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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch et al. (US 2023/0042306 A1, hereinafter Koch) in view of Bauch et al. (US 2010/0320865 A1, hereinafter Bauch).
As to claim 1, Koch shows (FIG. 2-7) An electric motor 2, comprising:
a stator 6 having a cylindrical stator main body 16 with radially inwardly directed stator teeth 17 and with a plurality of first axial slots 26 formed on a circumferential side in said stator main body 16;
a motor housing 4 accommodating said stator 6 and having a housing inner wall, wherein a plurality of second axial slots 48 are formed on said housing inner wall, and are disposed in alignment with said first axial slots 26; and
at least one spring element 28 having a spring main body 30 inserted in a radially form-fitting manner into one of said first axial slots 26, said at least one spring element 28 further having at least one spring arm 32 which protrudes or is bent out of said spring main body and projects radially on a circumference of said cylindrical stator main body 16, and wherein said at least one spring arm 32 engages radially and tangentially in a form-fitting manner at least in portions in one of said second axial slots 48 at a free end (para [0056], [0059], [0060]).
Koch does not show said at least one spring arm has a stiffening contour along an arm longitudinal direction, which increases a tangential stiffness of said at least one spring arm.
Bauch shows a spring 5 has a stiffening contour 12 along an arm longitudinal direction, which increases a tangential stiffness of said spring 5 (FIG. 4-8, para [0030]).
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 spring element 38 of Koch to have the said at least one spring arm 32 has a stiffening contour 12 along an arm longitudinal direction, which increases a tangential stiffness of said at least one spring arm 32 as taught by Bauch, for the advantageous benefit of increasing the spring effect in the radial direction, thus enabling a greater elasticity to be provided in said radial direction as taught by Bauch (para [0030]).
As to claim 2/1, Koch in view of Bauch was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Koch further shows (FIG. 3) wherein said second axial slots 48 are formed in said housing 4 inner wall by a joining process of said stator 6 into said motor housing 4.
As to claim 3/1, Koch in view of Bauch was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for said stiffening contour is configured such that a tangential support force in a second axial slot of said second axial slots is at least partially converted into a radial force acting along said at least one spring arm.
Bauch shows said stiffening contour 12 is configured such that a tangential support force is at least partially converted into a radial force acting along said at least one spring arm (FIG. 4-8, the recess 12 increases the spring effect in the radial direction para [0030]).
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 spring element 38 of Koch in view of Bauch to have said stiffening contour 12 is configured such that a tangential support force in a second axial slot 48 of said second axial slots 48 is at least partially converted into a radial force acting along said at least one spring arm 32 as taught by Bauch, for the advantageous benefit of increasing the spring effect in the radial direction, thus enabling a greater elasticity to be provided in said radial direction as taught by Bauch (para [0030]).
As to claim 4/1, Koch in view of Bauch was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for said stiffening contour is substantially V-shaped or U-shaped in cross-section, and has stiffening legs formed thereby forming a contact surface in a second axial slot of said second axial slots.
Bauch shows said stiffening contour 12 is substantially V-shaped or U-shaped in cross-section, and has stiffening legs formed thereby (FIG. 4-8, para [0030]).
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 spring element 38 of Koch in view of Bauch to have said stiffening contour 12 is substantially V-shaped or U-shaped in cross-section, and has stiffening legs formed thereby forming a contact surface in a second axial slot 48 of said second axial slots 48 as taught by Bauch, for the advantageous benefit of increasing the spring effect in the radial direction, thus enabling a greater elasticity to be provided in said radial direction as taught by Bauch (para [0030]).
As to claim 5/1, Koch in view of Bauch was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Koch further shows (FIG. 6):
PNG
media_image1.png
271
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein said at least one spring arm 32 has a convexly shaped bend 32X at said free end with respect to said second axial slots 48 as a contact surface.
As to claim 6/5/1, Koch in view of Bauch was discussed above with respect to claim 5 except for said stiffening contour extends over said convexly shaped bend.
Bauch shows said stiffening contour 12 extends over an axial length of the spring 5 (FIG. 4-8, para [0030]).
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 spring element 38 of Koch in view of Bauch to have said stiffening contour 12 extends over said convexly shaped bend 32X as taught by Bauch, for the advantageous benefit of increasing the spring effect in the radial direction, thus enabling a greater elasticity to be provided in said radial direction as taught by Bauch (para [0030]).
As to claim 7/1, Koch in view of Bauch was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Koch further shows said at least one spring element 38 is configured as a one-piece stamped and bent part (para [0037]).
As to claim 8/1, Koch in view of Bauch was discussed above with respect to claim 1 except for said stiffening contour is embossed into said at least one spring arm.
Bauch shows said stiffening contour is embossed into said spring 5 (FIG. 4-8, para [0030]).
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 spring element 38 of Koch in view of Bauch to have said stiffening contour 12 is embossed into said at least one spring arm 32 as taught by Bauch, for the advantageous benefit of increasing the spring effect in the radial direction, thus enabling a greater elasticity to be provided in said radial direction as taught by Bauch (para [0030]).
As to claim 9/1, Koch in view of Bauch was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Koch further shows (FIG. 3):
said motor housing 4 has a housing cover 15; and
said at least one spring element 28 has a coupling spring 34 on a narrow side of said spring main body, said coupling spring 34 projects axially from a first axial slot 26 of said first axial slots 26 and is resiliently supported at said free end on said housing cover 15 of said motor housing 4 (para [0061]).
As to claim 10/1, Koch in view of Bauch was discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Koch further shows wherein the electric motor is a steering motor (para [0073]).
As to claim 11, Koch shows (FIG. 2-7) A spring element 28 for an electric motor 2, comprising:
a spring main body 30; and
at least one spring arm 32 protruding or bent out of said spring main body 30 (para [0056], [0059], [0060]).
Koch does not show said at least one spring arm having a stiffening contour along an arm longitudinal direction and increases a tangential stiffness of said at least one spring arm.
Bauch shows a spring 5 has a stiffening contour 12 along an arm longitudinal direction, which increases a tangential stiffness of said spring 5 (FIG. 4-8, para [0030]).
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 spring element 38 of Koch to have the said at least one spring arm 32 having a stiffening contour 12 along an arm longitudinal direction and increases a tangential stiffness of said at least one spring arm 32 as taught by Bauch, for the advantageous benefit of increasing the spring effect in the radial direction, thus enabling a greater elasticity to be provided in said radial direction as taught by Bauch (para [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MATES whose telephone number is (571)270-5293. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 12:00pm to 8pm.
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.
/ROBERT E MATES/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights