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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18, 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 respectively have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of
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.
Claim(s) 14, 6-7, 10, 13-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (WO 2018043398) in view of Hua (CN114313054) and Okano (JP2004190787).
As to independent claim 1, Okamura teaches discloses a speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine comprising: a connection shaft [56] (i.e., the disclosed “rotor yoke 56”) comprising a first section, a second section and an accommodation space, wherein the first section [56a] and the second section [56b] are arranged in an axial direction, the accommodation space (see fig. 1) is in communication between a front end and a rear end of the connection shaft [56], an elliptical cam [12] is formed on an outer surface of the second section [56b] of the connection shaft [56], and an outer diameter of the first section [56a] is greater than a major axis length of the elliptical cam (i.e., the outer diameter of the first section [56a] is greater than a major length, measured along a major axis direction, from one point on an outer peripheral surface of the elliptical cam to an opposite point on the outer peripheral surface of the elliptical cam, as understood); a motor [3] received within the accommodation space and connected to an inner surface of the first section [56a] (i.e., the rotor’s magnet [57] of the motor is connected to an inner surface of the first section [56a]); and a speed reducer (14, 15) connected to the outer surface of the second section [56b] as shown in figures 1, 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
447
1306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However Okamura teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the motor comprises an encoder fixed on the front end of the connection shaft and located beside the first section, and the encoder is configured to measure a rotational speed and an angle information of the connection shaft.
Hua teaches an cam is integrate with the rotor (see page 5, lines 7-8), for the advantageous benefit of reducing the weight and miniaturize the power module.
Okano teaches a connection shaft (5, 21) is integrally (see page 4, line 11) the motor comprises an encoder (10) fixed on the front end of the connection shaft (5, 21) and located beside the first section, and the encoder (10) is configured to measure a rotational speed and an angle information of the connection shaft (5, 21) as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of controlling the rotation output.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Okamura by using the motor comprises an encoder fixed on the front end of the connection shaft and located beside the first section, and the encoder is configured to measure a rotational speed and an angle information of the connection shaft, as taught by Hua and Okano, to reduce the weight and miniaturize the power module and control the rotation output.
RE claim 2, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 1, wherein the motor comprises a stator [51], a rotating element [55] and a central shaft [4], the central shaft passes through the stator [51] and is arranged along the axial direction, and the rotating element [55] is spatially corresponding to the stator, wherein the inner surface of the first section [56a] of the connection shaft is concentrically sleeved on the rotating element [55] of the motor, so as to collaboratively form a rotor of the motor, wherein the central shaft [4] and the stator [51] are received in the accommodation space.
RE claim 3, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 2, wherein the speed reducer [14/15] is concentrically sleeved on the connection shaft [56] and comprises a speed-reducer output shaft, which is connected to the outer surface of the second section of the connection shaft through a first bearing [13] (see para [0026]-[0030]).
RE claim 4, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 3, wherein an inner surface of the second section [56b] of the connection shaft [56] is concentrically sleeved on the central shaft [4] of the motor through a second bearing [17 or 18] in the radial direction.
RE claim 6, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 2, further comprising an end cover [14b] disposed adjacent to the front end of the connection shaft [56] and fixed to an end of the central shaft [4] of the motor (via bolt 5, see fig. 1).
RE claim 7, Okamura in view of Hua and Okano discloses the claimed invention, except for the encoder is further fixed on the end cover.
Okano teaches the encoder (10) is further fixed on the end cover (7) as shown in figure 1, for the advantageous benefit of controlling the rotation output.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Okamura in view of Hua and Okano by using the encoder is further fixed on the end cover, as taught by Okano, to control the rotation output.
RE claim 10, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 6, the speed reducer comprises a fixed end [14a] connected to the end cover [14b], the fixed end [14a] of the speed reducer, the first section [56a] of the connection shaft, and the rotating element [55], the stator [52] and the central shaft [4] of the motor are arranged radially from the outside to the inside (see fig 1).
RE claim 13, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 1, as shown in figs. 1-2, the elliptical cam has the major axis length and a minor axis length, wherein the minor axis length is greater than an inner diameter of the second section, and the minor axis length is not greater than an outer diameter of the first section (i.e., the elliptical cam has the major length and a minor length, as understood in light of the spec (see above foregoing explanations), the minor length is greater than an inner diameter of the second section [56b]), and the minor length is not greater than an outer diameter of the first section [56a], see figs. 1-2).
RE claim 14, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 13, wherein gear meshing [15] in the speed reducer [2] has a pitch circle diameter, which is not smaller than the outer diameter of the first section [56a] (figs. 1-2).
RE claim 16, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 1, wherein the first section [56a] and the second section [56b] of the connection shaft [56] are integrally formed into one piece.
RE claim 17, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 1, wherein the connection shaft [56] is configured to form a motor output shaft, and connected to the rotating element [55] of the motor through the inner surface of the first section [56a] of the connection shaft, wherein when the motor is rotated, the speed reducer is driven through the connection shaft.
RE claim 18, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine according to claim 1, wherein the connection shaft [56] is configured to form a reducer input shaft and connected to a speed-reducer output shaft [16] (i.e., the disclosed output part 16) through the outer surface of the second section [56b] of the connection shaft and the first bearing [13], wherein when the motor is rotated, the speed reducer [2] is driven through the connection shaft [56].
Claim 5, as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (WO 2018043398), Hua (CN114313054) and Okano (JP2004190787), as applied in claim 4 and further in view of Okamura (JP 2016029877) hereinafter Okamura ‘877.
RE claim 5, Okamura discloses the claimed invention, particularly the arrangement as in claim 4 (see the foregoing explanations regarding claim 4).
Okamura’877 teaches a speed-reducer-and-motor machine (see para [0061] and Fig. 5) comprising the inner surface of the second section (magnet holding portion 231C) of the connecting shaft is concentrically installed on the central shaft (shaft 22C) of the motor along the radial direction via the second bearing (first bearing 71C), as in claim 4, wherein the speed-reducer output shaft [40C], the first bearing, the second section [231C] of the connection shaft, the second bearing [71C] and the central shaft [22C] of the motor are arranged radially from the outside to the inside, as in claim 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
406
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, by applying the Okamura’877 important teaching concept for arranging the machine components to reduce vibration and noise and enhance support, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the prior art by configuring the prior art machine such that the prior art machine’s an inner surface of the second section of the connection shaft is concentrically sleeved on the central shaft of the motor through a second bearing in the radial direction, wherein the speed-reducer output shaft, the first bearing, the second section of the connection shaft, the second bearing and the central shaft of the motor are arranged radially from the outside to the inside, as in claim 5. Doing so would provide the machine with improved support and component arrangements that would reduce vibration and noise, as taught by Okamura’877.
Claims 11-12, as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (WO 2018043398), Hua (CN114313054) and Okano (JP2004190787), as applied in claims 2, and further in view of Kobayashi (WO 2016024340).
RE claims 11, Okamura in view of Hua and Okano teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except the central shaft of the motor is extended outwardly through the front end of the connection shaft, and the motor includes a circuit board fixed on an outer periphery of the central shaft, received in the accommodation space and disposed adjacent to the front end of the connection shaft.
Kobayashi teaches a speed-reducer-and-motor machine according to claim 2, wherein the central shaft [9b] of the motor is extended outwardly through the front end of the connection shaft [25], and the motor includes a circuit board [14] fixed on an outer periphery of the central shaft [9b], received in the accommodation space and disposed adjacent to the front end of the connection shaft [25] as shown in figure 3, for the advantageous benefit of improving support rigidity of the rotor
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Okamura in view of Hua and Okano by using the central shaft of the motor is extended outwardly through the front end of the connection shaft, and the motor includes a circuit board fixed on an outer periphery of the central shaft, received in the accommodation space and disposed adjacent to the front end of the connection shaft, as taught by Kobayashi, to improve support rigidity of the rotor.
RE claims 12, Okamura in view of Hua and Okano teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except the circuit board is externally connected through a motor outlet, and the motor outlet is externally connected through a hollow portion of the central shaft.
Kobayashi teaches as shown in fig. 3, the circuit board [14] is externally connected through a motor outlet, and the motor outlet (via wires [17]) is externally connected through a hollow portion [4a/16] of the central shaft [9b], for the advantageous benefit of improving support rigidity of the rotor
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Okamura in view of Hua and Okano by using the circuit board is externally connected through a motor outlet, and the motor outlet is externally connected through a hollow portion of the central shaft, as taught by Kobayashi, to improve support rigidity of the rotor.
Claims 8 and 15, as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura, as applied in the base claims.
RE claim 8, those skilled in the art would understand that Okamura discloses the machine with provided bearings are arranged to rotatably support the connection shaft, the output shaft, the central shaft. Moreover, generally bearings are well-known rotatably support in a rotary machine. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the prior art by providing a third bearing such that the front end of the connection shaft is connected to the end cover through a third bearing. Doing so would enhance support thereto, and would be a matter of obvious engineering design choice requiring only ordinary knowledge and necessary mechanical skills in the art.
RE claim 15, Okamura discloses the speed-reducer-and-motor all-on-one machine, wherein gear meshing in the speed reducer has a pitch circle diameter, which is not smaller than the outer diameter of the first section, as in claim 14. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the prior art by configuring the gear reducer such that a design parameter is defined by the pitch circle diameter relative to the difference between the major axis length and the minor axis length, and the design parameter is ranged from 18 to 92, as in claim 15. Doing so would be a matter of obvious engineering design choice based on a particular require output that would be one of design factors to determine size of the machine’s connection shaft and/or the size of the speed reducer. Moreover, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this instant case, it would involve only routine skill in the art to discover an optimum/workable range from 18 to 92 of the design parameter defined by the pitch circle diameter relative to the difference between the major axis length and the minor axis length.
Claims 9 and 11, as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (WO 2018043398), Hua (CN114313054) and Okano (JP2004190787), as applied in the claims 1 and 6 and further in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20130004348)
Okamura in view of Hua and Okano discloses the claimed invention, except for the above listed claims.
RE claim 9, Sugiyama et al. teaches an electric rotary machine comprising a connection shaft [121] (i.e., disclosed as cup 121 defining rotating portion [2] of the motor [11], see para [0055]). The connection shaft [121] is configure such that the outer diameter of the first section [124] is gradually increased to a constant value along a direction away from the second section [123].
PNG
media_image3.png
625
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
RE claim 11, alternately Sugiyama et al. teaches electric rotary machine according to claim 2, wherein the central shaft [31] of the motor is extended outwardly through the front end of the connection shaft [121], and the motor includes a circuit board [14] fixed on an outer periphery of the central shaft, received in the accommodation space and disposed adjacent to the front end of the connection shaft [121].
Thus, by applying the Sugiyama et al. important teaching concepts, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the prior art by configuring the prior art connection shaft such that the outer diameter of the first section is gradually increased to a constant value along a direction away from the second section, as in claim 9, or providing a circuit board that is arranged as in claim 11. Doing so would respectively (i) reduce friction and/or generated noise during the connection shaft’s rotation; (ii) providing electric circuit control means for the machine. Also, as for the shape of the connection shaft, as in claims 9 and 11, it would be a matter of obvious engineering design choice based on space availability of the machine to configure the shape of the connection shaft and arrange the circuit board. Moreover, as for claim 9, it has been held that a change in size/shape (i.e., the prior art connection shaft’s size/shape) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (emphasis added).
Claim 20, as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (WO 2018043398), Hua (CN114313054) and Okano (JP2004190787), as applied in the claim 1 and further in view of Li (CN 106100205).
Okamura in view of Hua and Okano discloses the claimed invention, except for the above listed claim.
Li teaches a speed-reducer-and-motor machine comprising an oil storage space [25] (i.e., disclosed second oil chamber 25) is formed between the speed reducer [11] and a peripheral wall of the connection shaft (i.e., disclosed as rotor hub) of the rotor [3] (see fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
722
930
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Those skilled in the art would understand that, owing to the Okamura structure comprising the motor with rotor received within the accommodation space define by the connection shaft [56] and a speed reducer [14/15] connected to the outer surface of the second section [56b] of the connection shaft [56] (see the above included fig. 1 of Okamura), it would have been obvious to an artisan to apply the Li important teaching concepts of configuring an oil storage space located between the speed reducer and outer peripheral wall of the connection shaft for lubricating/cooling the motor/rotor, while reducing manufacturing cost and saving the hub motor space.
Thus, owing to the Okamura in view of Hua and Okano machine’s structural features and by applying the Li important teaching concepts, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the prior art by configuring an oil storage space is formed between the prior art machine’s speed reducer and an outer peripheral wall of the connection shaft of the prior art machine. Doing so would provide lubricating/cooling means to effective remove generated heat in the connection shaft and the rotor, while reducing manufacturing cost and saving motor space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 EST.
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 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.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 January 22, 2026