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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on February 24, 2025. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
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. Therefore, a plurality of lamella disposed between two thrust bearings must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 2-7 and 19-20 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 2 recites, “a component”, this term is indefinite because it cannot be properly defined from the specification and claims alone what the component is.
In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the component is interpreted to mean, “ the device 140 described in the specification”
Claims 3-7 are rejected solely due to their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 19 recites, “a first controller configured to manage energization of the solenoid coils”, but is described in paragraph [0014] of the present specification to control the stator.
In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the cited term is interpreted to mean, the specification meaning.
Claim 20 recites, “a second controller configured to manage energization of the motor stator”, but is described in paragraph [0019] of the present specification to control the solenoid.
In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the cited term is interpreted to mean, the specification meaning.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated LUO (CN 113037005 A).
Regarding claim 1, LUO teaches:
A motor arrangement(Fig 2 [abstract]) comprising:
a motor housing (Fig 3; 14)having a longitudinal axis;
a motor disposed within the motor housing(shown in Fig 3), the motor including a motor stator(Fig 2; 2)and a motor rotor(Fig 2; 1);
a motor shaft (Fig 3; 11)disposed within the motor housing (Fig 3; 14)and extending through the motor stator (Fig 3; 21/22)along the longitudinal axis of the motor housing(Fig 3; 14), the motor shaft (Fig 3; 11)being axially movable relative to the motor housing along the longitudinal axis between a first position (braking) and a second position(non-braking)(the rotor assembly 1 which includes the shaft 11is movable axially to a braking and non-braking position [pg 1; 43-49]);
a biasing member (Fig 3; 313) biasing the motor shaft towards the first position(braking)[pg 6; 17-18];
a solenoid plunger(Fig 3; 312) axially fixed relative to the motor shaft so that the solenoid plunger moves in unison with the motor shaft between the first and second positions[pg 5; 46-53], the solenoid plunger (Fig 3; 312)being formed of magnetic material[pg 1; 51-56]; and
a solenoid coil (Fig 3; 311) disposed within the motor housing (Fig 3; 14)in at least partial radial alignment with the motor stator(Fig 3; 2), the solenoid coil (Fig 3; 311)being configured to move the solenoid plunger towards the second position against the bias (Fig 3; 313)of the biasing member when energized[pg 1; 51-56].
PNG
media_image1.png
319
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
437
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 1:
wherein the motor rotor (Fig 2; 1)includes a cup-style rotor at least partially surrounding the motor stator(Fig 2; 2)(shown in Fig 2), the motor rotor(Fig 2; 1) carrying a plurality of magnets(Fig 3; 15).
Regarding claim 9, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 1:
wherein the motor stator(Fig 2; 2) has a ring-shape and defines a central passage(shown in Fig 2); and wherein the solenoid coil (Fig 3; 311)is disposed within the central passage(shown in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 10, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 9:
wherein the solenoid plunger (Fig 3; 312)is at least partially rotationally aligned with the solenoid coil (Fig 3; 313)when disposed in the second position(as shown in Fig 3 the positional change is not large enough to completely remove radial overlap).
Regarding claim 11, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 1:
further comprising a first stop (Fig 3; 212)that inhibits movement of the motor shaft beyond the first position[pg 5; 22-44].
Regarding claim 12, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 11:
further comprising a second stop(Fig 3; 3123) that inhibits movement of the motor shaft beyond the second position[pg 5; 22-44].
Regarding claim 13, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 1:
wherein the biasing member (Fig 3; 313)includes a Belleville spring(disc spring [pg 6; 31-31]).
Regarding claim 14, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 1:
wherein the solenoid plunger (Fig 3; 312)is mounted to the motor shaft (Fig 3; 11)with an interference fit.
The Examiner points out the limitation of “an interference fit” in claim 14, is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113
Regarding claim 15, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 1:
wherein the solenoid plunger (Fig 3; 312)is threaded onto the motor shaft(Fig 3; 11).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “threaded onto the motor” in claim 15, is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113
Regarding claim 16, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 1:
wherein the solenoid plunger(Fig 3; 312) is at least partially disposed within the solenoid coil (Fig 3; 311)and the solenoid coil(Fig 3; 311) is at least partially disposed within the motor stator(Fig 3; 2).
Regarding claim 17, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 16:
wherein the motor stator (Fig 2; 2)is at least partially disposed within the motor rotor(Fig 2; 1).
Regarding claim 18, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 1:
wherein the solenoid plunger (Fig 3; 312)is a sleeve mounted about the motor shaft(Fig 3; 11).
The Examiner points out the limitation of “sleeve mounted” in claim 18, is considered as a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO (CN 113037005 A) in view of BAKER (US 20220412479 A1).
In regards to claim 19, LUO teaches the motor arrangement of claim 1.
LUO does not teach:
further comprising a first controller configured to manage energization of the solenoid coils to control axial movement of the solenoid plunger.
BAKER teaches:
further comprising a first controller (Fig 4; 52)configured to manage energization of the solenoid coils to control axial movement of the solenoid plunger[0052].
PNG
media_image3.png
775
541
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 LUO by using the first controller and second controller taught by BAKER, in order to better monitor and accurately manipulate operations of the device.
In regards to claim 20, LUO in view of BAKER, teaches the motor arrangement of claim 19.
LUO does not teach:
further comprising a second controller configured to manage energization of the motor stator to control rotation of the motor rotor, the second controller operating independent of the first controller.
BAKER teaches:
further comprising a second controller configured to manage energization of the motor stator to control rotation of the motor rotor[0048], the second controller operating independent of the first controller(different controlling methods are described in [0052] and [0048] respectfully).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-7 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art teaches:
a component disposed within the motor housing at a location axially offset along the longitudinal axis from the motor stator; and a force transfer member coupled to the motor shaft to move axially in unison with the motor shaft between the first and second positions.
However, the prior art does not teach:
the force transfer member being configured to engage the component when the motor shaft is disposed in the first position, the force transfer member being spaced from the component when the motor shaft is disposed in the second position.(The underlined is allowable subject matter.)
Claim 2 is objected to, and not rejected, because the limitation of the force transfer member being configured to engage the component when the motor shaft is disposed in the first position AND the force transfer member being spaced from the component when the motor shaft is disposed in the second position is too specific which makes it novel.
Claims 3-7 are objected to, and not rejected, because they depend from a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm 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, Oluseye 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights