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 .
Summary
The IDs filed on 12/19/2025 has been fully considered. The amendments filed on 12/30/2025 have been entered, no new matter has been added. The arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered, and are not persuasive. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/30/2025 have been entered, no new matter has been added. Claim 10 is amended. Claim 16 is canceled.
Response to Argument
The arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered, and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the 102 rejection based on Matsuoka is deficient and the claim ought to be allowed over Matsuoka. In particular, applicant argues that Matsuoka fails to teach “wherein the mounting surface is arranged on the inboard side, wherein the rotor couples the mounting surface to the stator only via the inboard side” (emphasis added by applicant in remarks filed 12/30/2025).
Part of these argument is based on applicant’s interpretation that 11 “shaft,” is the stator not 31 “a casing” as cited in the previous office action. Applicant does not explain why the 11 “shaft” could be interpreted as the stator, but they do argue that 31 is unreasonable to interpret as a stator because it is “the casing of the in-wheel motor 30 rather than the stator itself.” This argument is not persuasive. Figure 4 teaches 31 “a casing” as a casing for the stator fixedly attached to the stator 33, and the shaft 11 (also taught by column 6 lines 33-36 “An outward end of the casing 31 in the vehicle width direction is non-rotatably fixed to the outer periphery of the shaft 11. The stator 32 is fixed to an inner surface of the casing 31”). It would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to identify the casing 31 as a part of the stator, because the casing of a stator is often considered part of the stator. Applicant’s alternate interpretation that the shaft 11 is the stator is also reasonable, because it is reasonable to consider a part fixedly connected to the stator, and proximate to the stator, to be part of the stator. Regardless, because it is reasonable to consider the casing 31 as the stator, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that when the claimed central plane is drawn from a center of the motor stator, a portion of the rotor is located on the outboard side of the central plane. To support this interpretation, applicant includes an annotated figure 4 with a central plane and alternative mounting surface drawn in. Thus, applicant argues that Matsuoka does not teach “that the rotor couples the mounting surface to the stator only via the inboard side” (emphasis added by applicant). This argument is not persuasive.
First, applicant’s interpretation of where a central plane might be drawn is reasonable, but not the only reasonable central plane that can be drawn in accordance with the limitations of claim 1. All the claim requires is that the central plane needs to extend through a center of the stator and be perpendicular to the axis of rotation (there are further restrictions on the definition of inboard and outboard sides of the central plane, but those are not currently disputed). Thus is it reasonable to pick any central point of the stator’s axis of rotation along the outward direction as the center, which defines the central plane. For the sake of example, second annotated figure 4 is included below (this is referred to as “second annotated figure 4” in order to distinguish it from applicant’s annotated figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
665
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notably, this interpretation of a center being any central point of the stator’s axis of rotation along the outward direction is taught by applicant. In applicant’s figure 6 (included below for clarity) the central plane 216 of the stator 120 has a center on the far outboard side of the stator.
PNG
media_image2.png
528
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second, applicant’s interpretation of a mounting surface is strange. Notably, when entered into the application, drawings are converted to black and white, so applicant’s description of the mounting surface as “green-highlighted,” in the annotated figure is not clear. Nevertheless, examiner believes that applicant is referring to a faint gray line above and touching element 21 in their annotated figure 4, because that line is not present in the original figure 4. This line running through the tire could be reasonably interpreted as the mounting surface of the tire or wheel rim, but not the claimed, “the rotor has a mounting surface,” because this line could not be reasonably interpreted as a mounting surface of the rotor. Instead, it is reasonable to interpret the flange 36 that the rotor 34 uses to mount to the wheel rim 21 as the mounting surface of the rotor, as set forth in the previous office action. Applicant does argue against this interpretation, saying that the flange 36 actually connects to a wheel hub 23, not the wheel rim 21. This argument is not persuasive because wheel hub 23 and wheel rim 21 are unibody, and thus connecting the flange 36 to the wheel hub 23 can be interpreted as either directly or indirectly connecting the flange 36 to the wheel rim 21.
Taking these two arguments together, figure 4 of Matsuoka teaches a central plane as claimed by claim 1 which has the entirety of the mounting surface and rotor on the inboard side of said central plane (further clarified by second annotated figure 4 attached above). Thus, Matsuoka does teach that, “the rotor couples the mounting surface to the stator only via the inboard side,” and all other limitations of claim 1.
Regarding all other claims, applicant argues that the deficiencies of the rejection to claim 1 are inherited by the rejections to the claims which depend upon claim 1 and thus all other claims are allowable. Because the rejection to claim 1 is maintained, this argument is not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/19/2025 has been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112 rejections of the previous office action filed on 10/2/2023 have been overcome by amendments.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 10562343 B2).
Regarding claim 1 Matsuoka teaches a wheel system for a vehicle, the wheel system comprising:
a stator (31 “casing” taught by figure 4);
a rotor (34 “output shaft” taught by figure 4);
a rotational bearing (35 “ball bearings” taught by figure 4); and
an inwheel motor comprising a motor stator (32 “stator” taught in figure 4) and a motor rotor (33 “rotor” taught in figure 4), wherein the rotor is coupled to the stator via the rotational bearing to rotate about a rotational axis (taught by figure 4),
wherein the motor stator is connected to the stator (taught by figure 4),
wherein the motor rotor is connected to the rotor to cooperate with the motor stator to generate an electromagnetic force to rotate the rotor relative to the stator about the rotational axis (taught by figure 4),
wherein the motor stator has a center defining a central plane extending through the center and perpendicular to the rotational axis (taught by figure 4),
wherein the central plane has an inboard side and an outboard side (taught by figure 4),
wherein, in operational use, the inboard side faces toward a center of the vehicle, and the outboard side faces away from the center of the vehicle (taught by figure 4), wherein the rotor has a mounting surface (36 “flange” taught by figure 4) configured to be connected to a wheel rim (21 “rim” taught by figure 4),
wherein the mounting surface is arranged on the inboard side (taught by figure 4), and wherein the rotor couples the mounting surface to the stator only via the inboard side (taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka also teaches wherein the inwheel motor is one of an axial flux motor and a radial flux motor (taught by figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka also teaches a cover plate connected to the rotor, wherein the cover plate is arranged on the outboard side of the central plane, wherein the cover plate is configured to axially cover the inwheel motor (40 “motor cover” taught in figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka also teaches wherein the rotor radially encloses the stator (taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka teaches wherein at least part of the rotational bearing is arranged closer to the central plane than the mounting surface is arranged to the central plane (taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka teaches wherein the wheel rim comprises two bead seats for holding a tire, wherein the wheel rim defines a central rim plane in a radial direction of the wheel rim (19 “tire” and 20 “wheel” taught in figure 4), wherein the two bead seats are arranged symmetrically at opposite sides of the central rim plane (taught by figure 4), wherein the wheel rim comprises a mounting body configured to connect to the mounting surface (23 “hub” taught in figure 4), wherein the mounting body is arranged at least partly on an inboard side of the central rim plane (taught in figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 10, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka also teaches wherein the rotational bearing is arranged aligned with the central rim plane (taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 10, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka also teaches a fastener, such as a wheel nut, to clamp the mounting body between the mounting surface and the fastener (37 “bolts” taught by figure 4), wherein the wheel rim comprises a rim well arranged between the bead seats, wherein at least part of the fastener is arranged on an outboard side of the rim well (taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 11, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka also teaches wherein the wheel rim comprises a wheel cap, wherein the wheel cap is arranged on an outboard side of the central rim plane, wherein the wheel cap is configured to axially cover at least part of an inner space radially enclosed by the wheel rim (40 “motor cover” taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 13, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka also teaches wherein the wheel cap comprises a center hole for balancing the wheel rim on a balancing machine (43 “center hole” taught in figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka also teaches a vehicle comprising the wheel system (100 “electric vehicle” taught by figure 1).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 10562343 B2) in view of Toida (US 5691584 A).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
However, Matsuoka does not teach wherein the mounting surface is radially outward of the motor rotor.
Toida teaches wherein the mounting surface is radially outward of the motor rotor (6a “outer casing” taught in figure 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the mounting surface of Toida onto the rotor and rim of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a second connection between the rotor and the wheel rim increases the strength of the connection.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 10562343 B2) in view of Kawamura (US 10752104 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka does not teach wherein the motor stator comprises a plurality of coils, wherein the coils are configured to cooperate with the motor rotor under control of an electrical current through the coils to generate the electromagnetic force, wherein the central plane extends through a center of the coils.
Kawamura teaches wherein the motor stator comprises a plurality of coils, wherein the coils are configured to cooperate with the motor rotor under control of an electrical current through the coils to generate the electromagnetic force (18b “coils” taught in figure 3), wherein the central plane extends through a center of the coils (taught by figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the coils of Kawamura into the motor stator of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because the coils act as a magnet allowing the stator to cause the rotor to rotate.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuoka in view of Kawamura teaches the wheel system of claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Matsuoka does not teach wherein the motor rotor comprises a plurality of magnets to cooperate with the plurality of coils to generate the electromagnetic force.
Kawamura teaches wherein the motor rotor comprises a plurality of magnets to cooperate with the plurality of coils to generate the electromagnetic force (taught by figure 3 and column 8 lines 22-24 “Alternatively, the motor rotor 19 may be formed of permanent magnets and a magnetic material.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the magnets of Kawamura into the motor rotor of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because the magnets allowing the rotor to rotate in response to a magnetic field generated by the stator.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 10562343 B2) in view of Kawamura (US 10752104 B2), and in further view of Toida (US 5691584 A).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuoka teaches the wheel system of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Matsuoka does not teach a brake system having a brake disk and a caliper, wherein the brake disk is connected to the rotor, wherein the brake disk and the caliper are configured to contact each other at a force location to generate a brake force, wherein the mounting surface is radially outward of the force location.
Kawamura teaches a brake system having a brake disk (12 “brake rotor” taught in figure 4) and a caliper (16 “brake caliper” taught in figure 4), wherein the brake disk is connected to the rotor, wherein the brake disk and the caliper are configured to contact each other at a force location to generate a brake force (taught by figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the brakes of Kawamura onto the rotor of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because Kawamura does not teach a brake assembly, and having one would allow the vehicle to stop faster.
However, If the brakes of Kawamura are incorporated onto the rotor of Matsuoka, then the mounting surface cannot be radially outward of the force location, because the mounting surface of Matsuoka does not give room for brakes to be radially inward of it.
Toida teaches wherein the mounting surface is radially outward of the force location (6a “outer casing” taught in figure 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the mounting surface of Toida onto the rotor and rim of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a second connection between the rotor and the wheel rim increases the strength of the connection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613