DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 21, 2022. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 – 12 in the reply filed on December 30, 2025 is acknowledged. As such, claims 13 – 19 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 – 12 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they include rectangular boxes without appropriate legends. For example, elements 1, 7, 11, 13 – 16 and 21 – 26 need appropriate legends. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes in a circuit are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. See 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 1.84(o).
Suitable descriptive legends are required by the examiner as necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible. See 37 CFR 1.84(o). Enlarging Figures 3 and 4 and then placing each drawing on a separate sheet may help. 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0121870 A1 to Lee (herein after “Lee” or "Lee publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 and 12,
the Lee publication discloses an electric four-wheel drive (E-4WD) system for a motor vehicle (see FIG. 5 and ¶62), the E-4WD system comprising:
wheel motors (511, 512, 513, 514), each wheel motor of four of the wheel motors being configured as an electric motor to drive one respective wheel associated therewith,
wherein each wheel motor includes a stator implemented on a suspension structure of the respective wheel and a rotor implemented on a semi-axle connected to the respective wheel to rotate together with the respective wheel relative to the stator, and wherein the wheel motors are configured to drive the respective wheels independently of each other (see FIG. 5; Note also that it is highly common and standard for an E-4WD hybrid electric vehicle to include driving wheels that are independently controlled, and the driving wheels are respectively driven or are braked and for electric wheel motors used in Electronic 4WD (E-4WD) or in-wheel motor systems to have a stator and a rotor. These two components are the core of nearly all electric traction motors, including the brushless DC (BLDC) motors typically found in hub configurations).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Lee publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0306193 A1 to Blom et al. (herein after “Blom et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 2 and 3,
the Lee publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the wheel motors being powered by at least one supercapacitor, and the at least one supercapacitor being configured to be recharged by regenerative braking.
Powering wheel motors with at least one supercapacitor and the at least one supercapacitor being recharged by regenerative braking is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Blom et al. publication who discloses that “[t]he secondary power mode may comprise regenerative braking of one or more-wheel motors such that electric energy generated by the respective wheel motor is transferred to the primary power supply and/or to a capacitor of the respective drive unit. The wheel motors thereby operate as generators to harvest energy from the braking. The secondary power mode may comprise electrically powering the steering motor by means of one or more capacitors. For example, a supercapacitor may be provided in each drive unit for electrically powering the steering motors.” (See ¶39.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Lee publication so that the wheel motors is powered by at least one supercapacitor, and the at least one supercapacitor is configured to be recharged by regenerative braking, as taught by the Blom et al. publication, in order to enable energy efficient braking.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Lee publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0255052 A1 to Jansen et al. (herein after “Jansen et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 4 and 5,
the Lee publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the wheel motors being configured as radial flux permanent magnet motors, and wherein one or several rotor magnets of each respective rotor are mounted on and/or are integrated in the respective semi-axle, and the rotor magnets of each rotor being configured as circumferential shell elements arranged around an axial direction of the respective semi-axle.
It is very common for electric wheel motors (in-wheel motors) to use Radial Flux Permanent Magnet (RFPM) motors, specifically with an outer-rotor topology where the rotor is mounted directly to the hub/semi-axle. While axial flux motors are gaining attention for high-performance, compact applications, RFPM motors dominate the market due to their mature technology, high torque density, and lower manufacturing costs. For example, the Jansen et al. publication discloses that “[t]he the in-wheel motor is an in-wheel motor from the group of axial flux permanent magnet motors, radial flux permanent magnet motors, reluctance motors and inductance motors.” (See ¶58 – ¶61.) Such disclosure suggests the wheel motors being configured as radial flux permanent magnet motors, and wherein one or several rotor magnets of each respective rotor are mounted on and/or are integrated in the respective semi-axle, and the rotor magnets of each rotor being configured as circumferential shell elements arranged around an axial direction of the respective semi-axle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Lee publication so that the wheel motors is configured as radial flux permanent magnet motors, and wherein one or several rotor magnets of each respective rotor are mounted on and/or are integrated in the respective semi-axle, and the rotor magnets of each rotor is configured as circumferential shell elements arranged around an axial direction of the respective semi-axle, as taught by the Jansen et al. publication, in order to provide the drive motors with increased traction as well as offer a balance of efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Lee publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0035203 A1 to Arakawa et al. (herein after “Arakawa et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 6 and 7,
the Lee publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a motor control configured to activate and control the wheel motors selectively to provide dynamic torque management of the respective wheels on demand during a driving situation, wherein the dynamic torque management includes active torque vectoring.
The Arakawa et al. publication discloses “[a] control system for a driving motor comprising at least two driving motors individually connected with a wheel of a vehicle to drive the wheel; a clutch, which is interposed between each driving motors and the wheels to transmit a torque of the driving motor selectively to the wheel; at least two current control means connected individually with the driving motors to supply current thereto; and a switching means that switches an electrical connection in a manner to supply the current to both of the driving motors from one of the current control means by interrupting the current supply from the other current control means. According to [Arakawa], the clutch is adapted to interrupt torque transmission in case the switching mechanism switches the electrical connection in a manner to supply the current to both of the driving motors from one of the current control means to drive the vehicle.” (See ¶7.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests a motor control configured to activate and control the wheel motors selectively to provide dynamic torque management of the respective wheels on demand during a driving situation in order to offers significant improvements in vehicle handling, safety, and performance by independently adjusting the power to each wheel.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Lee publication with a motor control configured to activate and control the wheel motors selectively to provide dynamic torque management of the respective wheels on demand during a driving situation, wherein the dynamic torque management includes active torque vectoring, as suggested by the Arakawa et al. publication, in order to offers significant improvements in vehicle handling, safety, and performance by independently adjusting the power to each wheel.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Lee publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0025131 A1 to Gloceri et al. (herein after “Gloceri et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 8 and 9,
the Lee publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the motor control being configured to provide the dynamic torque management depending on at least one of a driver steering angle request, a current yaw angle, or a current vehicle speed, and wherein the motor control is configured to provide additional electric torque to the respective wheels during acceleration phases depending on a driver acceleration request.
The Gloceri et al. publication discloses “an electric propulsion module provid[ing] individual wheel torque management using an electric-only drive as well as an apparatus that allows energy to be sent to either wheel through independent electric motors and a partial or full "locking" feature that connects the two electric machines together when commanded to do so. The description below and elsewhere refers to the overall system, overall control of the system as well as a method of using the "locking" feature when vehicle conditions meet one or more of the following conditions: (1) wheel spin detected under driving mode; (2) vehicle yaw, compared to driver steering input; exceeds an error threshold that allows differential torque and/or locking of side to side device to correct yaw error, keeping the vehicle stable; (3) off road mode is detected, automatically, or through the activation of a user switch, to "lock" the two drive wheels together to improve low coefficient of friction (internal combustion engine/snow) traction and/or off-road functionality; or (4) high power "launch" mode is detected (high levels of accelerator request and little to no steering input detected), allowing system to lock side to side torque generation to improve initial traction resulting in maximum acceleration. The departure from the above conditions may also be detected (or manually invoked) to reduce or reverse the wheel torque coupling provided by the clutch” (See ¶108.)
According to Gloceri, “[the] electric propulsion axle provides individual wheel torque management, which enhances safety similar to brake-based yaw stability control. To implement this, the controller may be programmed using the event triggers that ordinarily invoke active stability control, such as threshold error of steering input (and concomitant predicted yaw rate) against measured yaw rate.” (See ¶116.)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosure suggests the motor control being configured to provide the dynamic torque management depending on at least one of a driver steering angle request, a current yaw angle, or a current vehicle speed and to provide additional electric torque to the respective wheels during acceleration phases depending on a driver acceleration request.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Lee publication so that the motor control is configured to provide the dynamic torque management depending on at least one of a driver steering angle request, a current yaw angle, or a current vehicle speed and to provide additional electric torque to the respective wheels during acceleration phases depending on a driver acceleration request, as suggested by the Gloceri et al. publication, in order to provide components that allows the vehicle platform to be adapted by adding a variety of drive features with minimal modification of vehicle designs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are 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.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights