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 § 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 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear as to hoe a slotted spring pin can be at least one of a hollow pin or a solid pin when a slotted spring pin is “c-shaped” in cross-section.
For examining purposes, the claim will be construed as being taught by the prior art.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ok et al. (CN 111566903) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 206379784) and How to select the proper pin for an application | GlobalSpec (hereinafter Global Spec).
1. Ok et al. teach:
A fuel pump brushless direct current motor (motor 20 is brushless and is capable of being used as a fuel pump motor…still further, the structure of the motor is not in the claim…as such, the BLDC motor of Ok et al. qualifies as the claimed fuel pump motor), comprising:
a housing assembly (the housing is implied since the motor is used in a vehicle, MPEP 2112);
a stator assembly (excerpt below); and
a rotor assembly (22);
wherein:
said rotor assembly (22) includes a shaft (26), a pair of magnets (32), a sleeve ring (40) and an over molding structure (38);said sleeve ring (40) is provided over the pair of magnets (32) for shielding the pair of magnets (32) from a set of external factors (corrosion from the elements external to the rotor since the sleeve is made of stainless steel, excerpt below and MPEP 2112), thereby preventing wear and tear of the pair of magnets (since the magnets are covered, MPEP 2112); said shaft (26), pair of magnets (32), sleeve ring (40) are over molded via the over molding structure (38) for providing a protection from the set of external factors; but does not teach that i) said rotor assembly include a slotted spring pin for increasing torque strength and extending a cyclic life of the fuel pump brushless direct current motor; and ii) said slotted spring pin facilitates in reinforcing a drive dog area, thereby providing strength to the drive dog area.
PNG
media_image1.png
166
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang et al. teach that i) said rotor assembly include a solid pin 2 for increasing torque strength and extending a cyclic life of the fuel pump brushless direct current motor (of Ok et al. as discussed above regarding the fuel pump motor); and ii) said solid pin facilitates in reinforcing a drive dog area, thereby providing strength to the drive dog area (since there is a pin in the same area of the shaft and rotor and in the same orientation, the limitations of increasing torque…cyclic life of...reinforcing a drive dog…providing strength are disclosed, see pin 2 and blocking part 41 in fig 2 and MPEP 2112) to allow for a greater starting torque (excerpt below); but does not teach that the pin is a slotted spring pin. Global Spec teaches that slotted springs have the advantage of allowing the pins to be serviceable in the same hole and have a greater tolerance to the radial dimensions of the hole that it is being inserted in since the slotted spring pin generates frictional force in the radial direction (excerpt below abstract last two sentences). This would cut down on waste during assembly and maintenance which prolongs the service life of the motor which would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a slotted spring pin over a solid pin.
PNG
media_image2.png
660
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
210
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Ok et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that i) said rotor assembly include a slotted spring pin for increasing torque strength and extending a cyclic life of the fuel pump brushless direct current motor; and ii) said slotted spring pin facilitates in reinforcing a drive dog area, thereby providing strength to the drive dog area, as taught by Zhang et al. and Global Spec so as to prolong the service life of the motor.
3. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec have been discussed above, re claim 1; but do not teach that the shaft (of Ok et al.) is made up of stainless steel for corrosion resistance.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the shaft of Ok et al. out of stainless steel for corrosion resistance since the sleeve protects the rotor and magnets, the shaft would also need to be protected from those same elements since the shaft protrudes past the sleeve.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Ok et al. was effectively filed to modify it such that the shaft (of Ok et al.) is made up of stainless steel for corrosion resistance, as suggested by Ok et al. to prolong the service life of the motor.
4. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec teach:
The fuel pump brushless direct current motor (of Ok et al.) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pair of magnets (of Ok et al.) is made up of sintered neodymium-iron-boron material (having sintered neodymium-iron-boron magnets is well known in the art to increase the power density of the magnetic flux).
6. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec teach:
The fuel pump brushless direct current motor (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sleeve ring (of Ok et al.) is made up of stainless steel (excerpt above).
8. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec teach:
The fuel pump brushless direct current motor (of Ok et al.) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the slotted spring pin is press-fitted into an additional hole (that is how a slotted spring pin is installed, see Global Spec whole document) that is drilled (the drilled hole is inherently disclosed…Still further, there does not seem to be anything patentable about drilling a hole into a shaft since this is well known in the art) in the shaft (of Ok et al.).
9. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec teach:
The fuel pump brushless direct current motor (of Ok et al.) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the slotted spring pin (Zhang et al. in view of Global Spec) is in at least one of a cylindrical shape (see excerpts and figs above), a rectangular shape, a hexagonal with a longitudinal slot that is extended to the length of the slotted spring pin (Zhang et al. in view of Global Spec).
10. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec teach:
The fuel pump brushless direct current motor as claimed in claim 1, wherein the slotted spring pin is at least one of a hollow round pin and a solid round pin (please see 112 rejection above).
11. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec have been discussed above, re claim 1; but do not specifically teach that the diameter of the slotted spring pin is in range from 1mm to 2mm.
However, the difference between the prior art motor and the claimed motor is the relative dimensions of the hole for the slotted spring pin (Zhang et al. clearly teaches a hole for the pin). That being established, when this is the only difference between the prior art and the claims, the claimed dimensions do not hold patentable weight (MPEP 2144.04IV A). Put another way, Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec teach that limitations of the claim.
12. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec teach:
The fuel pump brushless direct current motor (of Ok et al.) as claimed in claim 1, wherein said slotted spring pin (of Zhang et al. in view of Global Spec) extends the cyclic life of the fuel pump brushless direct current motor (of Ok et al.) upto100000 cycles (since the slotted spring pin of Zhang et al. in view of Global Spec disclose the slotted spring pin in the same location as applicant’s claimed slotted spring pin).
13. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec teach:
The fuel pump brushless direct current motor (of Ok et al.) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the over molding structure (of Ok et al.) is made of polyamide reinforced with glass fiber (excerpt below).
PNG
media_image4.png
70
625
media_image4.png
Greyscale
14. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec teach:
The fuel pump brushless direct current motor (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the set of external factors include fuel exposure, dust exposure or harsh environmental conditions (since the sleeve is made of the same material as applicant’s claimed and disclosed sleeve and it is covering the magnets as applicant’s claimed and disclosed sleeve, the limitations of this claim are met, MPEP 2112).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec and in further view of Maslov et al. (US 20040021437).
5. Ok et al. in view of Zhang et al. and Global Spec thave been discussed above, re claim 1; but do not teach that the pair of magnets have a magnetic strength in range from 262-286 KJ/m3.
Maslov et al. teach that magnets having a magnetic strength in the claimed range produce the optimal synthesized torque (Maslov et al. para 0187 and 0188) which improves the motors strength as opposed to having magnets with a lower strength.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Ok et al. so that the pair of magnets have a magnetic strength in range from 262-286 KJ/m3, as taught by Maslov et al. so as to improve the strength of the motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights