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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 22.
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.
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 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 Line 10: 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 4: The recitation “are assembled by” is indefinite. In particular, it appears to be a method step within an apparatus claim.
Claim 4 Line 4: The recitation “are manipulated using a driver” is indefinite. In particular, it appears to be a method step within an apparatus claim.
Claim 5 Line 2: The recitation “the worm gear” is indefinite. It is unclear if this is the first worm gear, the second worm gear, or a new worm gear.
Claim 7 Line 2: The recitation “the first brackets” lacks antecedent basis. The first recitation of the claim element is in Claim 6, but Claim 7 depends on Claim 1, accordingly, it is unclear if the dependency of Claim 7 should be on Claim 6 or alternatively if the recitation should recite “a”.
Claim 7 Line 5: The recitation “the second brackets” lacks antecedent basis. The first recitation of the claim element is in Claim 6, but Claim 7 depends on Claim 1, accordingly, it is unclear if the dependency of Claim 7 should be on Claim 6 or alternatively if the recitation should recite “a”.
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 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 19/144,955 in view of Skogward (US 9,441,729).
Regarding Claim 1, ‘955 claims a motor driving device for a hollow swivel actuator, the motor driving device comprising: (Claim 1)
An actuator housing having a hollow cylindrical portion protruding upward at a center thereof (Claim 11).
First driving unit (Claim 1).
Wherein the first motor driving unit comprises: a first rotary shaft in which a first worm gear, in which a rotational output of a driving motor is generated, is integrally formed at a central portion thereof; and first and second driving motors respectively formed at both ends of the first rotary shaft to rotate the first rotary shaft (Claim 1).
Skogward teaches motor driving device, providing two driving units (see Fig. 1) with two worm gears driving a single worm wheel (see Fig. 1) with the two driving units being disposed on opposite sides of the worm gear to face the center (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second driving unit for the motor driving device claims in ‘955 as taught in Skogward to provide additional torque to the worm wheel without having to increase the size of the motor or individual gears, and to cancel the thrust push of a single worm gear on the worm wheel, having second one driving in the opposite direction.
In the resulting Combination it necessarily follows the first and second drive units are disposed on both sides of a bottom surface of the actuator housing to face the hollow cylindrical portion, a second rotary shaft in which a second worm gear, in which a rotational output of a driving motor is generated, is integrally formed at a central portion thereof; and third and fourth driving motors respectively formed at both ends of the second rotary shaft to rotate the second rotary shaft, wherein the first and second worm gears are gear-coupled to a sun gear rotatably supported on an outer circumference of the hollow cylindrical portion (since the first driving unit and second driving unit are identical, the Combination would necessarily have the same components for the second driving unit).
Regarding Claim 2, ‘955 further claims the motor driving device of claim 1, wherein the first and second driving motors comprise:
The first rotary shaft in which the first worm gear, in which a rotational output is generated, is integrally formed at a central portion thereof (Claim 11).
First and second motor housings for accommodating both ends of the first rotary shaft (Claim 1), respectively (Claim 1).
First and second rotors having magnets attached to outer circumferential portions of both end portions of the first rotary shaft, respectively (Claim 1).
First and second stators arranged on the outer sides of the first and second rotors with air gaps and generating rotating magnetic fields to rotate the first rotary shaft of the first and second rotors, respectively (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3, ‘955 further claims the motor driving device of claim 2, further comprising:
First and second bearings installed in the first and second motor housings to rotatably support the first rotation shaft (Claim 2).
First and second set screws which are assembled by being screw-coupled to both ends of the first and second motor housings, respectively, and enable the front ends to press and support the ends of the first rotary shaft to suppress the flow of the first rotary shaft (Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4, ‘955 further claims the motor driving device of claim 3, wherein the first and second motor housings are assembled such that both ends thereof partially overlap the first and second grooves formed in the circular wall of the actuator housing (Claim 4).
The first and second set screws are manipulated using a driver from the outside (Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5, ‘955 further claims the motor driving device of claim 2, wherein the first rotary shaft is divided into three or two central portions where the first and second rotors and the worm gear are formed, and is assembled using a D-cut structure (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 6, ‘955 further claims the motor driving device of claim 2, wherein the first and second motor housings further comprise first and second brackets protruding from the inside and the outside, respectively, and used to fix the first and second motor housings to the actuator housing (Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 7, ‘955 further claims the motor driving device of claim 2, wherein the first brackets protruding from the outer sides of the first and second motor housings are assembled and fixed to overlap third and fourth grooves formed in the circular wall of the actuator housing, respectively, and the second brackets protruding from the inner sides of the first and second motor housings are respectively fixed to first and second protruding fixing parts protruding from the bottom surface of the actuator housing (Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 8, ‘955 further claims the motor driving device of claim 1, further comprising first and second through-holes in which the first and second motor housings are assembled such that the bottom surfaces of the first and second motor housings are flush with the rear surface of the actuator housing when the first and second motor housings are assembled to the bottom surface of the actuator housing (Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 9, ‘955 further claims the motor driving device 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; a bobbin integrally formed to surround an outer circumferential surface on which a coil of each of the plurality of teeth is wound; and a coil wound around the outer circumferential surfaces of the bobbins, wherein the plurality of teeth and the back yoke have an asymmetric structure (Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 10, ‘955 claims a motor driving device for a hollow swivel actuator, the motor driving device comprising:
An actuator housing having a hollow cylindrical portion protruding upward at a center thereof (Claim 11).
First motor driving unit (Claim 11).
First worm gear, which generate rotational outputs of the first to second driving motors, and are integrally formed at the centers of the first and second rotary shafts, respectively (Claim 1).
Wherein the first are gear-coupled to a sun gear rotatably supported on an outer circumference of the hollow cylindrical portion (Claim 11).
Skogward teaches motor driving device, providing two driving units (see Fig. 1) with two worm gears driving a single worm wheel (see Fig. 1) with the two driving units being disposed on opposite sides of the worm gear to face the center (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second driving unit for the motor driving device claims in ‘955 as taught in Skogward to provide additional torque to the worm wheel without having to increase the size of the motor or individual gears, and to cancel the thrust push of a single worm gear on the worm wheel, having second one driving in the opposite direction.
In the resulting Combination it necessarily follows the first and second drive units are disposed on both sides of a bottom surface of the actuator housing to face the hollow cylindrical portion, a second rotary shaft in which a second worm gear, in which a rotational output of a driving motor is generated, is integrally formed at a central portion thereof; and third and fourth driving motors respectively formed at both ends of the second rotary shaft to rotate the second rotary shaft, wherein the first and second worm gears are gear-coupled to a sun gear rotatably supported on an outer circumference of the hollow cylindrical portion, and which include first to fourth driving motors formed at both ends of the first and second rotary shafts, respectively, and (since the first driving unit and second driving unit are identical, the Combination would necessarily have the same components for the second driving unit).
Regarding Claim 11, ‘955 claims a hollow swivel actuator comprising:
An actuator housing having a hollow cylindrical portion protruding upward at a center thereof (Claim 11).
First driving unit (Claim 11) which include first to second driving motors formed at both ends of the first rotary shaft, respectively (Claim 11).
First worm gear (Claim 11), which generate rotational outputs of the first to second driving motors, and are integrally formed at the centers of the first rotary shaft, respectively (Claim 11).
A sun gear rotatably supported on the outer circumference of the hollow cylindrical portion and having a worm wheel integrally formed on the outer circumference thereof and gear-coupled to the first worm gear to allow deceleration (Claim 11).
A rotary table having the center part thereof rotatably supported on the outer circumference of the hollow cylindrical portion, the lower end of the center part being coupled to the top end of the sun gear (Claim 11, coupled through the pinion gears).
Skogward teaches motor driving device, providing two driving units (see Fig. 1) with two worm gears driving a single worm wheel (see Fig. 1) with the two driving units being disposed on opposite sides of the worm gear to face the center (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second driving unit for the motor driving device claims in ‘955 as taught in Skogward to provide additional torque to the worm wheel without having to increase the size of the motor or individual gears, and to cancel the thrust push of a single worm gear on the worm wheel, having second one driving in the opposite direction.
In the resulting Combination it necessarily follows the first and second drive units are disposed on both sides of a bottom surface of the actuator housing to face the hollow cylindrical portion, a second rotary shaft in which a second worm gear, in which a rotational output of a driving motor is generated, is integrally formed at a central portion thereof; and third and fourth driving motors respectively formed at both ends of the second rotary shaft to rotate the second rotary shaft, wherein the first and second worm gears are gear-coupled to a sun gear rotatably supported on an outer circumference of the hollow cylindrical portion (since the first driving unit and second driving unit are identical, the Combination would necessarily have the same components for the second driving unit).
Regarding Claim 12, ‘955 further claims the hollow swivel actuator of claim 11, further comprising a first bearing disposed between the lower end of the hollow cylindrical portion and the sun gear to rotatably support the sun gear; a second bearing rotatably supporting the rotary table on an outer circumference of a top end of the hollow cylindrical portion; and a bearing support press-coupled to the outer circumference of the hollow cylindrical portion and disposed between the first bearing and the second bearing (Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 13, ‘955 further claims the hollow swivel actuator of claim 12, wherein the first bearing includes a needle roller bearing, and the second bearing includes a ball bearing (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 14 the Combination further suggests the hollow swivel actuator of claim 11, wherein the first to fourth driving motors and the sun gear of the motor driving unit are arranged on the same plane on the bottom surface of the actuator housing (Claim 14).
Regarding Claim 15, ‘955 further claims the hollow swivel actuator of claim 11, further comprising a motor driving circuit mounted on a printed circuit board (PCB) installed inside the actuator housing to apply motor driving signals to the first to fourth driving motors according to manipulation of a car seat control button of a user, wherein the rotary table is used for rotation driving of a car seat (Claim 15).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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