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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims and specification dated 1/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 were amended and new claims 11-20 were added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
23 as seen in FIG. 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 11 line 26 the phrase “housing 9” should instead be “housing 7.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 the phrase “Rotary electric machine” should instead be “A rotary electric machine.”
In claims 2-20 the phrase “Rotary electric machine” should instead be “The rotary electric machine.”
In claims 2-20 the word “Claim” should not be capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 recite a “fastening means” which shall be taken to mean either a fastening screw as seen in page 1 lines 25-26 or a threaded rod as seen in page 4 lines 1-2.
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 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French Patent No. 3078841 to Bouclet et al. (hereinafter Bouclet; provided by Applicant on 1/29/2025) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0359068 to Marukawa et al. (hereinafter Marukawa; cited by Applicant on 1/29/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Bouclet teaches a rotary electric machine (FIG. 1, 10) for a vehicle (Translation Page 7), comprising a housing (FIG. 1, 11), a rotor/stator assembly (FIG. 1; 12, 15) housed in said housing and at least one fastening flange (FIG. 1, 14) integrally formed with the housing and configured to mechanically connect the rotary electric machine to a combustion engine of said vehicle (Translation Pages 1-2), the fastening flange comprising a body (see annotated FIG. 1) provided with a receiving opening (see annotated FIG. 1) for fastening means centered about a fastening axis (see annotated FIG. 1), and at least one tab (see annotated FIG. 1) connecting the body to the housing.
Bouclet does not teach at least one incipient break formed on the tab and configured so that said tab breaks in the event that the vehicle undergoes a violent impact.
However, Marukawa teaches a vehicle component (FIG. 1, 20) mounted on a combustion engine (FIG. 1, 98) via a fastening flange (FIG. 3, 12) with a body provided with a receiving opening for fastening means (FIG. 2, 15) centered about a fastening axis, and at least one tab (FIG. 3, 122) connecting the body (FIG. 3, 124) to the housing (FIG. 3, 10) having an incipient break (FIG. 4, 123) formed on a tab (FIG. 4, 122) and configured so that said tab breaks in the event that the vehicle undergoes a violent impact (Paragraph [0038]).
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 rotary electric machine of Bouclet with the teachings of Marukawa to provide an incipient break on the tab to protect the critical components of the vehicle in the event of a crash (Paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein Marukawa further teaches the fastening flange comprising a first face and a second face on the opposite side from the first face (FIG. 4, 124), the first face and the second face being perpendicular to the fastening axis, the incipient break being positioned on the first face (FIG. 4, 123; Paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 2, wherein Marukawa further teaches the incipient break being a first incipient break positioned on the first face of the fastening flange (FIG. 4, 123), the fastening flange comprising at least a second incipient break (FIG. 5, 129) positioned on the second face of the fastening flange.
Bouclet in view of Marukawa does not teach the second incipient break being aligned with the first incipient break along a straight line parallel to the fastening axis.
However, 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 rotary electric machine of Bouclet in view of Marukawa as a matter of design choice to better orient the direction at which the flange would break in the event of a violent impact (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 4, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein Marukawa further teaches the fastening flange comprising two tabs (FIG. 3, 122) arranged on either side of the body (FIG. 3, 124), the rotary electric machine comprising at least one incipient break (FIG. 4, 123) formed on each tab (Paragraph [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein Marukawa further teaches the housing being formed by two half-housings (FIG. 3; 12, 13), each half-housing comprising a fastening flange (FIG. 3; 12, 13) with a receiving opening for fastening means centered about the fastening axis, each fastening flange comprising at least one incipient break (Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1.
Bouclet in view of Marukawa does not teach the at least one incipient break having a depth of between 10% and 40% of a thickness of the tab, said thickness being measured between the first face and the second face of the fastening flange.
However, 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 rotary electric machine of Bouclet in view of Marukawa to change the dimensions of the depth of the incipient break as a matter of design choice to find the optimal sizing of the break to deform properly (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 7, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1, wherein Marukawa further teaches the incipient break having a curvature oriented around the body (FIG. 4, 123).
Regarding claim 8, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1.
Bouclet in view of Marukawa does not teach the incipient break extending along the whole length of the tab in a direction perpendicular to the fastening axis.
However, 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 rotary electric machine of Bouclet in view of Marukawa to change the dimensions of the length of the incipient break as a matter of design choice to find the optimal sizing of the break to deform properly (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 10, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches an engine assembly of a vehicle, comprising a combustion engine (Bouclet Translation Page 7), a rotary electric machine according to claim 1, and fastening means (Marukawa FIG. 2, 15) connecting the rotary electric machine to the combustion engine, the fastening means being arranged facing a protective part (FIG. 2, 30) of the combustion engine.
Regarding claim 11, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 2, wherein Marukawa further teaches the fastening flange comprising two tabs (FIG. 3, 122) arranged on either side of the body (FIG. 3, 124), the rotary electric machine comprising at least one incipient break (FIG. 4, 123) formed on each tab (Paragraph [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 2, wherein Marukawa further teaches the housing being formed by two half-housings (FIG. 3; 12, 13), each half-housing comprising a fastening flange (FIG. 3; 12, 13) with a receiving opening for fastening means centered about the fastening axis, each fastening flange comprising at least one incipient break (Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 2.
Bouclet in view of Marukawa does not teach the at least one incipient break having a depth of between 10% and 40% of a thickness of the tab, said thickness being measured between the first face and the second face of the fastening flange.
However, 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 rotary electric machine of Bouclet in view of Marukawa to change the dimensions of the depth of the incipient break as a matter of design choice to find the optimal sizing of the break to deform properly (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 14, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 2, wherein Marukawa further teaches the incipient break having a curvature oriented around the body (FIG. 4, 123).
Regarding claim 15, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 2.
Bouclet in view of Marukawa does not teach the incipient break extending along the whole length of the tab in a direction perpendicular to the fastening axis.
However, 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 rotary electric machine of Bouclet in view of Marukawa to change the dimensions of the length of the incipient break as a matter of design choice to find the optimal sizing of the break to deform properly (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 17, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches an engine assembly of a vehicle, comprising a combustion engine (Bouclet Translation Page 7), a rotary electric machine according to claim 2, and fastening means (Marukawa FIG. 2, 15) connecting the rotary electric machine to the combustion engine, the fastening means being arranged facing a protective part (FIG. 2, 30) of the combustion engine.
Regarding claim 18, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 3, wherein Marukawa further teaches the fastening flange comprising two tabs (FIG. 3, 122) arranged on either side of the body (FIG. 3, 124), the rotary electric machine comprising at least one incipient break (FIG. 4, 123) formed on each tab (Paragraph [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 19, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 3, wherein Marukawa further teaches the housing being formed by two half-housings (FIG. 3; 12, 13), each half-housing comprising a fastening flange (FIG. 3; 12, 13) with a receiving opening for fastening means centered about the fastening axis, each fastening flange comprising at least one incipient break (Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 20, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 3.
Bouclet in view of Marukawa does not teach the at least one incipient break having a depth of between 10% and 40% of a thickness of the tab, said thickness being measured between the first face and the second face of the fastening flange.
However, 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 rotary electric machine of Bouclet in view of Marukawa to change the dimensions of the depth of the incipient break as a matter of design choice to find the optimal sizing of the break to deform properly (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouclet in view of Marukawa and in further view of French Patent No. 3115891 to Riviere et al. (hereinafter Riviere).
Regarding claim 9, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 1.
Bouclet in view of Marukawa does not teach the tab being configured to break at the incipient break when the vehicle undergoes a violent impact with an impact force greater than a threshold value of the order of 4,400 N.
However, Riviere teaches an automobile component fastening means (FIG. 1, 103) configured to break at an incipient break when the vehicle undergoes a violent impact at a predetermined force threshold (Paragraph [0026]).
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 rotary electric machine of Bouclet in view of Marukawa with the teachings of Riviere to having the incipient break configured to break at a threshold force value to more efficiently design the desired interaction of the break at the desired impact threshold.
Regarding claim 16, Bouclet in view of Marukawa teaches the rotary electric machine according to claim 2.
Bouclet in view of Marukawa does not teach the tab being configured to break at the incipient break when the vehicle undergoes a violent impact with an impact force greater than a threshold value of the order of 4,400 N.
However, Riviere teaches an automobile component fastening means (FIG. 1, 103) configured to break at an incipient break when the vehicle undergoes a violent impact at a predetermined force threshold (Paragraph [0026]).
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 rotary electric machine of Bouclet in view of Marukawa with the teachings of Riviere to having the incipient break configured to break at a threshold force value to more efficiently design the desired interaction of the break at the desired impact threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights