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 23 December 2025. In view of this communication and the amendment concurrently filed: claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-23 were previously pending; claims 21-23 were canceled and claim 24 was added by the amendment; and thus, 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 23 December 2025, 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 render obvious the result effective variables, i.e. the “least common multiple”, now recited in claim 1 because the claimed range or “equal to or greater than 180” is critical. However, the evidence presented in the argument does not attribute any specific advantage to that range. The specification simply states that “it is preferable that a least common multiples of the first slot-pole value and the second slot-pole value be at least 180 or more”.
Further, 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 second argument (page 10 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.
The Applicant’s third argument (page 11 of the Remarks) alleges that the remaining claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency on one of the independent claims. This is unpersuasive for the same reasons given above.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second instance of “a controller” (claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “a controller” in line 1. In addition to the controller now recited in claim 7, on which claim 13 depends, this claim now recites two separate controllers. Since only one controller is disclosed in the application, this limitation now constitutes new matter. In the prior art rejections to follow, this limitation has been interpreted as referring to “the controller” recited in the preceding claim, rather than an additional controller, as this is more consistent with 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); 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), 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
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