DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/019,904, filed on 14 January, 2025, were presented for examination, and are currently pending in the 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 14 January, 2025, and 25 November, 2025, were filed before the mailing date of this Office Action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 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 1 includes the limitation, in lines 10-11, “a first shielding plate disposed in a space between the gap and the resolver rotor…” In the drawings, the first shielding plate [51], being the one that extends “radially”, per line 11 of the claim, is not disposed between the gap [G] and the resolver rotor [41]. It is between the gap and the resolver stator [40]. The Examiner is sufficiently sure that that is a typo/mistake made during drafting of the claim, that the claim is not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For examination on the merits, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to mean that the first shielding plate [51] is between the gap [G] and the resolver stator [40].
Claims 2-12 are rejected for depending from rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yazaki (JP 2015173537 A, provided herein with machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, Yazaki teaches a vehicle drive system [drive device 1] (see ¶ 0022 of the provided translation which recites “a vehicle 3 illustrated in Fig. 1 is a hybrid vehicle having… a drive device 1…”), comprising:
a shaft [16B];
a motor [2B, including stator 14B and rotor 15B] configured to rotate the shaft [61B] (see ¶ 0029);
PNG
media_image1.png
371
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a resolver [20B including resolver rotor 90 and resolver stator 93] configured to detect a rotation state of the motor [2B] (see ¶ 0030 which recites “the resolver rotor 90 and the resolver stator 93 constitute resolvers 20A and 20B, and the resolvers 20A and 20B feed back rotational state quantities… of the rotors 15A and 15B…”); and
a shielding member [shield plate 100 including shield plate flange 100b] (see abstract, ¶ 0042, and ¶ 0045, as well as the annotated excerpt of fig. 11 attached below) made of a nonmagnetic material (see ¶ 0045) and configured to suppress leakage magnetic flux discharging from the motor [2B] to the resolver [20B/90/93] (see ¶ 0045 which recites “the shield plate 100 is formed from a material that suppresses disturbances such as magnetic flux… and the like that degrade the detection accuracy of the resolver stator 93, for example a metal such as aluminum…”),
PNG
media_image2.png
666
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the resolver includes a resolver stator [93 including stator core flange 96b] extending to a vicinity of a gap (the Examine has labeled the gap, commonly known as an air gap, in the appropriate location in the fig. 11 excerpt) formed between a stator coil [63] and a rotor [15B] of the motor, and a resolver rotor [90] (referring back to the fig. 1 excerpt above, the rotor 90 is not shown in fig. 11) configured to rotate with the rotor of the motor (still referring to ¶ 0030, which recites “the resolver rotor 90 provided on the cylindrical shafts 16A and 16B, the rotors 15A and 15B…”), and
PNG
media_image3.png
503
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the shielding member [100/100b] includes a first shielding plate [shield plate flange 100b] disposed in a space between the gap and the resolver stator [93/96b, specifically stator core flange 96b] so that the first shielding plate [100b] extends in a radial direction (up-down direction in the enlarged fig. 11 excerpt above) of the shaft, and a second shielding plate (labeled by the Examiner in the enlarged fig. 11 excerpt, but labeled 100a in fig. 5) extending in a direction approaching the rotor [15B] of the motor from the first shielding plate [100b] (the abstract and ¶ 0044-0045 define the flange 96b as extending outward from member 100/100A, and therefore the horizontal element shown in fig. 11 is an axial offset between 100b and 100a, and is being interpreted by the Examiner as the second shield plate).
With respect to claim 6/1, Yazaki teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches a case [combined center case 11M, left- and right-side cases 11A and 11B, and end walls 17A and 17B] (see figs. 2 and 10) configured to accommodate the motor [2B/14B/15B] and the resolver [20B/90/93] (see ¶ 0024),
wherein the first shielding plate [100b] is integrally formed with the second shielding plate (see figure excerpts below), and
PNG
media_image4.png
503
991
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the first shielding plate [100b] is fastened to the case [11M/11A/11B/17A/17B] by a common fastening member [bolt 91] with the resolver stator [96b] (see ¶ 0044 which recites “bolt holes 98 are formed in each of the resolver stator core flanges 96b, through which mounting bolts 91 that fix the resolver stator 93 to the end walls 17A, 17B are inserted…”).
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanagida (JP 2012157180 A, provided herein with machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, Yanagida teaches a vehicle drive system [rotating machine 100] (¶ 0002 recites “the electric motor, such a hybrid vehicle includes a resolver…”), comprising:
a shaft [15];
a motor [rotating machine 100] configured to rotate the shaft [15] (see ¶ 0012);
a resolver [30] configured to detect a rotation state of the motor [15] (still referring to ¶ 0012); and
a shielding member [anti-magnetic shield 40] made of a nonmagnetic material (¶ 0013 recites the magnetic shield 40 includes…. and is configured to be integral with a non-magnetic material…”) and configured to suppress leakage magnetic flux discharging from the motor [100] to the resolver [30] (¶ 0015 recites “the magneto-resistive shield 40 can improve the magneto-resistive properties of the resolver 30 and suppress the magnetic flux and electromagnetic noise generated by the rotating machine 100 from affecting the measurement of the resolver 30…”),
wherein the resolver includes a resolver stator [33] extending to a vicinity of a gap (labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 1 excerpt) formed between a stator coil [13] and a rotor [16] of the motor [100], and a resolver rotor [31] configured to rotate with the rotor [16] of the motor (it is affixed to the shaft), and
PNG
media_image5.png
555
591
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the shielding member [40] includes a first shielding plate [annular fixation ring 41] disposed in a space between the gap and the resolver stator [33] (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. above) so that the first shielding plate [41] extends in a radial direction (down-to-up in fig. 1) of the shaft, and a second shielding plate [annular portion 43] extending in a direction (left-to-right in fig. 1) approaching the rotor [16] of the motor from the first shielding plate [41] .
With respect to claim 4/1, Yanagida teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second shielding plate [43] forms an annular shape that continues in a circumferential direction of the rotor [16] of the motor (¶ 0013 calls it an “annular portion 43” – also, see fig. 1, wherein it appears rectangular and symmetrical above and below the shaft, which indicates an annular shape in cylindrical coordinate systems).
With respect to claim 5/1, Yanagida teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second shielding plate [43] is disposed radially inwardly of the gap (the Examiner has pasted the fig. 1 excerpt below again to show the relationship).
PNG
media_image6.png
551
593
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-3 and 7-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 2, and claims 3 and 7-12 which depend therefrom, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest, inter alia, a vehicle drive system, comprising:
a shaft;
a motor configured to rotate the shaft;
a resolver configured to detect a rotation state of the motor; and
a shielding member made of a nonmagnetic material and configured to suppress leakage magnetic flux discharging from the motor to the resolver,
wherein the resolver includes a resolver stator extending to a vicinity of a gap formed between a stator coil and a rotor of the motor, and a resolver rotor configured to rotate with the rotor of the motor, and
wherein the shielding member includes a first shielding plate disposed in a space between the gap and the resolver rotor so that the first shielding plate extends in a radial direction of the shaft, and a second shielding plate extending in a direction approaching the rotor of the motor from the first shielding plate;
wherein the first shielding plate is disposed so that a side surface of the first shielding plate opposes the gap,
wherein a radially outer edge part of the first shielding plate reaches radially outward of the gap, and
wherein a radially inner edge part of the first shielding plate reaches radially inward of the gap.
Yanagida’s first shielding plate is radially smaller than the location of the gap. Although it appears from fig. 11 of Yazaki that Yazaki might have the radially outer edge part of the first shielding plate [100b] reaching to, or beyond, the radial location of the gap, there is insufficient evidence in the reference per se to make an allegation that it reaches beyond. Arawaka (JP 2014087122 A, briefly detailed in the Conclusion section below, and provided herein with machine translation) shows a nonmagnetic shield [5] that has a shielding plate [52] that has a radially outer edge part reaching radially outward of the gap, but said shielding plate [52] does not extend in a radial direction with a second shielding plate extending toward the rotor from it. This is why it does not suggest modifying Yazaki to meet the limitations of claim 2, and why it was not applied to claims 1-2 in general.
Kayima (JP 2010154710 A, discussed in the Conclusion section below and provided herein with machine translation), is highly relevant to the Examiner’s rationale as to which rejections have been made, and which have not. As shown below, it begins with a background summary that depicts a geometry for the shielding member that roughly anticipates claim 1. However, the background summary, and the reference it is citing (Kitazawa), explicitly disclose this shielding member as being of magnetic material. It is in the discussion of the attempt to improve over Kitazawa that Kayima brings in a non-magnetic shielding member (figs. 2-6). While doing so, Kayima changes the shape to be one that does not anticipate claim 1. Much of the Examiner’s decision not to combine references having magnetic shielding members (or their features) with references having nonmagnetic shielding members stems from reviewing Kayima. When Kayima changes the shape after, or in the process of, switching to a nonmagnetic shielding member from a magnetic one, its authors have shown evidence that each material has its own requirements/consequences, and thus it serves to teach away from such combinations.
Morikawa (JP 2019058015 A, also briefly detailed below), appears to teach claim 1 and suggest claim 2, either on its own or in combination with Yanagida and/or Yazaki. However, like most of the most relevant-seeming references in attached PTO Form 892, Morkawa’s shield [22], with its first shielding plate [22C] being radial and a second shielding plate [22B] extending in a direction approaching the rotor [14] from the first shielding plate [22C], is explicitly described as magnetic steel plate. For this reason it does not anticipate claims 1-2, since claim 1 requires the shield be nonmagnetic, and also, the Examiner does not feel it is appropriate, in light of Kayima, discussed above and below, to use the teachings of references containing resolver shields that are magnetic to modify one of the few references containing resolver shields that are nonmagnetic. Most of the references in PTO Form 892 that teach this type of resolver shield explicitly recite that the shield is made of magnetic material. That is why none of them, even when one teaches all or some of claim 2’s limitations, is being alleged herein to be combinable with Yazaki and /or Yanagida.
Gale (US 2014/0070672 A1, also briefly detailed below) appears to teach claim 1, but as shown below, the resolver shielding member [114] is disclosed as being of magnetic material. Specifically, it is described as having a magnetic permeability of greater than 50. The Examiner believes the term “nonmagnetic” in claim 1 refers to a number well below 50. Thus, Gale has not been applied to claim 1. Specifically ¶ 0008 of Gale recites that Aluminum and Stainless Steel that are “considered non-magnetic have a magnetic relative permeability falling in a range from about 1 to 2…” and then lists the ferrous materials, such as carbon steel, that are preferred for Gale’s shielding members, and which have a permeability over 50.
Other references in attached PTO Form 892 appear to meet the geometric limitations (the first and second shielding plates) of claim 1, but the Examiner discovered that the most relevant of them have shielding members of magnetic material. For instance, Takeuchi (US 218/0287474 A1, provided in one of the IDSs) teaches its shield [46] as being made of steel, and does not list the steel as stainless steel, such that the reference falls in the same category as Gale (discussed above and below).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2010154710 A (to Kamiya) discloses two embodiments, the first is a prior art (background summary) embodiment, which appears, at first glance, to meet the limitations of claim 1. The prior art (background summary) discussion within this reference is based on JP H0965617 A (to Kitazawa, cited in PTO Form 892, and provided herein with a machine translation). Kamiya is relevant because the reference is credited to Toyota, and therefore can be presumed to be, overall, directed to a vehicle drive system, even though Kitazawa is silent to its intended use, as is Kamiya’s characterization of it. Kamiya is further relevant because using a nonmagnetic shield is an important part of its respective invention/embodiments. As mentioned, the figures of the background summary (figs. 1-2, borrowed from Kitazawa with different reference numerals, and so Kitazawa’s drawings will not be included here, as that would be redundant) appear, on first glance, to anticipate claim 1.
PNG
media_image7.png
307
913
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, the Examiner was able to establish that both Kamiya (¶ 0005 of the provided translation) and Kitazawa (abstract) describe this cover/shield (shield 134 in Kamiya and cover 20 in Kitazawa) as being of magnetic material.
It is only in the improvement over Kitazawa that Kamiya introduces a non-magnetic shield [34], and once doing so, reverts to a simpler shape, shown below, that does not anticipate claim 1.
PNG
media_image8.png
288
411
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of JP 2019058015 A (to Morikawa, provided herein with machine translation) teaches a shield [22] for a resolver stator [20], with its first shielding plate [22C] extending radially and a second shielding plate [22B] extending in a direction approaching the rotor [14] from the first shielding plate [22C].
PNG
media_image9.png
364
475
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, Morikawa’s shield is explicitly described as magnetic steel plate (¶ 0036 recites “the holder 22 is formed using a steel plate material, which is a magnetic material…”).
JP 2014087122 A (to Arawaka, provided herein with machine translation) comprises a resolver-stator shield that extends radially beyond the air gap, and the shielding member [5] is disclosed as nonmagnetic.
PNG
media_image10.png
398
544
media_image10.png
Greyscale
However, Arawaka’s shielding member geometry does not meet the limitations of the last clause of claim 1.
US 2014/0070672 A1 (to Gale) teaches a vehicle drive system [machine 20] (see ¶ 0052 which recites “the drive system of a vehicle, whereby electric machine 20, 21 can be selectively engaged…”), comprising shaft, motor, resolver, resolver stator, resolver rotor, and resolver shielding member [114]. There is a “machine shield” [64] that is described as being optional – if it is removed, the resolver stator extends to the vicinity of the stator-rotor air gap.
PNG
media_image11.png
546
669
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The shielding member [114] has a first shielding plate and second shielding plate that conform to the requirements of the last clause of claim 1.
However, ¶ 0060 recites “shields 112, 114 are formed of a material having a relative permeability of 50 or greater…” and ¶ 0008 describes the preferred materials for the “EMI shields”, which are 112 and 114 and not “machine shield 64”, and lists “carbon steel having a relative permeability of at least about 50” as the most advantageous and least costly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm 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, Seye 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights