Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild (US 10,829,351) in view of Shimada (US 2010/0224426) and Bassis (US 10,703,201).
In re claims 1 and 9, Wild discloses an electric loader (1), comprising:
a first electric wheel assembly having a first wheel (13) with a first hub, a first motor (22a);
a second electric wheel assembly having a second wheel (5b) with a second hub, a second motor (22b);
a third electric motor (20) coupled to a hydraulic pump (21); and
a hydraulic lift (32) coupled to the hydraulic pump (21) configured to move a loader arm (boom 25).
Wild does not disclose a hydraulic attachment coupled to the loader arm, the hydraulic attachment being powered by the hydraulic pump or wherein the first and second wheel assemblies each have a gear reducer coupled to hub/motor; wherein the motors are coupled to and independently controlled by a central processor.
Shimada, however, does disclose a hydraulic attachment (29) coupled to the loader arm (21), the hydraulic attachment being powered by the hydraulic pump (72) (via bucket cylinder 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Wild such that it comprised the hydraulically powered bucket of Shimada to advantageously be able to pick up and transport objects with the excavator.
Bassis, however, does disclose an electric vehicle wherein the first and second wheel assemblies (104C, 104D) each have a gear reducer (508, 512) coupled to hub/motor (516 as shown in Figure 5); wherein the motors (716A, 716B) are coupled to and independently controlled (independent left/right motors as shown in Figure 2 are controlled independently) by a central processor (214, see column 8, lines 30-34); wherein the first motor (716A) includes a first cover (750A), a first stator (734), and a first rotor (730), and the second motor (716B) includes a second cover (750), a second stator (734), and a second rotor (730), wherein the first motor includes a first gap between the first stator and the first rotor (as shown in Figure 8) and the second motor includes a second gap between the second stator and the second rotor (as shown in Figure 8) (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle drive of Wild and Shimada such that it comprised the reduction gears and processor as taught by Bassis to advantageously reduce the motor output speed for controlled operation and increased torque.
In re claim 7, Bassis further discloses wherein all four wheels are driven by electric motors (800, as shown in Figure 10D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle drive of Wild such that it comprised the four wheel drive as taught by Bassis to advantageously provide additional traction and maneuverability by providing a fourth electric motor coupled to the fourth wheel and a fifth electric motor coupled to the fifth wheel.
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild, Shimada, and Bassis in view of Wakitani (US 7,073,613).
In re claims 4 and 21, Wild, Shimada and Bassis disclose the electric loader of claim 1, but do not disclose first and second lever brakes coupled to first and second output axles of the first and second electric motors, respectively; wherein the first and second lever brakes couple to the first output axle and the second output axle respectively, and wherein the first and second lever brakes use torque generated by the first and second electric motors to lock the first and second wheels.
Wakitani, however, does disclose first and second lever brakes (23L, 23R) coupled to first and second output axles (14L, 14R) of the first and second electric motors (13L, 13R), respectively (as shown in Figure 1); wherein the first and second lever brakes couple to the first output axle and the second output axle respectively (as shown in Figures 1 and 5), and wherein the first and second lever brakes use torque generated (via potentiometer) by the first and second electric motors to lock the first and second wheels (see column 10, lines 32-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Wild, Shimada, and Bassis such that it comprised the brake levers of Wakitani to advantageously provide braking to each motor/axle to provide additional braking/vehicle control.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild in view of Wang (US 2020/0384856).
In re claim 11, Wild discloses an electric loader (1), comprising a first electric motor (22a); a second electric motor (22b); but does not disclose wherein each motor has a stator, a rotor, coil windings, and an axle coupled to a planetary gear system coupled to and positioned at least partially inside of, a rotary hub of a wheel.
Wang, however, does disclose a hub motor (100) having a stator (103), a rotor (108), coil windings (102), and an axle (107) coupled to a planetary gear system (200) coupled to and positioned at least partially inside of, a rotary hub (605) of a wheel (as shown in Figures 1-2) to provide a motor with a better overall driving performance (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motors of Wild such that they each comprised the hub motors of Wang to advantageously achieve better overall driving performance.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild and Wang in view of Wakitani.
In re claim 13, Wild and Wang disclose the electric loader of claim 11, but do not disclose further comprising a lever brake coupled to the first and the second axles of the first and second electric motors.
Wakitani, however, does disclose lever brakes (23L, 23R) coupled to first and second axles (14L, 14R) of the first and second electric motors (13L, 13R), respectively (as shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Wild and Wang such that it comprised the brake levers of Wakitani to advantageously provide braking to each motor/axle to provide additional braking/vehicle control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “further comprising a central forced-air system for forcing air through the first gap and the second gap, the central forced-air system including a filter, a fan, an air conditioner to remove heat and humidity from the air, and a plurality of ducts coupling the fan to the first cover and the second cover” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a central forced-air system as claimed in combination of a motor drive wheel.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “a plurality of battery cells in a battery panel, the battery cells being locked within the battery panel with a locking mechanism, and wherein the locking mechanism includes a port for isolated charging of each battery cell” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a plurality of cells locked in a panel by a locking mechanism that includes a port for charging each of the cells individually.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “further comprising a cover with an input port and a plurality of fins, the input port configured to receive forced-air that is cooled and filtered into gaps in the first and second rotor and the first and second stator, and wherein the plurality of fins are configured to radiate heat away from the cover” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a forced-air system filtered into gaps of the rotors and stators as claimed in combination of a motor drive wheel.
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “further comprising a battery panel pivotably coupled to a frame, the battery panel electrically coupled to the first and second electric motors and rotating from an upright locked position to a lowered locked position” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a pivotable battery panel rotatable to an upright locked position and there would be no space to do so or rationale to modify the battery pack of Wild.
Claims 18-20 and 23-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “a first fixed hub and a first rotary hub each coupled to the first electric motor, the first fixed hub coupled to, and received within, a first receiving port of a body of the retrofit loader and the first rotary hub coupled to the first external drive; a second fixed hub and a second rotary hub each coupled to the second electric motor, the second fixed hub coupled to, and received within, a second receiving port of the body of the retrofit loader and the second rotary hub coupled to the second external drive” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose the fixed and rotary hubs received in a receiving port of a body of a retrofit loader as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argued that Wild and Bassis fail to disclose the new claim language. The Examiner agrees, hence the new rejection above using Shimada.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wang discloses steerable wheels so it would be improper to combine the references. The Examiner, however, maintains that they are combinable teachings because only the internal hub drive components are used from the teaching and the fact that they are steerable is therefore irrelevant. The internal drive mechanism can be used on steerable or non-steerable wheels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611