DETAILED ACTION
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 06 May 2026. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20, and 24 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 06 May 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s first argument (pages 8-10 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that Deng does not disclose the “inner rotor having 19 poles” or the “outer rotor having 24 poles” because this is “an unsupported inference” and refers to figure 5 as a “schematic illustration”. No supporting evidence is provided in support of any of the allegations made. Figure 5 of Deng represents “a cross-sectional view of a dual direct drive motor” (¶ 0011 of Deng), not a “schematic illustration”. Further, the numbers of poles are literally shown in the drawing, no inference is made in simply counting them. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive because it merely alleges that features explicitly shown in the drawings do not exist, with no rational explanation or supporting evidence.
The Applicant’s second argument (pages 10-11 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that Deng does not teach the numbers of rotor and stator poles to be result-effective variables because there is, allegedly, no disclosure of “(1) selecting different pole/slot counts, (2) comparing alternative pole/slot combinations, or (2) identifying the numbers of poles or slots”. However, these method steps are not required for Deng to teach the numbers of rotor and stator poles to be result-effective variables. Deng discloses, for example, that the arrangement of the poles is “used to produce magnetic gearing”, i.e. the relative numbers of poles, “in the form of slower rotational motion of the subject rotor 116, at a higher torque output” (¶ 0037). Since, rather than contradict the teachings of Deng, the argument simply alleges that additional, unclaimed, requirements must be met, this argument is unpersuasive. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant’s third argument (pages 11-15 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that Deng does not disclose the least common multiple being “equal to or greater than 180” and states that this threshold is “critical to raising the order of cogging torque” (no citation provided). The argument then discusses the rationale applied in the grounds of rejection, but refers to said rationale as the “design choice doctrine”. The grounds of rejection are in no way based on any doctrine of “design choice” as alleged in the argument. The grounds of rejection are instead based on the concepts of optimization of ranges and result-effective variables, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, since the argument is based on a rationale not applied in the grounds of rejection, the argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
The argument further alleges that criticality of the claimed range has been demonstrated, slowing that the value of “180” is required “in order to raise the order of the cogging torque of the motor”. However, the application only generally asserts a beneficial effect on the cogging torque, which is a component of the output torque. Since Deng discloses modifying the numbers of rotor and stator poles, thereby changing their least common multiples, in order to in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), this result is neither new nor unexpected as required by In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, this argument is not persuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Lee and Deng are maintained.
The Applicant’s fourth argument (pages 15-17 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that the prior art does not disclose a controller supplying currents to the stators “such that a magnitude or phase of the current supplied to the inner stator and a magnitude or phase of the current supplied to the outer stator are different from each other”. Lee discloses a controller capable of varying the current supplied to the stators (¶ 0004; “the motor is controlled by adjusting the magnitude of the {current supplied to the stator coils}”). While Lee does not disclose the method of supplying two different magnitudes/phases of current, this product-by-process limitation does not imply any additional structural limitations. Since the product, i.e. the controller, in this 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive and the previous grounds of rejection in view of Lee are maintained.
Further, while the argument alleges that this limitation is not a product-by-process limitation without providing any explanation. The argument then cites USPTO training materials relating to the examination of “Computer Related Functional Limitations”. The relevance of any of this material is unknown, as no claims to any computer readable mediums or computer programming are present in the application. Thus, the allegations that evaluating these as product-by-process limitations appear to lack any relevance to the previous grounds of rejection, and are therefore unpersuasive.
The Applicant’s fifth argument (pages 17-18 of the Remarks) alleges, regarding the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, that the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as the independent claims. This is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above, and the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-2011-0105498), hereinafter referred to as “Lee”, in view of Deng et al. (US 2021/0175785 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Deng”.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a motor for a vehicle (fig. 2; page 3, lines 98-104) comprising:
a motor housing [50] (fig. 2; ¶ 0020);
a motor shaft [14] coupled with the motor housing [50] to relatively rotate with respect to the motor housing [50] (fig. 2; ¶ 0020);
a dual rotor [20] including an inner rotor [20i] and an outer rotor [20o] connected to the motor shaft [14] (fig. 2; ¶ 0019, 0023);
PNG
media_image1.png
283
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a dual stator [30,40] including an inner stator [30] arranged on an inner side of the inner rotor [20i] (fig. 2; ¶ 0024-0025) and an outer stator [40] arranged on an outer side of the outer rotor [20o] (fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0027); and
a rotor body [12] disposed between the inner rotor [20i] and the outer rotor [20o] (fig. 2; ¶ 0020).
Lee does not disclose that a least common multiple of a first slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of first poles of the inner rotor and the number of first slots of the inner stator, and a second slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of second poles of the outer rotor and the number of second slots of the outer stator, is equal to or greater than 180.
Deng discloses a motor comprising an inner rotor [14] having first poles [80i] facing an inner stator [32] having first slots [32s] and an outer rotor [18] having second poles [80o] facing an outer stator [34] having second slots [34s] (fig. 5; ¶ 0024), wherein a first slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of first poles [80i] of the inner rotor [14] and the number of first slots [32s] of the inner stator [32], and a second slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of second poles [80o] of the outer rotor [18] and the number of second slots [34s] of the outer stator [34], are different from each other (fig. 5; the figure shows the inner rotor having 19 poles, the inner stator having 12 slots, the outer stator having 18 slots, and the outer rotor having 24 poles; the LCM of 19 and 12 is 228 while the LCM of 18 and 24 is 72).
Further, Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having first and second slot pole values with a least common multiple of 180 or more, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Lee, in view of Deng, discloses the motor for a vehicle according to claim 1, as stated above. Deng further discloses the first slot-pole value, defined as the least common multiple of the number of first poles [80i] of the inner rotor [14] and the number of first slots [32s] of the inner stator [32], and the second slot-pole value, defined as the least common multiple of the number of second poles [80o] of the outer rotor [18] and the number of second slots [34s] of the outer stator [34], are different from each other (fig. 5; the figure shows the inner rotor having 19 poles, the inner stator having 12 slots, the outer stator having 18 slots, and the outer rotor having 24 poles; the LCM of 19 and 12 is 228 while the LCM of 18 and 24 is 72).
Further, Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having different first and second slot pole values as taught by Deng, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Lee, in view of Deng, discloses the motor for a vehicle according to claim 2, as stated above. Lee/Deng do not disclose that the number of the first poles is 6, the number of the first slots is 9, the number of the second poles is 10, the number of the second slots is 12, and the least common multiple of the first slot-pole value and the second slot-pole value is 180.
Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having the recited numbers of slots and poles, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Lee, in view of Deng, discloses the motor for a vehicle according to claim 2, as stated above. Lee/Deng do not disclose that the number of the first poles is 8, the number of the first slots is 9, the number of the second poles is 10, the number of the second slots is 12, and the least common multiple of the first slot-pole value and the second slot-pole value is 360.
Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having the recited numbers of slots and poles, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Deng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondou et al. (US 2014/0159533 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kondou”.
Regarding claim 24, Lee, in view of Deng, discloses the motor for the vehicle according to claim 1, as stated above. Lee does not disclose that the inner stator [30] surrounds the motor shaft [14] configured to be relatively rotatable with respect to the motor housing [50].
Kondou discloses a motor [1] comprising an inner stator [7], an outer stator [8], a rotor [6], and a motor shaft [4] disposed within a motor housing [2] (fig. 1; ¶ 0040); wherein the inner stator [7] surrounds the motor shaft [4] configured to be relatively rotatable with respect to the motor housing [2] (fig. 1; ¶ 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the inner stator of Lee surrounding the motor shaft as taught by Kondou, in order to provide access to the shaft from both sides of the motor housing rather than just one side, thus increasing the device’s versatility by allowing for an additional power input or takeoff.
Claim(s) 7-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delmarco et al. (US 2019/0118853 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Delmarco”, in view of Lee and Deng.
Regarding claim 7, Delmarco discloses a steering apparatus [1] that is a steer-by-wire steering apparatus [1] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0022), the steering apparatus [1] comprising:
a road wheel actuator [6] (fig. 1; ¶ 0022); and
a steering feedback actuator [5], wherein the steering feedback actuator [5] includes a steering column [2] connected to a steering wheel [4] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0022) and a steering feedback motor [10] that is connected to the steering column [2] and is used for providing a steering feedback torque for the steering wheel [4] (fig. 2; ¶ 0023), and
PNG
media_image3.png
287
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the steering feedback motor [10] includes a motor shaft that is axially connected to the steering column [2] (fig. 2; ¶ 0023; the feedback motor is connected to the column by “belt drive 12”).
Delmarco does not disclose that the steering feedback motor [10] includes a dual rotor including an inner rotor and an outer rotor connected to the motor shaft, and a dual stator including an inner stator arranged on an inner side of the inner rotor and an outer stator arranged on an outer side of the outer rotor.
Lee discloses a motor for a vehicle (fig. 2; page 3, lines 98-104) comprising:
a motor shaft [14] (fig. 2; ¶ 0020);
a dual rotor [20] including an inner rotor [20i] and an outer rotor [20o] connected to the motor shaft [14] (fig. 2; ¶ 0019, 0023); and
PNG
media_image1.png
283
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a dual stator [30,40] including an inner stator [30] arranged on an inner side of the inner rotor [20i] (fig. 2; ¶ 0024-0025) and an outer stator [40] arranged on an outer side of the outer rotor [20o] (fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0027); and
a rotor body [12] disposed between the inner rotor [20i] and the outer rotor [20o] (fig. 2; ¶ 0020).
Lee does not disclose that a least common multiple of a first slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of first poles of the inner rotor and the number of first slots of the inner stator, and a second slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of second poles of the outer rotor and the number of second slots of the outer stator, is equal to or greater than 180.
Deng discloses a motor comprising an inner rotor [14] having first poles [80i] facing an inner stator [32] having first slots [32s] and an outer rotor [18] having second poles [80o] facing an outer stator [34] having second slots [34s] (fig. 5; ¶ 0024),
PNG
media_image2.png
567
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a first slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of first poles [80i] of the inner rotor [14] and the number of first slots [32s] of the inner stator [32], and a second slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of second poles [80o] of the outer rotor [18] and the number of second slots [34s] of the outer stator [34], are different from each other (fig. 5; the figure shows the inner rotor having 19 poles, the inner stator having 12 slots, the outer stator having 18 slots, and the outer rotor having 24 poles; the LCM of 19 and 12 is 228 while the LCM of 18 and 24 is 72).
Further, Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having first and second slot pole values with a least common multiple of 180 or more, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
And, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the steering feedback motor of Delmarco having the dual rotor/stator structures as taught by Lee/Deng, in order to increase the electromagnetic force even with the same current density thereby increasing the current usage efficiency (page 3, lines 98-104 of Lee).
Regarding claim 8, Delmarco, in view of Lee and Deng, discloses the steering apparatus according to claim 7, as stated above. Lee does not disclose that the first slot-pole value defined as the least common multiple of the number of first poles of the inner rotor and the number of first slots of the inner stator and the second slot-pole value defined as the least common multiple of the number of second poles of the outer rotor and the number of second slots of the outer stator are different from each other.
Deng discloses a motor comprising an inner rotor [14] having first poles [80i] facing an inner stator [32] having first slots [32s] and an outer rotor [18] having second poles [80o] facing an outer stator [34] having second slots [34s] (fig. 5; ¶ 0024), wherein the first slot-pole value, defined as the least common multiple of the number of first poles [80i] of the inner rotor [14] and the number of first slots [32s] of the inner stator [32], and the second slot-pole value, defined as the least common multiple of the number of second poles [80o] of the outer rotor [18] and the number of second slots [34s] of the outer stator [34], are different from each other (fig. 5; the figure shows the inner rotor having 19 poles, the inner stator having 12 slots, the outer stator having 18 slots, and the outer rotor having 24 poles; the LCM of 19 and 12 is 228 while the LCM of 18 and 24 is 72).
Further, Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having different first and second slot pole values as taught by Deng, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, Delmarco, in view of Lee and Deng, discloses the steering apparatus according to claim 8, as stated above. Lee/Deng do not disclose that the number of the first poles is 6, the number of the first slots is 9, the number of the second poles is 10, the number of the second slots is 12, and the least common multiple of the first slot-pole value and the second slot-pole value is 180.
Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having the recited numbers of slots and poles, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, Delmarco, in view of Lee and Deng, discloses the steering apparatus according to claim 8, as stated above. Lee/Deng do not disclose that the number of the first poles is 8, the number of the first slots is 9, the number of the second poles is 10, the number of the second slots is 12, and the least common multiple of the first slot-pole value and the second slot-pole value is 360.
Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having the recited numbers of slots and poles, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Delmarco, in view of Lee and Deng, discloses the steering apparatus according to claim 7, as stated above, further comprising a controller controlling an operation of the steering feedback motor [10] (¶ 0022; “driver’s steering command is transmitted toa control unit via signal lines”),
wherein, in a case where an abnormality is detected in one of the inner stator and the outer stator, the controller applies a current only to the remaining stator that is in a normal state (This limitation recites a method step by which the motor is controlled, with no additional structural or functional limitations, and is thus met by the structure of Delmarco/Lee discussed above).
Regarding claim 14, Delmarco discloses a steering feedback actuator apparatus [1] that is a steering feedback actuator apparatus [1] configuring a steer-by-wire steering apparatus [1] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0022) and operates separately from a road wheel actuator [6] (fig. 1; ¶ 0022), the steering feedback actuator apparatus [1] comprising:
a steering column [2] connected to a steering wheel [4] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0022); and
a steering feedback motor [10] that is connected to the steering column [2] and is used for providing a steering feedback torque for the steering wheel [4] (fig. 1-2; ¶ 0022-0023),
wherein the steering feedback motor [10] includes a motor shaft that is axially connected to the steering column [2] (fig. 2; ¶ 0023; the feedback motor is connected to the column by “belt drive 12”),
PNG
media_image3.png
287
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Delmarco does not disclose that the steering feedback motor [10] includes a dual rotor including an inner rotor and an outer rotor connected to the motor shaft, and a dual stator including an inner stator arranged on an inner side of the inner rotor and an outer stator arranged on an outer side of the outer rotor.
Lee discloses a motor for a vehicle (fig. 2; page 3, lines 98-104) comprising:
a motor shaft [14] (fig. 2; ¶ 0020);
a dual rotor [20] including an inner rotor [20i] and an outer rotor [20o] connected to the motor shaft [14] (fig. 2; ¶ 0019, 0023); and
a dual stator [30,40] including an inner stator [30] arranged on an inner side of the inner rotor [20i] (fig. 2; ¶ 0024-0025) and an outer stator [40] arranged on an outer side of the outer rotor [20o] (fig. 2; ¶ 0026-0027); and
a rotor body [12] disposed between the inner rotor [20i] and the outer rotor [20o] (fig. 2; ¶ 0020).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not disclose that a least common multiple of a first slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of first poles of the inner rotor and the number of first slots of the inner stator, and a second slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of second poles of the outer rotor and the number of second slots of the outer stator, is equal to or greater than 180.
Deng discloses a motor comprising an inner rotor [14] having first poles [80i] facing an inner stator [32] having first slots [32s] and an outer rotor [18] having second poles [80o] facing an outer stator [34] having second slots [34s] (fig. 5; ¶ 0024), wherein a first slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of first poles [80i] of the inner rotor [14] and the number of first slots [32s] of the inner stator [32], and a second slot-pole value, defined as a least common multiple of the number of second poles [80o] of the outer rotor [18] and the number of second slots [34s] of the outer stator [34], are different from each other (fig. 5; the figure shows the inner rotor having 19 poles, the inner stator having 12 slots, the outer stator having 18 slots, and the outer rotor having 24 poles; the LCM of 19 and 12 is 228 while the LCM of 18 and 24 is 72).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having first and second slot pole values with a least common multiple of 180 or more, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
And, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the steering feedback motor of Delmarco having the dual rotor/stator structures as taught by Lee, in order to increase the electromagnetic force even with the same current density thereby increasing the current usage efficiency (page 3, lines 98-104 of Lee).
Regarding claim 15, Delmarco, in view of Lee and Deng, discloses the steering feedback actuator apparatus according to claim 14, as stated above. Lee does not disclose that the first slot-pole value defined as the least common multiple of the number of first poles of the inner rotor and the number of first slots of the inner stator and the second slot-pole value defined as the least common multiple of the number of second poles of the outer rotor and the number of second slots of the outer stator are different from each other.
Deng discloses a motor comprising an inner rotor [14] having first poles [80i] facing an inner stator [32] having first slots [32s] and an outer rotor [18] having second poles [80o] facing an outer stator [34] having second slots [34s] (fig. 5; ¶ 0024), wherein the first slot-pole value, defined as the least common multiple of the number of first poles [80i] of the inner rotor [14] and the number of first slots [32s] of the inner stator [32], and the second slot-pole value, defined as the least common multiple of the number of second poles [80o] of the outer rotor [18] and the number of second slots [34s] of the outer stator [34], are different from each other (fig. 5; the figure shows the inner rotor having 19 poles, the inner stator having 12 slots, the outer stator having 18 slots, and the outer rotor having 24 poles; the LCM of 19 and 12 is 228 while the LCM of 18 and 24 is 72).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having different first and second slot pole values as taught by Deng, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 17, Delmarco, in view of Lee and Deng, discloses the steering feedback actuator apparatus according to claim 15, as stated above. Lee/Deng do not disclose that the number of the first poles is 6, the number of the first slots is 9, the number of the second poles is 10, the number of the second slots is 12, and the least common multiple of the first slot-pole value and the second slot-pole value is 180.
Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having the recited numbers of slots and poles, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Delmarco, in view of Lee and Deng, discloses the steering feedback actuator apparatus according to claim 15, as stated above. Lee/Deng do not disclose that the number of the first poles is 8, the number of the first slots is 9, the number of the second poles is 10, the number of the second slots is 12, and the least common multiple of the first slot-pole value and the second slot-pole value is 360.
Deng discloses that the relative numbers of rotor and stator poles can be varied to affect both the rotational speeds and the torques of the rotors, thus making the numbers of poles/slots, and their resulting least common multiples, result-effective variables (¶ 0036-0037).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rotors and stators of Lee having the recited numbers of slots and poles, in order to optimize the rotational speed and output torque of the rotors (¶ 0036-0037 of Deng), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 20, Delmarco, in view of Lee and Deng, discloses the steering apparatus according to claim 14, as stated above, further comprising a controller controlling an operation of the steering feedback motor [10] (¶ 0022; “driver’s steering command is transmitted toa control unit via signal lines”),
wherein, in a case where an abnormality is detected in one of the inner stator and the outer stator, the controller applies a current only to the remaining stator that is in a normal state (This limitation recites a method step by which the motor is controlled, with no additional structural or functional limitations, and is thus met by the structure of Delmarco/Lee discussed above).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Szepessy et al. (US 2020/0398891 A1) discloses a steering feedback actuator apparatus comprising a steer-by-wire system separate from a road wheel actuator, further comprising a steering column connected to the steering wheel and a steering feedback motor.
Kusase et al. (US 2011/0285238 A1) discloses a multi-gap electric motor comprising inner and outer stators and a rotor, the rotor disposed radially within the stators.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights