 0.5° and 2°.
Pfister further discloses second angle of inclination lies between 0.5° and 2°[ Fig 5b discloses 58 at an angle that seems approaching 0.5° (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Further specification and claim recitation does not indicate any unexpected results at above angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric motor of Pfister with second angle of inclination between 0.5° and 2° as further taught by Pfister in order to have a profile of snap fit elements that does not stick out which can be a source of interference with other components in the vicinity.
Regarding Claim 18 , Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 16. Pfister further discloses said lug base portion (58) of said lug is inclined with respect to the vertical direction (54) at a second angle of inclination (Fig 5b discloses 58 is in relation to 54) but does not explicitly disclose it is 1°.
Pfister further discloses second angle of inclination is 1°[ Fig 5b discloses 58 at an angle that seems approaching 1° (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Further specification and claim recitation does not indicate any unexpected results at above angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric motor of Pfister with second angle of inclination of 1° as further taught by Pfister in order to have a profile of snap fit elements that does not stick out which can be a source of interference with other components in the vicinity.
Regarding Claim 22 , Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 21. Pfister further discloses said third angle of inclination (Fig 5b discloses 66 is inclined to 54) but does not explicitly disclose it lies between 5° and 20°.
Pfister further discloses third angle of inclination lies between 5° and 20°. [Para 0017 discloses examples of third angle of inclination. However specification and claim recitation does not indicate any unexpected results at above angle. Therefore the choice of first angle of inclination is a Result Effective Variable (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) wherein a higher angle would increase force needed to engage snap fit but increase retention and lower angle would reduce insertion and retention force but may lead to vibration, noise and related failures and vice versa and the appropriate angle can be arrived at by experimentation depending upon the choice of material and dimensional characteristics along with snap fit force and retention force over life of product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric motor of Pfister with third angle of inclination between 5° and 20° as further taught by Pfister in order to have the optimal snap fit design that will take into account retention forces, insertion forces needed to address vibration profile and endurance profile of specific application.
Regarding Claim 23 , Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 22. Pfister further discloses said third angle of inclination (Fig 5b discloses 66 is inclined to 54) but does not explicitly disclose it lies between 7° and 15°.
Pfister further discloses third angle of inclination lies between 7° and 15°. [Para 0017 discloses examples of third angle of inclination. However specification and claim recitation does not indicate any unexpected results at above angle. Therefore the choice of first angle of inclination is a Result Effective Variable (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) wherein a higher angle would increase force needed to engage snap fit but increase retention and lower angle would reduce insertion and retention force but may lead to vibration, noise and related failures and vice versa and the appropriate angle can be arrived at by experimentation depending upon the choice of material and dimensional characteristics along with snap fit force and retention force over life of product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric motor of Pfister with third angle of inclination between 7° and 15° as further taught by Pfister in order to have the optimal snap fit design that will take into account retention forces, insertion forces needed to address vibration profile and endurance profile of specific application.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Pfister in view of Nimi et al (JP2003285002A English translation), hereinafter Nimi.
Regarding Claim 25 , Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 10. Pfister does not explicitly disclose wherein said electronics compartment cover is formed from an aluminum-magnesium alloy.
Nimi discloses [Para 0028] wherein said electronics compartment cover (Fig 2,6) is formed from an aluminum-magnesium alloy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric motor of Pfister with cover made from Al-Mg alloy as taught by Nimi in order to provide sufficient strength and durability while providing corrosion resistance.
PNG
media_image6.png
220
242
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 26 , Pfister discloses the electric motor according to claim 25. Pfister does not explicitly disclose wherein said electronics compartment cover is formed from an aluminum-magnesium alloy.
Nimi discloses [Para 0028] wherein said electronics compartment cover (Fig 2,6) is formed from EN AW 5754 (Examiner interprets Al-Mg alloy. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed electric motor of Pfister with cover made from Al-Mg alloy as taught by Nimi in order to provide sufficient strength and durability while providing corrosion resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 M 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights