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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 Line 3: “the actuator housing” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 Line 13: The recitation “generating rotating magnetic fields” is indefinite. In particular, it appears to be a method step within an apparatus claim.1
Claim 3 Line 2: The recitation “which are assembled by being screw-coupled” is indefinite. In particular, it appears to be a method step within an apparatus claim.
Claim 7 Line 2: The recitation “the first brackets” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if Claim 7 should depend on Claim 1 or on Claim 6 which provides antecedent basis for the bracket.
Claim 7 Line 3: The recitation “are assembled and fix” are indefinite. In particular, it appears to be a method step within an apparatus claim.
Claim 7 Line 4: The recitation “the actuator housing” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if Claim 7 should depend on Claim 1 or on Claim 6 which first recites for the housing.
Claim 7 Line 5: The recitation “the second brackets” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if Claim 7 should depend on Claim 1 or on Claim 6 which provides antecedent basis for the bracket.
Claim 9 Lines 1-2: The recitation “is assembled” is indefinite. In particular, it appears to be a method step within an apparatus claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 216618421-U) in view of Kim (KR 202100083196-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou discloses a motor drive mechanism for a hollow swivel actuator (see Fig. 1), the motor drive mechanism comprising:
A rotary shaft (see Fig. 2) in which a worm gear (4), in which a rotational output of a motor is generated, is integrally formed at a central portion thereof (see Fig. 2, showing the two components form a complete whole and are considered integrally formed).
First and second drive motors (5, 6) formed at both ends of the rotary shaft (see Figs. 1-2), respectively, wherein the first and second drive motors comprise:
First and second motor housings (see Fig. 1, showing portions 5, 6, and the connecting portions forming the first and second motor housings) for accommodating both ends of the rotary shaft (see Figs. 1-2), respectively.
Zhou does not disclose the particulars of the motor. However, Kim teaches in a similar motor drive mechanism having a motor (1) having a rotor (1200) having magnets (1220) attached to an outer circumferential portions of a rotary shaft (1210) (see Fig. 11). A stator (100) arranged on the outer sides of the rotor with air gaps (see Fig. 11) and generating rotating magnetic fields to rotate the rotary shaft of the rotor (note an electric motor is disclosed and accordingly this would necessarily follow.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the motors of the motor drive mechanism disclosed in Zhou with a rotor and stator as disclosed in Kim to provide a well known and reliable design for a motor to provide torque to the rotary shaft to drive the worm gear.
In the resulting Combination it necessarily follows that both the first and the second motors each have a stator and rotor, with magnets attached to an outer circumferential portion of the rotary shaft (see Zhou Fig. 2, when the motors are attached to the rotary shaft it necessarily follows the magnets are too), with an air gap between the rotor and stator and generating rotating magnetic fields to rotate the rotary shaft of the first and second rotors, respectively.
Regarding Claim 2, the Combination further discloses the motor drive mechanism of claim 1, further comprising first and second bearings (Zhou 7) installed inside the first and second motor housings (see Zhou Figs. 1-2, showing that the bearings are located within the central unnumbered portion of the first and second motor housings connection sections 5 and 6), respectively, to rotatably support the rotary shaft (see Zhou Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 5, the Combination further suggests the motor drive mechanism of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second motor housings comprises:
First and second motor housing bodies forming inner spaces in which the first and second rotors and the first and second stators are accommodated (see Zhou Fig. 2), respectively.
First and second motor housing covers coupled to entrances of the first and second motor housing bodies (see Zhou Fig. 1, showing the central portion connecting the two and the portion surrounding the worm gear), respectively.
Regarding Claim 6, the Combination further suggests the motor drive mechanism of claim 1, wherein the first and second motor housings further comprise first and second brackets (see Zhou Figs. 1-2) protruding from the inside and the outside, respectively, and used to fix the first and second motor housings to the actuator housing (see Zhou Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 9, the Combination further suggests he motor drive mechanism of claim 1, wherein the rotary shaft is divided into three or two central portions (see Zhou Fig. 2) where the first and second rotors and the worm gear are formed, and is assembled using a D-cut structure (see Zhou Fig. 2, the protrusions are D shaped cuts).
Regarding Claim 10, the Combination further suggests the motor drive mechanism of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second stators comprises:
A stator core having a plurality of teeth each having a "T" shape and a back yoke interconnected with the plurality of teeth to form a magnetic circuit (see Kim Fig. 11).
A bobbin integrally formed to surround an outer circumferential surface on which a coil of each of the plurality of teeth is wound (see Kim Fig. 11).
A coil wound around the outer circumferential surfaces of the bobbins (see Kim Fig. 11)
Wherein the plurality of teeth and the back yoke have an asymmetric structure (see Kim Fig. 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 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.
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 19/144,956 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference between the two claim sets is that the present application claims a single worm gear driven by two motors, and the reference application claims a first worm gear driven by two motors and a second worm gear driven by two motors.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY WEBER whose telephone number is (571)272-3307. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, MINNAH SEOH can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY ROBERT WEBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)
Prosecution Insights