UNIT

§102 §103

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 . Remarks Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 2/10/2025. Claims 1-4 have been amended. Claims 5-6 are new. 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 2/10/2025 and 1/13/2026 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. The following title is suggested: UNIT HAVING A LAYOUT FOR SECURING A BOLT IN RELATION TO A NEUTRAL POINT. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamagishi et al. (US 2019/0036416). In claim 1, Yamagishi discloses a unit (Fig. 1-7) comprising: a bolt (58); and a rotary electrical machine (10), wherein the rotary electrical machine (10) includes a rotor (12) and a stator (16) surrounding an outer periphery of the rotor (12), the stator (16) includes a stator protrusion portion (48) protruding radially outward from an outer periphery of the stator (16), the bolt (58) is inserted into the stator protrusion portion (48) in a direction from one axial end side of the stator (16) toward the other axial end side of the stator (16), a neutral point (40b) of the stator (16) and a head portion (top portion of 58; Fig. 3) of the bolt (58) are disposed on the one axial end side of the stator (16), and the neutral point (40b) of the stator (16) is offset from the head portion (top portion of 58) of the bolt (58) when viewed in an axial direction. In claim 2, Yamagishi discloses wherein the neutral point (40b) of the stator (16) is disposed so as to avoid a region (region radially between 48 and 12) between the stator protrusion portion (48) and the rotor (12) when viewed in the axial direction. PNG media_image1.png 594 504 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. 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) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al. (US 2019/0036416) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2022/0140687). In claim 4, Yamagishi teaches the unit of claim 1; furthermore Yamagishi teaches wherein the unit is used in a vehicle ([0031]). Yamagishi does not teach wherein the neutral point is disposed at a position that is submerged in oil at least while the vehicle is traveling. However, Hasegawa teaches a unit (Fig. 1-16) wherein a neutral point (51) is disposed at a position that is submerged in oil ([0116]) at least while the vehicle is traveling (as the shaft rotates; [0037-0039]). Therefore in view of Hasegawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to lubricate the stator and cool it with refrigeration oil (Hasegawa; [0116]). In claim 5, Yamagishi teaches the unit of claim 2; furthermore Yamagishi teaches wherein the unit is used in a vehicle ([0031]). Yamagishi does not teach wherein the neutral point is disposed at a position that is submerged in oil at least while the vehicle is traveling. However, Hasegawa teaches a unit (Fig. 1-16) wherein a neutral point (51) is disposed at a position that is submerged in oil ([0116]) at least while the vehicle is traveling (as the shaft rotates; [0037-0039]). Therefore in view of Hasegawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to lubricate the stator and cool it with refrigeration oil (Hasegawa; [0116]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 and 6 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitation of the (in)dependent claim(s), in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the features as presented in the (in)dependent claim(s) with the allowable feature being: Claim 3: “a housing that accommodates the rotary electrical machine; and a shaft that is connected to a downstream side of the rotary electrical machine in a dynamical manner, wherein the housing includes a peripheral wall portion that surrounds the rotary electrical machine and the shaft when viewed in the axial direction, and the neutral point is located between a first vertical line passing through a rotation center of the rotor and a second vertical line passing through a rotation center of the shaft when viewed in the axial direction.” The examiner found no prior art satisfies all above conditions by itself or as combined during the examination period. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hino et al. (US 2019/0131829) teaches an armature core configured by arranging into an annular shape: at least one first core segment that includes: a first core back portion; a first tooth portion; and a mounting portion that is formed on an outer circumferential portion of the first core back portion; and a plurality of second core segments that include: a second core back portion; and a second tooth portion. Takahashi et al. (US 2019/025931) teaches a rotor having a field core, a field winding, and a cylindrical short-circuit member. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-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 571-272-3560. 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. RASHAD H. JOHNSON Examiner Art Unit 2834 /RASHAD H JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834