DETAILED ACTION
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, 2, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama (US 20220314711) in view of Seki (US 20180209518) and in further view of Yamauchi (US 20150028691)
Regarding claim 1, Kuwayama teaches a wireless power transfer (WPT) device (shown in figure 1) comprising:
at least one in-wheel electric motor of an electric vehicle (figure 4 item 4 defined in paragraph [0139] as an in-wheel motor) comprising a coil (figure 4 item 30 defined in [0056] as a receiving coil, which receives power transmitted externally from power transmission coil item 4).
Kuwayama shows an in-wheel motor system with a power receiving coil item 31, which receives power transmitted from power transmission coil item 41, but does not explicitly teach comprising a rotor and a stator disposed concentrically with the rotor, wherein the stator comprises at least one phase coil; a resonant network; at least one switch configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the at least one phase coil and disconnect the resonant network from the at least one phase coil; and at least one processing device configured to: determine that the at least one phase coil is adjacent to at least one transmitter coil of a WPT transmitter that transmits high-frequency AC power; and operate the at least one switch to close a connection between the resonant network and the at least one phase coil, wherein the at least one phase coil is configured as a receiver coil to receive the high- frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the at least one switch is closed.
Seki teaches a rotor and a stator disposed concentrically with the rotor, wherein the stator comprises at least one phase coil (shown in figure 2 defined in [0026] as a rotor item 22, a stator 23, and a three-phase coil item 24. Figure 2 shows the rotor 22, stator 23 and three phase coil concentrically arranged as they share the same axis, a first axis, R1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama reference with the charging system of the Seki reference so that a continuously variable transmission is provided in a power transmission path between an in-wheel motor and a wheel.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Seki reference in paragraph [0005] wherein a continuously variable transmission is taught.
Kuwayama and Seki in combination teach an wireless power transmission system within an in-wheel motor device. Wherein the in-wheel motor device includes a stator, a rotor and a three-phase coil. But the combination of the two systems do not explicitly teach a resonant network; at least one switch configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the at least one phase coil and disconnect the resonant network from the at least one phase coil; and at least one processing device configured to: determine that the at least one phase coil is adjacent to at least one transmitter coil of a WPT transmitter that transmits high-frequency AC power; and operate the at least one switch to close a connection between the resonant network and the at least one phase coil, wherein the at least one phase coil is configured as a receiver coil to receive the high- frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the at least one switch is closed.
Yamauchi teaches a resonant network (figure 28 item 240 and 220 defined in paragraph [0190] as a resonant circuit 220, a coupling coefficient-estimating resonant circuit 240);
at least one switch configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the at least one phase coil and disconnect the resonant network from the at least one phase coil (figure 28 item 242 shows a switch connected between a coil item 201 a resonant network items 220 and 240); and
at least one processing device (shown in figures 1, 26 item 20 defined as a controller) configured to: determine that the at least one phase coil is adjacent to at least one transmitter coil of a WPT transmitter that transmits high-frequency AC power (paragraphs [0061 discloses wherein a position sensor 99 determines if the transmitter coil, a primary winding 101 is adjacent to a secondary winding. The controller uses the information from the position sensor to estimate a coupling state between the primary winding 101 and the secondary winding 201); and
operate the at least one switch to close a connection between the resonant network and the at least one phase coil, wherein the at least one phase coil is configured as a receiver coil to receive the high- frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the at least one switch is closed (paragraph [0192] discloses wherein the switch is operated by the controller 20 to close the switch or control the power feeding between the transmitter coil and resonant network).
Combining the Kuwayama, Seki and Yamauchi references creates a wireless power transfer system within an in-wheel motor device that switches a connection between a coil and a resonant network. Yamauchi teaches an wireless power transfer system within a vehicle, this system is obvious to be combined within wireless power transfer system in an in-wheel motor device control the power exchanged between the transmission and reception coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama and Seki references with the charging system of the Yamauchi reference so that the control time for the output power to reach an available output power to the load is reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Yamauchi reference in paragraph [0006] wherein the control time is reduced.
PNG
media_image1.png
729
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kuwayama figure 1 shows an in-wheel motor item 30 with a wireless power transfer system\
PNG
media_image2.png
768
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Seki figure 2 shows an in-wheel motor with a rotor 22, a stator 23 and three-phase coils 24
PNG
media_image3.png
595
754
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yamauchi figure 28 shows a switching circuit 242 between a coil 201 and resonant network circuits 220 and 240
Regarding claim 2 Kuwayama teaches the WPT device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach comprising: a non-conducting, non-magnetic support disposed concentrically with and at least in part within a gap between the at least one phase coil and the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter, wherein the support is connected to and configured to support at least the rotor.
Seki teaches a non-conducting, non-magnetic support disposed concentrically with and at least in part within a gap between the at least one phase coil and the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter, wherein the support is connected to and configured to support at least the rotor (figure 2 shows a support, interpreted as a housing item 21 which is concentrically with and within the gap between the coil, item 24, and a transmitter disposed on the ground and supports the rotor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama reference with the charging system of the Seki reference so that a continuously variable transmission is provided in a power transmission path between an in-wheel motor and a wheel.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Seki reference in paragraph [0005] wherein a continuously variable transmission is taught.
Regarding claim 9 Kuwayama and Seki teaches the WPT device according to claim 1, but do not explicitly teach comprising: a rectifier electrically coupled through the resonant network to the at least one phase coil, wherein the rectifier is configured to: rectify the high-frequency AC power received by the at least one phase coil; and output the rectified high-frequency AC power as DC power to an on- board battery charger.
Yamauchi teaches a rectifier electrically coupled through the resonant network to the at least one phase coil, wherein the rectifier is configured to: rectify the high-frequency AC power received by the at least one phase coil (figure 1 shows a rectifier item 71); and output the rectified high-frequency AC power as DC power to an on- board battery charger (paragraph [0055] discloses wherein the rectified output is to a load such as an on-board battery charger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama and Seki references with the charging system of the Yamauchi reference so that the control time for the output power to reach an available output power to the load is reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Yamauchi reference in paragraph [0006] wherein the control time is reduced.
Regarding claim 10 Kuwayama teaches the WPT device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the rectifier comprises a traction inverter of the in-wheel electric motor.
Seki teaches a traction inverter of the in-wheel electric motor (figure 2 item 3 paragraph [0016] discloses an inverter within the in-wheel motor).
Kuwayama and Seki do not explicitly teach a rectifier comprising an inverter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama reference with the charging system of the Seki reference so that a continuously variable transmission is provided in a power transmission path between an in-wheel motor and a wheel.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Seki reference in paragraph [0005] wherein a continuously variable transmission is taught.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the rectifier comprises a traction inverter of the in-wheel electric motor (paragraph [0053] teaches wherein a traction inverter is comprised within the system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama and Seki references with the charging system of the Yamauchi reference so that the control time for the output power to reach an available output power to the load is reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Yamauchi reference in paragraph [0006] wherein the control time is reduced.
Regarding claim 12 Kuwayama teaches the WPT device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach according to wherein the at least one phase coil is arranged in at least one of a single layer or a double layer.
Seki teaches wherein the at least one phase coil is arranged in at least one of a single layer or a double layer (shown in figure 2 defined in [0026] a three-phase coil item 24 in a single layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama reference with the charging system of the Seki reference so that a continuously variable transmission is provided in a power transmission path between an in-wheel motor and a wheel.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Seki reference in paragraph [0005] wherein a continuously variable transmission is taught.
Regarding claim 16 Kuwayama teaches the method for wireless power transfer (WPT) for an electric vehicle (shown in figure 1) including at least one in-wheel electric motor (figure 4 item 4 defined in paragraph [0139] as an in-wheel motor) comprising a coil (figure 4 item 30 defined in [0056] as a coil).
Kuwayama does not explicitly teach comprising a rotor and a stator disposed concentrically with the rotor, the method comprising: determining, by at least one processing device of a WPT device, that at least one phase coil of the stator is adjacent to at least one transmitter coil of an WPT transmitter that transmits high-frequency AC power; operating, by the at least one processing device, at least one switch to close a connection between a resonant network and the at least one phase coil; and receiving, by the at least one phase coil configured as a receiver coil, the high- frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the switch is closed.
Seki teaches comprising a rotor and a stator disposed concentrically with the rotor, (shown in figure 2 defined in [0026] as a rotor item 22, a stator 23, and a three-phase coil item 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama reference with the charging system of the Seki reference so that a continuously variable transmission is provided in a power transmission path between an in-wheel motor and a wheel.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Seki reference in paragraph [0005] wherein a continuously variable transmission is taught.
Kuwayama and Seki in combination teach an wireless power transmission system within an in-wheel motor device. Wherein the in-wheel motor device includes a stator, a rotor and a three-phase coil. But the combination of the two systems do not explicitly teach the method comprising: determining, by at least one processing device of a WPT device, that at least one phase coil of the stator is adjacent to at least one transmitter coil of an WPT transmitter that transmits high-frequency AC power; operating, by the at least one processing device, at least one switch to close a connection between a resonant network and the at least one phase coil; and receiving, by the at least one phase coil configured as a receiver coil, the high- frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the switch is closed.
Yamauchi teaches the method comprising: determining, by at least one processing device of a WPT device, that at least one phase coil of the stator is adjacent to at least one transmitter coil of an WPT transmitter that transmits high-frequency AC power (paragraphs [0061 discloses wherein a position sensor 99 determines if the transmitter coil, a primary winding 101 is adjacent to a secondary winding. The controller uses the information from the position sensor to estimate a coupling state between the primary winding 101 and the secondary winding 201);
operating, by the at least one processing device, at least one switch to close a connection between a resonant network and the at least one phase coil (figure 28 item 242 shows a switch connected between a coil item 201 a resonant network items 220 and 240); and
receiving, by the at least one phase coil configured as a receiver coil, the high- frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the switch is closed (paragraph [0192] discloses wherein the switch is operated by the controller 20 to close the switch to control the power feeding between the transmitter coil and resonant network).
Combining the Kuwayama, Seki and Yamauchi references creates a wireless power transfer system within an in-wheel motor device that switches a connection between a coil and a resonant network. Yamauchi teaches an wireless power transfer system within a vehicle, this system is obvious to be combined within wireless power transfer system in an in-wheel motor device control the power exchanged between the transmission and reception coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama and Seki references with the charging system of the Yamauchi reference so that the control time for the output power to reach an available output power to the load is reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Yamauchi reference in paragraph [0006] wherein the control time is reduced.
Claims 3, 8, 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama US 20220314711) in view of Seki (US 20180209518) and in further view of Yamauchi (US 20150028691) as applied to claims 1 and 16 and in further view of Crevier (US 20240186846).
Regarding claim 3 Kuwayama, Seki and Yamauchi teach the WPT device according claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the stator comprises a plurality of pairs of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the phase coils of each pair being electrically connected in series or parallel.
Crevier teaches wherein the stator comprises a plurality of pairs of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the phase coils of each pair being electrically connected in series or parallel (shown in figure 2 wherein a plurality of coils item 16 are arranged in serial connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Crevier reference so the in-wheel motor system can introduce a stream of cooling fluid to reduce overheating.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Crevier reference in paragraph [0011] wherein a preventing overheating is taught.
PNG
media_image4.png
421
415
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Crevier figure 6 shows wherein the stator is in between or inside the rotor
Regarding claim 8 Kuwayama, Seki and Yamauchi teaches the WPT device according to claim 1 wherein the non-conducting, non-magnetic support comprises a composite material.
Crevier teaches wherein the non-conducting, non-magnetic support comprises a composite material (defined in paragraphs [0058] and [0086] discloses wherein composite materials are used within the rotor and stator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Crevier reference so the in-wheel motor system can introduce a stream of cooling fluid to reduce overheating.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Crevier reference in paragraph [0011] wherein a preventing overheating is taught.
Regarding claim 11 Kuwayama teaches the WPT device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one coil is configured to receive the high-frequency AC power in a vertical direction (As disclosed above, Kuwwayama shows in figure 1 and discloses in [0020] an electromagnetic coil item 31 which receives high frequency AC power in a vertical direction from the power transmission device, power transmission coil item 40).
As disclosed above, Kuwayama does not explicitly teach at least one phase coil.
Seki teaches a three-phase coil (disclosed in paragraph [0026] wherein a three-phase electromagnetic coil is comprised within the system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama reference with the charging system of the Seki reference so that a continuously variable transmission is provided in a power transmission path between an in-wheel motor and a wheel.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Seki reference in paragraph [0005] wherein a continuously variable transmission is taught.
The combination of Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi do not explicitly teach wherein the stator is disposed inside the rotor.
Crevier teaches wherein the stator is disposed inside the rotor (figure 6 and 9 show a stator item 14 disposed inside the rotor item 10a and 10b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Crevier reference so the in-wheel motor system can introduce a stream of cooling fluid to reduce overheating.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Crevier reference in paragraph [0011] wherein a preventing overheating is taught.
Regarding claim 19 Kuwayama teaches the method according to the method according to claim 16 wherein the method comprises: receiving, by the at least one phase coil, the high-frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil in a vertical direction (shown figure 1).
The combination of Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi do not explicitly teach wherein the stator is disposed inside the rotor.
Crevier teaches wherein the stator is disposed inside the rotor (figure 6 and 9 show a stator item 14 disposed inside the rotor item 10a and 10b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Crevier reference so the in-wheel motor system can introduce a stream of cooling fluid to reduce overheating.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Crevier reference in paragraph [0011] wherein a preventing overheating is taught.
Claims 4, 6, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama (US 20220314711) in view of Seki (US 20180209518) and in further view of Yamauchi (US 20150028691) and in view of Crevier (US 20240186846) as applied to claim 3, and in further view of Mandelj (US 20160134220).
Regarding claim 4 Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier teach the WPT device according to claim 3, but do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: open an electrical connection between the at least one phase coil and its paired phase coil prior to receiving, by the at least one phase coil, the high-frequency AC power transmitted by the at least one transmitter coil.
Mandelj teaches wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: open an electrical connection between the at least one phase coil and its paired phase coil prior to receiving, by the at least one phase coil, the high-frequency AC power transmitted by the at least one transmitter coil (figures 3, 4, paragraphs [0009] and [0032] disclose wherein a phase coil or a phase winding is selected from a plurality of phase coils and wherein a connection is opened to at least one other phase coil to disconnect the phase coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier references with the charging system of the Mandelj reference so the in-wheel motor system can provide a cost-effective low voltage and high current electric motor which does not compromise on performance.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Mandelj reference in paragraph [0004] wherein a providing a low cost, yet high performance motor is taught.
PNG
media_image5.png
249
432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mandelj figure 3 shows wherein a phase coil is selected from a plurality of phase coils
Regarding claim 6 Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier teach the WPT device according to claim 3 but do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: select the at least one phase coil from the plurality of pairs of phase coils, that is adjacent to the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter; and open a connection to at least one other phase coil of the plurality of pairs of phase coils to disconnect the at least one other phase coil.
Mandelj teach wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: select the at least one phase coil from the plurality of pairs of phase coils, that is adjacent to the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter; and open a connection to at least one other phase coil of the plurality of pairs of phase coils to disconnect the at least one other phase coil (figures 3, 4, paragraphs [0009] and [0032] disclose wherein a phase coil or a phase winding is selected from a plurality of phase coils and wherein a connection is opened to at least one other phase coil to disconnect the phase coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier references with the charging system of the Mandelj reference so the in-wheel motor system can provide a cost-effective low voltage and high current electric motor which does not compromise on performance.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Mandelj reference in paragraph [0004] wherein a providing a low cost, yet high performance motor is taught.
Claims 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama (US 20220314711) in view of Seki (US 20180209518) and in further view of Yamauchi (US 20150028691) as applied to claim 1 and 16 and in view of Crevier (US 20240186846), and in further view of Mandelj (US 20160134220).
Regarding claim 13 Kuwayama and Seki teach the WPT device according to claim 1, wherein the at least some of the plurality of phase coils are configured as receiver coils to receive the polyphase high-frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil (Kuwayama teaches in paragraph [0022] discloses wherein the system may include any number of power receiving devices 30, which includes any number of receiver coils, to receive high frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil item 41. The Seki references teaches phase coils in paragraph [0026]) but do not explicitly teach wherein the stator comprises a plurality of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the plurality of phase coils in a polyphase arrangement, wherein the high-frequency AC power is polyphase high-frequency AC power, wherein the stator is disposed adjacent to the rotor in a horizontal direction, wherein the plurality of phase coils are configured to receive the polyphase high- frequency AC power in the horizontal direction from the WPT transmitter, wherein the at least one switch is configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the plurality of phase coils and disconnect the resonant network from the plurality of phase coils, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: operate the at least one switch to close a connection between the resonant network and at least some of the plurality of phase coils, and wherein the at least some of the plurality of phase coils are configured as receiver coils to receive the polyphase high-frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the at least one switch is closed.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: operate the at least one switch to close a connection between the resonant network and at least some of the plurality of coils, and wherein the at least some of the plurality of coils are configured as receiver coils to receive the high-frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the at least one switch is closed (as disclosed above, in claim 1, paragraph [0192] discloses wherein the switch is operated by the controller 20 to close the switch or control the power feeding between the transmitter coil and resonant network).
Combining the Kuwayama, Seki and Yamauchi references creates a wireless power transfer system within an in-wheel motor device that switches a connection between a coil and a resonant network. Yamauchi teaches a wireless power transfer system within a vehicle, this system is obvious to be combined within wireless power transfer system in an in-wheel motor device control the power exchanged between the transmission and reception coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama and Seki references with the charging system of the Yamauchi reference so that the control time for the output power to reach an available output power to the load is reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Yamauchi reference in paragraph [0006] wherein the control time is reduced.
Kuwayama, Seki and Yamauchi do not explicitly teach a plurality of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the plurality of phase coils in a polyphase arrangement, wherein the high-frequency AC power is polyphase high-frequency AC power, wherein the stator is disposed adjacent to the rotor in a horizontal direction, wherein the plurality of phase coils are configured to receive the polyphase high- frequency AC power in the horizontal direction from the WPT transmitter, wherein the at least one switch is configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the plurality of phase coils and disconnect the resonant network from the plurality of phase coils.
Crevier teaches the at least one phase coil, the plurality of phase coils in a polyphase arrangement (figure 2 shows a plurality of phase coils), wherein the high-frequency AC power is polyphase high-frequency AC power, wherein the stator is disposed adjacent to the rotor in a horizontal direction, wherein the plurality of phase coils are configured to receive the polyphase high- frequency AC power in the horizontal direction from the WPT transmitter (figure 6 and 9 show a horizontal arrangement of the stator and rotor).
Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one switch is configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the plurality of phase coils and disconnect the resonant network from the plurality of phase coils.
Mandelj teaches wherein the at least one switch is configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the plurality of phase coils and disconnect the resonant network from the plurality of phase coils (figures 3, 4, paragraphs [0009] and [0032] disclose wherein a phase coil or a phase winding is selected from a plurality of phase coils and wherein a connection is opened to at least one other phase coil to disconnect the phase coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Mandelj reference so the in-wheel motor system can provide a cost effective low voltage and high current electric motor which does not compromise on performance.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Mandelj reference in paragraph [0004] wherein a providing a low cost, yet high performance motor is taught.
Regarding claim 14 Kuwayama teaches the WPT device according to claim 13, but does not explicitly teach comprising: a non-conducting, non-magnetic support disposed at least in part within a gap between the plurality of phase coils and the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter, the support disposed parallel to a plane of the rotor and connected to the rotor to support at least the rotor.
Seki teaches comprising: a non-conducting, non-magnetic support disposed at least in part within a gap between the plurality of phase coils and the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter, the support disposed parallel to a plane of the rotor and connected to the rotor to support at least the rotor (figure 2 shows a support, interpreted as a housing item 21 which is concentrically with and within the gap between the coil, item 24, and a transmitter disposed on the ground and supports the rotor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama reference with the charging system of the Seki reference so that a continuously variable transmission is provided in a power transmission path between an in-wheel motor and a wheel.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Seki reference in paragraph [0005] wherein a continuously variable transmission is taught.
Regarding claim 15 Kuwayama teaches the WPT device according to claim 13, wherein a plurality of transmitter coils of the WPT transmitter configured to transmit the polyphase high-frequency AC power in the horizontal direction (figure 1).
The combination of Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of phase coils are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with, and spaced apart through a gap from.
Crevier wherein the plurality of phase coils are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence with, and spaced apart through a gap from (shown in figure 2 wherein a plurality of coils item 16 are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence and spaced apart through a gap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Crevier reference so the in-wheel motor system can introduce a stream of cooling fluid to reduce overheating.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Crevier reference in paragraph [0011] wherein a preventing overheating is taught.
Regarding claim 17, Kuwayama teaches the method according to the method according to claim 16, its paired phase coil prior to receiving, by the at least one phase coil, the high-frequency AC power transmitted by the at least one transmitter coil (figure 1).
Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi do not explicitly teach wherein the stator comprises a plurality of pairs of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the phase coils of each pair being connected in series; wherein the method comprises: opening a serial connection between the at least one phase coil.
Crevier teaches teach wherein the stator comprises a plurality of pairs of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the phase coils of each pair being connected in series; (shown in figure 2 wherein a plurality of coils item 16 are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence and spaced apart through a gap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Crevier reference so the in-wheel motor system can introduce a stream of cooling fluid to reduce overheating.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Crevier reference in paragraph [0011] wherein a preventing overheating is taught.
Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier do not explicitly teach wherein the method comprises: opening a serial connection between the at least one phase coil.
Mandelj teaches wherein the method comprises: opening a serial connection between the at least one phase coil (figures 3, 4, paragraphs [0009] and [0032] disclose wherein a phase coil or a phase winding is selected from a plurality of phase coils and wherein a connection is opened to at least one other phase coil to disconnect the phase coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Mandelj reference so the in-wheel motor system can provide a cost effective low voltage and high current electric motor which does not compromise on performance.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Mandelj reference in paragraph [0004] wherein a providing a low cost, yet high performance motor is taught.
Regarding claim 18 Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi teaches the method according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach comprising: selecting, by the at least one processing device, the at least one phase coil from the plurality of pairs of phase coils, that is adjacent to the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter.
Mandelj teaches comprising: selecting, by the at least one processing device, the at least one phase coil from the plurality of pairs of phase coils, that is adjacent to the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter (figures 3, 4, paragraphs [0009] and [0032] disclose wherein a phase coil or a phase winding is selected from a plurality of phase coils and wherein a connection is opened to at least one other phase coil to disconnect the phase coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier references with the charging system of the Mandelj reference so the in-wheel motor system can provide a cost effective low voltage and high current electric motor which does not compromise on performance.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Mandelj reference in paragraph [0004] wherein a providing a low cost, yet high performance motor is taught.
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama (US 20220314711) in view of Seki (US 20180209518) and in further view of Yamauchi (US 20150028691) and in view of Crevier (US 20240186846) as applied to claim 3 and in further view of Takahashi (US 20220194210).
Regarding claim 5 Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier teaches the WPT device according to claim 3 but do not explicitly tach wherein the rotor is configured as a Halbach array.
Takahashi teaches wherein the rotor is configured as a Halbach array (shown in figure 23 defined in [0401] wherein the rotor is configured as a Halbach array).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier references with the charging system of the Takahashi reference so that skidding within the assembly is reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Takahashi reference in paragraph [0058] wherein a preventing skidding is taught.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama (US 20220314711) in view of Seki (US 20180209518) and in further view of Yamauchi (US 20150028691) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Turner (US 20230394895).
Regarding claim 7 Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi teaches the WPT device according to claim l, but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: determine that the in-wheel electric motor is stationary or has been disengaged from the vehicle's driving train.
Turner teaches wherein the at least one processing device is configured to: determine that the in-wheel electric motor is stationary or has been disengaged from the vehicle's driving train (paragraph [0012] discloses wherein in-wheel motors are determined to be engaged or disengaged with the vehicle’s drivetrain. Paragraph [0044] and [0048] wherein a controller item 212 determines the status of the in-wheel motor, such as engaged or disengaged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Turner reference so that park function of the system can be diagnosed.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Turner reference in paragraph [0002] wherein a diagnosing a park function is taught.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwayama US 20220314711) in view of Seki (US 20180209518) and in further view of Yamauchi (US 20150028691) and in further view of Crevier (US 20240186846) and in further view of Wegener (US 20110148350).
Regarding claim 20 Kuwayama and Seki teach the method according to claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein the stator comprises a plurality of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the plurality of phase coils in a polyphase arrangement, and wherein the stator is disposed adjacent to the rotor in a horizontal direction; the method comprising: operating, by the at least one processing device, the at least one switch to close a connection between the resonant network and at least some of the plurality of phase coils; and receiving, by at least some of the plurality phase coils, a polyphase high-frequency AC power in the horizontal direction from the WPT transmitter.
Yamauchi teaches the method comprising: operating, by the at least one processing device, the at least one switch to close a connection between the resonant network and at least some of the plurality of phase coils (paragraph [0192] discloses wherein the switch is operated by the controller 20 to close the switch or control the power feeding between the transmitter coil and resonant network).
Combining the Kuwayama, Seki and Yamauchi references creates a wireless power transfer system within an in-wheel motor device that switches a connection between a coil and a resonant network. Yamauchi teaches an wireless power transfer system within a vehicle, this system is obvious to be combined within wireless power transfer system in an in-wheel motor device control the power exchanged between the transmission and reception coils.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama and Seki references with the charging system of the Yamauchi reference so that the control time for the output power to reach an available output power to the load is reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Yamauchi reference in paragraph [0006] wherein the control time is reduced.
Crevier teaches wherein the stator comprises a plurality of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the plurality of phase coils in a polyphase arrangement, and wherein the stator is disposed adjacent to the rotor in a horizontal direction (shown in figure 2 wherein a plurality of coils item 16 are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence and spaced apart through a gap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, and Yamauchi references with the charging system of the Crevier reference so the in-wheel motor system can introduce a stream of cooling fluid to reduce overheating.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Crevier reference in paragraph [0011] wherein a preventing overheating is taught.
Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi and Crevier do not explicitly teach receiving, by at least some of the plurality phase coils, a polyphase high-frequency AC power in the horizontal direction from the WPT transmitter.
Wegener teaches receiving by the plurality coils, a high-frequency AC power in the horizontal direction from the WPT transmitter (figure 10 shows a pillar 104 placed adjacent to a vehicle 10 to receive power horizontally via coils comprised within a wheel item 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi, and Crevier references with the charging system of the reference so the in-wheel motor system can be charged in a variety of directions to provide a convenience to the user.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Wegener reference in paragraph [0002] wherein providing a convenience to the user is taught.
PNG
media_image6.png
372
627
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wegener figure 10 discloses a horizontal wireless power transmission system within vehicle 10. Pil1ar 104 transmits power to 102 receiver coil within wheel hub 106
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Independent Claims 1 and 16: The Cited Art Fails to Disclose or Hint at Using a Motor Phase Coil as a Wireless Charging Receiver Coil
1. The Dual-Function Limitation
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "at least one in-wheel electric motor of an electric vehicle comprising a rotor and a stator disposed concentrically with the rotor, wherein the stator comprises at least one phase coil" and further recites that "the at least one phase coil [of the stator of the electric motor] is configured as a receiver coil to receive the high-frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the at least one switch is closed." Claim 16 recites corresponding method steps.
The applicant argues that, these claims thus require that a phase coil of the in-wheel motor's stator, which is a coil that ordinarily functions as part of the motor's electromagnetic drive, also serves as the receiver coil for wireless power transfer. This dual-function requirement is a central innovation and is not found or even hinted at anywhere in the cited art.
This argument is not persuasive.
Kuyama teaches an in-wheel motor (figure 4 item 4 defined in paragraph [0139] as an in-wheel motor) with an electromagnetic coil (figure 4 item 30 defined in [0056] as a receiving coil, which receives power transmitted externally from power transmission coil item 4). Thus, coil disclosed in the Kuyama system serves as a receiver coil for wireless power transfer.
Kuwayama shows an in-wheel motor system with a power receiving coil item 31, which receives power transmitted from power transmission coil item 41, but does not explicitly teach comprising a rotor and a stator disposed concentrically with the rotor, wherein the stator comprises at least one phase coil.
Seki teaches power transmission in paragraph [0018] as the battery 4 can be charged with the electric power generated by the in-wheel motor, but is not relied upon for wireless power transmission, but discloses the architecture of an in wheel motor with a rotor, stator and three-phase coil. Seki is not relied on for power reception or power transfer but, as stated above, discloses the a rotor, a stator disposed concentrically with the rotor (figure 1 shows rotor 22 and stator 23 disposed concentrically with the rotor, as both share the same axis item R1. Paragraph [0026] discloses wherein the stator comprises at least one phase coil, three phase electromagnetic coils, item 24 wrapped around the tooth portions of the stator).
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
2. Every Inductive-Charging Reference Uses a Dedicated Receiver Coil
The applicant argues that, “the cited references that actually involve wireless or inductive power transfer (Kuwayama, Yamauchi, and Wegener) each employ a dedicated, purpose-built receiver or coupling coil that is entirely separate from any motor winding.” The applicant argues that Kuwayama discloses a tire-wheel assembly with a "power receiving device 30" containing a dedicated "coil 31" that is a ring-shaped coil with a ferrite core, housed in a container portion and oriented to face a ground-side transmitter coil 41. See Kuwayama, T0056, 0124. The in-wheel motor 4 is a separate load that receives power from the power receiving device through a power conversion circuit 32. See id. at 0124. At no point does Kuwayama suggest that any winding of motor 4 could serve as the receiver coil, and in fact, Kuwayama teaches the exact opposite.
This argument is not persuasive.
The Kuwayama reference discloses in paragraph [0020] wherein, “the power receiving device 30 is provided with a power receiving coil (secondary coil) 31…When the tire 10 is positioned on the road surface above the power transmission coil 41, an electromotive force is generated in the power receiving coil 31 by electromagnetic induction based on the alternating current magnetic field generated by the power transmission coil 41, and an electric current flows through the power receiving coil 31.”
Thus, the Kuyama reference reasonably discloses “wherein the at least one phase coil is configured as a receiver coil to receive the high- frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil.”
Although the claims do not require a specific coil and motor winding architecture, the Seki reference discloses in paragraph [0026] a stator coil design in which the three-phase electromagnetic coil is wrapped around each winding or tooth of the stator.
The applicant argues that the Yamauchi discloses a non-contact power feeding system in which a separate "secondary winding 201" is mounted on the vehicle chassis as a dedicated charging coil. See Yamauchi, 0055. No motor is involved in the power reception path at all.
This arguments is not persuasive.
The Yamauchi reference is used to disclose a known wireless power transfer method and is not relied upon for an motor winding structure. As disclosed above, although the claims do not require a specific coil and motor winding architecture, the Seki reference discloses in paragraph [0026] a stator coil design in which the three-phase electromagnetic coil is wrapped around each winding or tooth of the stator).
The applicant argues that Wegener discloses a "coupling element 102" positioned near a wheel box 106, with a pillar 104 on the primary side. See Wegener, 0002. Again, this coupling element is a separate, dedicated component, and is not a motor winding.
This argument is not persuasive.
The Wegener reference is used to disclose a known wireless power transfer method and is not relied upon for a motor winding structure. As disclosed above, although the claims do not require a specific coil and motor winding architecture, the Seki reference discloses in paragraph [0026] a stator coil design in which the three-phase electromagnetic coil is wrapped around each winding or tooth of the stator).
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
3. The Non-Charging References Have No Wireless Power Transfer at All
The applicant argues that the remaining cited references (Seki, Crevier, Mandelj, Takahashi, and Turner) do not even disclose wireless power transfer in any form. Seki is a continuously variable transmission patent with no wireless charging. See Seki, 0026.
This argument is moot. Seki teaches power transmission in paragraph [0018] as the battery 4 can be charged with the electric power generated by the in-wheel motor, but is not relied upon for wireless power transmission, but discloses the architecture of an in wheel motor with a rotor, stator and three-phase coil. The Seki reference is not relied upon for wireless power transfer. The examiner agrees that the Seki reference does not disclose wireless power transfer, but the Seki system discloses “in-wheel electric motor of an electric vehicle comprising a rotor and a stator disposed concentrically with the rotor, wherein the stator comprises at least one phase coil.” Seki discloses the “motor winding” architecture of electromagnetic coils wrapped around the windings of the stator.
For these reasons the argument is moot.
The applicant argues that the Crevier is an in-wheel motor cooling patent with no wireless power transfer.
This argument is moot. The Crevier reference is not relied upon for wireless power transfer. The Crevier reference is used to disclose, wherein the stator comprises a plurality of pairs of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the phase coils of each pair being electrically connected in series or parallel.
The applicant argues that Mandelj is a multi-phase motor control patent for a wheel hub, again, with no wireless power transfer. Takahashi is a rotating electrical machine patent, again, with no wireless charging. Turner is a park-function diagnosis patent, again, with no wireless power transfer. None of these references can supply the missing dual-function limitation.
This argument is persuasive, but misplaced. The Mandelj reference is not relied upon for wireless power transfer. Mandelj discloses a system of selecting coils within an in-wheel motor system.
These references are not relied upon for wireless power transfer, thus the argument is moot.
4. The Record Divides Cleanly, and the Office Action Never Locates the Dual- Function Limitation
The applicant argues that the cited art thus divides cleanly into two groups: references that have wireless power transfer but use a dedicated receiver coil (Kuwayama, Yamauchi, Wegener), and references that have motor phase coils but no wireless power transfer (Seki, Crevier, Mandelj, Takahashi, Turner). No single reference, and no proposed combination, bridges this gap to arrive at the claimed configuration in which "the at least one phase coil is configured as a receiver coil to receive the high-frequency AC power" as recited by claims 1 and 16. The Office Action does not identify where in the cited art this dual-function feature is disclosed or rendered obvious. Applicant submits that it cannot be obvious, because no cited reference teaches or suggests this central part of the claims.
This argument is not persuasive.
The claims do not require “motor phase coils,” but requires, “at least one phase coil.” A phase coil is a type of electromagnetic coil. The applicant’s assertion that the cited reference divide into references having “dedicated receiver coils” and references having “motor phase coils” does not accurately reflect the teachings of the cited references. Seki discloses an in-wheel motor including a stator having a three-phase electromagnetic coil, thereby teaching the claimed, “at least one phase coil” configuration. Kuwayama teaches the use of an electromagnetic coil as a power receiving coil for receiving AC power from an external power transmission system, thus the rejection does not require that Kuwayama discloses its electromagnetic coil as “a phase coil,” rather the rejection relies on the combination of those teachings. The applicant’s argument that the references do not cite a “dual-function limitation,” is moot, since a “dual function” is not required in the limitations. The claims simply state “at least one a phase coil…configured to receive the High Frequency AC power from the transmitter coil.” A phase coil is a type of electromagnetic coil. Kuwayama discloses in paragraph [0020] as, the power receiving coil 31 provided in the power receiving device 30 is, for example, wound around a core such as a ferrite core and entirely configured in a ring shape, but is not limited to this, and may be any coil capable of generating an electromotive force based on an alternating current magnetic field, such as a coil spring, an air-core coil, or the like.” Seki teaches power transmission in paragraph [0018] as the battery 4 can be charged with the electric power generated by the in-wheel motor, but is not relied upon for wireless power transmission, but discloses the architecture of an in wheel motor with a rotor, stator and three-phase coil. Seki teaches a three-phase coil within the system, thus when the references are combined, teach the claimed limitation. There is no requirement for a “dual function” within the claims.
The applicant argues that
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
5. The Rejections Are the Product of Impermissible Hindsight
The applicant argues that, any obviousness determination necessarily involves some reconstruction, but that reconstruction is proper only "so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure." MPEP § 707.07 (emphasis added). Here, the only place in the entire record where a motor stator phase coil serves as a wireless charging receiver coil is the present application itself. The claim language is thus functioning as the roadmap for selecting and assembling three to five references, none of which mentions that possibility. Each inductive-charging reference (Kuwayama, Yamauchi, and Wegener) affirmatively chose a dedicated coil instead, and nothing in the non-charging references (Seki, Crevier, Mandelj, Takahashi, or Turner) would direct a person of ordinary skill to look to a motor winding for wireless power reception.
The applicant argues that, the fact that the Office Action's own asserted motivations are drawn from purposes wholly unrelated to wireless charging (e.g., cost-effective low-voltage motor control in Mandelj, skid-escape performance in Takahashi, and park-function diagnosis in Turner) confirms that the combinations were manufactured only to follow the roadmap of the claims, rather than for any reason found in the art.
This argument is not persuasive.
The claim does not require the aforementioned, “motor winding” and there is no requirement for a “dual function” of the coil. The rejection does not require that only one reference individually disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but is based on a combined teaching of the references. Kuwayama provides the functioning of a wireless power transmission, disclosed in figure 1 and paragraph [0054] an in-wheel motor item 4 contained in the wheel item 20 and includes a wireless power receiving system item 1. The wireless power receiving system includes a power receiving device, a secondary coil, disclosed in paragraph [0020] as “the power receiving device 30 is, for example, wound around a core such as a ferrite core and entirely configured in a ring shape, but is not limited to this, and may be any coil capable of generating an electromotive force based on an alternating current magnetic field, such as a coil spring, an air-core coil, or the like.” Seki discloses an in-wheel motor which provides power to the vehicle, with a rotor, stator and a three-phase coil. Seki teaches power transmission in paragraph [0018] as the battery 4 can be charged with the electric power generated by the in-wheel motor, but is not relied upon for wireless power transmission, but discloses the architecture of an in-wheel motor with a rotor, stator and three-phase coil. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Kuwayama reference with the Seki reference because the combination would allow the speed ratio to be changed and exhibit sufficient power characteristics. This teaching is disclosed in Seki in paragraphs [0003] – [0005] wherein improving speed ratio is taught.
While “dual-function” is not required by the claims, Seki teaches a dual function of the in-wheel motors wherein the in-motors are used as power sources for traveling [0016] and for charging the battery 4 [0018].
The applicant argues that the motivations for the Mandelj, cost-effective low-voltage motor control is unrelated to wireless charging is not persuasive. Mandelj teaches a system which provides a low-cost power management solution for low-voltage Electric power vehicles. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably combine the references stated above as they all pertain to electric power management within an electric vehicle. Thus, the reference is analogous art.
The applicant argues that the motivation for the Takahashi reference is unrelated to wireless power transmission. The Takahashi reference pertains to Electric vehicles with an in-wheel drive or motor apparatus, this reference is analogous art.
The applicant argues that the motivation for the Turner reference is unrelated to wireless power transmission. The Turner reference pertains to Electric vehicles with an in-wheel drive or motor apparatus, this reference is analogous art.
6. Reusing Kuwayama's Motor Windings Would Impermissibly Change the Principle of Operation of Kuwayama's Dedicated Architecture
The applicant argues that, even if one were to attempt to combine the references, replacing Kuwayama's dedicated receiver coil 31 with a motor phase coil would require dismantling Kuwayama's purpose-built power-receiving architecture. Specifically, it would require at least the following changes: (1) removing the dedicated coil 31 and its ferrite core from the container portion; (2) rerouting the power conversion circuit 32 to connect to motor windings instead of to coil 31; (3) redesigning the non-magnetic materials scheme of the tread and rim, which Kuwayama specifically calibrates to deliver flux to coil 31 (see Kuwayama, paragraph [0056]); (4) adding a resonant network and switching architecture to the motor windings that Kuwayama does not contemplate; and (5) redesigning the motor itself to accommodate high- frequency AC power reception through windings designed for low-frequency traction drive. Such a modification would constitute a "substantial reconstruction and redesign" of Kuwayama and would render it "unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" of receiving wireless power through a dedicated coil. See MPEP § 2143.0 1(V); see also MPEP @ 2143.01(VI) ("[T]he proposed modification or combination of the prior art [cannot] change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified.").
This argument is not persuasive.
The proposed combination of the Kuwayama and Seki references does not require a change to the fundamental principle operation of Kuwayama. Kuwayama operates as an in-wheel motor system in which electrical power is associated with operation of the in-wheel motor and electromagnetic coil are capable of receiving power from an external power transmission system. Applying the rotor and stator structure of Seki would continue to operate the resulting system as an in-wheel motor while retaining the wireless power transfer functionality of Kuwayama. The modification therefore represents the use of a known motor architecture in the Kuwayama system, rather than a change that renders the system unsuitable for its intended purpose or requires operation according to a fundamentally different principle.
For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive.
7. No Reasonable Expectation of Success Is Established
The applicant argues that a primafacie case of obviousness also requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.02. The Office Action provides no analysis of whether the proposed combination would actually work. The application's specification identifies significant technical obstacles to using motor phase coils for wireless power reception, including: electromagnetic shielding by the stator core (Specification, 0050); coupling coefficient degradation due to airgap geometry and lamination frequency response (Specification, 0051); core losses at wireless-charging frequencies (Specification, 0053); winding insulation not rated for high-frequency voltages (Specification, 0057); materials rated for a different electromagnetic regime (Specification, 0056); and demagnetization risk to permanent magnets (Specification, 0049). These obstacles confirm that the result of the proposed combination was far from predictable or obvious, and the Office Action does not address any of these established hurdles to implementation. Without a showing of a reasonable expectation of success, the prima facie case cannot stand. See MPEP § 2143(G) (requiring (1) a teaching, suggestion, or motivation finding, (2) a reasonable expectation of success, and (3) additional Graham findings - "if any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used")).
This argument is not persuasive.
Kuwayama demonstrates that wireless power can be transferred to an in-wheel motor system using an electromagnetic power receiving coil while Seki demonstrates an in-wheel motor having a rotor, stator, and three phase electromagnetic col and further demonstrates operation of the motor in both propulsion and battery charging modes. Accordingly one skilled in the art would have reasonable expectation that the in-wheel motor architecture of Seki could be implemented with Kuwayama. Kuwayama teaches wherein the power reception device item 30 within the tire may be attached in a position to rotate with a tire, thus a plurality of coils are preferably arranged along the circumferential direction. Thus combining the structure of Seki to provide a stable rotation of coils within an in-wheel motor system is obvious.
For these reasons, this argument is not persuasive.
8. Yamauchi's Switch Does Not Change the Function of Any Coil
The applicant argues that claim 1 recites "at least one switch configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the at least one phase coil and disconnect the resonant network from the at least one phase coil." The "wherein" clause ties the coil's receiver function to the state of that switch: "the at least one phase coil is configured as a receiver coil to receive the high- frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the at least one switch is closed." Closing the switch is therefore what converts a motor coil that otherwise functions as a motor drive winding into a wireless power receiver, and opening the switch returns the coil to motor service. The switch of claim 1 performs a function-changing role that presupposes a coil having two functions.
The applicant argues that Yamauchi's switch 242 does nothing of the kind. Yamauchi's secondary winding 201 is a dedicated power reception coil (see Yamauchi, 0104), and is a wireless charging coil at all times, in every mode of operation. Switch 242 merely selects which of two downstream circuits the winding feeds: the estimation circuit or the power-feeding circuit. See Yamauchi, 0192, 0194. The winding receives power inductively from the primary in both states, so operating switch 242 never changes what the coil is or does. Because Yamauchi has no coil with a second, non-charging function (let alone a motor coil), Yamauchi's switch fails to teach or suggest a switch that changes the function of a motor phase coil from operating as a motor coil to a wireless power receiver coil.
The applicant argues that For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 16 are patentable over the cited art, and requests withdrawal of the rejections of these claims, as well as claims 2-15 and 17-20 dependent thereon.
This argument is not persuasive.
The Yamauchi reference shows in figure 23 wherein switch 242 selectively connects between a resonant circuit for controlling the secondary receiving coil 201 to provide power feeding and a resonant circuit for coupling coefficient estimation. Yamauchi discloses two functions for the coil, one to provide charge and one to estimate the power, which does not provide charge.
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
B. Dependent Claims 2 and 14: Seki's Housing Supports the Stator, Not the Rotor
The applicant argues that Claim 2 recites "a non-conducting, non-magnetic support disposed concentrically with and at least in part within a gap between the at least one phase coil and the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter, wherein the support is connected to and configured to support at Least the rotor." Claim 14 recites a corresponding "non-conducting, non-magnetic support disposed at least in part within a gap between the plurality of phase coils and the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter, the support disposed parallel to a plane of the rotor and connected to the rotor to support at least the rotor."
The applicant argues that the Office Action relies on Seki's housing 21 for this limitation. However, Seki's housing 21 supports the stator, not the rotor. The stator is fixed to the inner wall of housing 21, while the rotor is mounted on the drive shaft. See Seki, 0026. Claims 2 and 14 each explicitly require that the support be "connected to and configured to support at least the rotor," which is the opposite of what Seki discloses. Furthermore, Seki has no wireless power transfer transmitter, so there is no "gap between the at least one phase coil and the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter" as recited by claims 2 and 14. Finally, Seki does not state that housing 21 is made of a non-conducting, non- magnetic material, as both claims require.
The rejections of claims 2 and 14 are therefore unsupported.
This argument is not persuasive.
The Seki reference shows in figure 2 wherein the rotor item 22 and discloses in paragraph [0026] wherein the rotor is housed within the motor housing item 21. Paragraph [0030] discloses wherein the rotor is supported by the drive shaft item 11 and the shaft is supported by the motor housing item 21. Thus the housing supports the rotor.
Seki is not relied on for power reception or power transfer but, as stated above, discloses the a rotor, a stator disposed concentrically with the rotor (figure 1 shows rotor 22 and stator 23 disposed concentrically with the rotor, as both share the same axis item R1. Paragraph [0026] discloses wherein the stator comprises at least one phase coil, three phase electromagnetic coils, item 24 wrapped around the tooth portions of the stator).
For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive.
C. Dependent Claim 5: Takahashi's Halbach Embodiment Retains a Soft-Magnetic Back Core
The applicant argues that Claim 5 recites that "the rotor is configured as a Halbach array." The Office Action relies on Takahashi for this limitation. However, Takahashi's Halbach array embodiment (second embodiment) retains a soft-magnetic back core (cylinder 43) and additional soft- magnetic members 133 positioned radially outside the magnets. See Takahashi, 0327-329. These soft-magnetic components defeat the very purpose of a Halbach array in the context of claims 1 and 5, which is to enable a non-magnetic rotor support. This feature allows electromagnetic flux to pass through the rotor support to reach the phase coils, and Takahashi's Halbach array fails to do that. As such, there would be no expectation of success in making this modification.
The applicant argues that, the motivation the Office Action cites for combining Takahashi (improved skid-escape performance) comes from Takahashi'sfirst embodiment and relates to main- magnetic-pole-angle and harmonic analysis for traction control. It does not relate to the Halbach array embodiment of Takahashi. The asserted benefit is therefore drawn from an unrelated embodiment and an unrelated technical context.
The applicant argues that Takahashi is not a charging system at all, and the Office Action does not explain how or why a person of ordinary skill would extract the Halbach array from Takahashi's second embodiment (while discarding its soft-magnetic components) and apply it to a wireless charging architecture that none of the base references disclose. This again relies squarely on impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
The applicant argues that the rejection of claim 5 also omits Crevier from the combination, even though Crevier is required for the parent claim 3 rejection. The rejection of claim 5 should therefore be withdrawn.
This argument is not persuasive.
The limitations of claim 5 do not require that the Halbach array include a specific core. The Takahashi reference discloses the limitation of a rotor configured as a Halbach (shown in figure 23 defined in [0401] wherein the rotor is configured as a Halbach array).
For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive.
D. Dependent Claim 10: Yamauchi's Cited Passage Is Transmitter-Side Grid Equipment
The applicant argues that Claim 10 recites that "the rectifier comprises a traction inverter of the in-wheel electric motor." The Office Action cites Yamauchi, paragraph 0053, for this limitation. However, paragraph 0053 describes the transmitter-side grid supply (specifically, a three- phase power source 64, a rectifier 61, and an inverter 63) which are stationary ground-side equipment. These are not vehicle-side components, and certainly not a traction inverter of an in-wheel motor. See Yamauchi, 0053. On the receive side, Yamauchi's rectifier 71 is a discrete diode rectifier, not a traction inverter. See id.. The Office Action thus miscites Yamauchi, and no other reference supplies a traction inverter serving as the rectifier for wireless power reception. The rejection of claim 10 is unsupported.
This argument is not persuasive.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the rectifier comprises a traction inverter of the in-wheel electric motor paragraph [0053] teaches wherein a traction inverter is comprised within the system. The Kuwayama and Seki references teach an in-wheel electric motor. Kuwayama teaches a power conversion circuit which converts AC to DC and Seki teaches an inverter within the in-wheel motor, but the combination of the two references do not teach explicitly disclose a rectifier including an inverter. Yamauchi teaches a system which a rectifier comprises an inverter. One of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably assert that an inverter may be comprised within the motor to provide power.
For these reasons the arguments are not persuasive.
E. Dependent Claim 13: Internally Inconsistent Rejection
The applicant argues that Claim 13 recites, inter alia, that "the stator comprises a plurality of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the plurality of phase coils in a polyphase arrangement," that "the stator is disposed adjacent to the rotor in a horizontal direction," and that "at least some of the plurality of phase coils are configured as receiver coils to receive the polyphase high-frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil when the at least one switch is closed." The rejection of claim 13 suffers from multiple deficiencies.
The applicant argues that first, the rejection is internally inconsistent: it discusses Crevier at length in the body of the rejection, yet Crevier does not appear in the rejection heading. The rejection heading lists Kuwayama, Seki, Yamauchi, and Mandelj, but the analysis relies on a reference not formally part of the combination. Second, the rejection identifies the wrong parent claim for claim 13 -claim 13 depends from claim 1, not from claim 3. Third, Mandelj is a multi-
phase motor control patent that does not disclose any switch "configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the plurality of phase coils" as recited by claim 13, because Mandelj has no resonant network and no wireless power transfer. Fourth, and most fundamentally, no combination of the cited references discloses polyphase wireless power reception through motor phase coils configured as receiver coils, which is the core requirement of claim 13. The rejection of claim 13 should be withdrawn.
This argument is not persuasive.
The typos within rejection of claim 13 have been corrected, to improve clarity to its own section disclosing its dependency of claim 1, but the rejection based on the references, Kuwuyama, Seki, Yamauchi, Crevier, and Mandelj remains unchanged.
Kuwayama teaches in paragraph [0022] discloses wherein the system may include any number of power receiving devices 30, which includes any number of receiver coils, to receive high frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil item 41. The Seki references teaches phase coils in paragraph [0026].
Crevier teaches a polyphase arrangement of coils and wherein the stator is adjacent to the rotor in a horizontal direction figures 6 and 9 show a horizontal arrangement of the stator and rotor.
Mandelj teaches wherein the at least one switch is configured to selectively connect the resonant network to the plurality of phase coils and disconnect the resonant network from the plurality of phase coils figures 3, 4, paragraphs [0009] and [0032] disclose wherein a phase coil or a phase winding is selected from a plurality of phase coils and wherein a connection is opened to at least one other phase coil to disconnect the phase coil.
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
F. Dependent Claims 11 and 19: Inverting Seki's Topology Changes Its Principle of Operation
The applicant argues that Claim 11 recites that "the stator is disposed inside the rotor" and that "the at least one phase coil is configured to receive the high-frequency AC power in a vertical direction." Claim 19 recites corresponding method limitations. The Office Action relies on Seki and Crevier for the outer-rotor (stator-inside-rotor) topology.
However, Seki is expressly an inner-rotor machine, with the rotor inside the stator. See Seki, 0026, claim 4. Inverting Seki's topology from inner-rotor to outer-rotor would change the fundamental electromagnetic arrangement of the machine, altering the flux path, the mechanical support structure, and the thermal management. In short, it would impermissible fundamentally change Seki's principle of operation. See MPEP § 2143.0l(VI). The rejections of claims 11 and 19 are therefore unsupported.
This argument is not persuasive.
Seki discloses in paragraph [0072] wherein the system may be modified as needed. The Crevier reference discloses an in-wheel motor with an outer rotor system in order to improve heat dissipation within the system. The references are analogous art since both systems pertain to electric vehicles with in-wheel motors.
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
G. Dependent Claims 4, 6, 17, and 18: Mandelj Fails to Disclose Opening a Phase Connection for Charging or Selecting a Coil by Transmitter Proximity
The applicant argues that Claim 4 recites that the processing device is configured to "open an electrical connection between the at least one phase coil and its paired phase coil prior to receiving, by the at least one phase coil, the high-frequency AC power transmitted by the at least one transmitter coil." Claim 6 recites that the processing device is configured to "select the at least one phase coil from the plurality of pairs of phase coils, that is adjacent to the at least one transmitter coil of the WPT transmitter" and "open a connection to at least one other phase coil of the plurality of pairs of phase coils to disconnect the at least one other phase coil." Claims 17 and 18 recite corresponding method steps.
The applicant argues that the Office Action applies a single mapping from Mandelj to all four of these differently scoped claims. However, Mandelj is a BLDC motor commutation control patent that does not disclose wireless power transfer at all. See Mandelj, 0004, 0009, 0032. Mandelj does not disclose opening an electrical connection between paired phase coils "prior to receiving ... the high-frequency AC power" as recited by claims 4 and 17, because Mandelj has no high-frequency AC power reception.
The applicant argues that Mandelj also does not disclose selecting a phase coil based on its adjacency to a transmitter coil of a WPT transmitter, as recited by claims 6 and 18, because Mandelj has no transmitter coil. Mandelj's position data interface 30 determines rotor orientation for commutation purposes, not transmitter proximity. See Mandelj, 0037.
The applicant argues that the motivation cited for combining Mandelj (cost-effective low-voltage motor control) is unrelated to wireless power transfer. Furthermore, the Office Action's rejection of claim 17 appears incomplete, as it does not fully map the claim's requirement of "opening a serial connection between the at least one phase coil and its paired phase coil prior to receiving ... the high-frequency AC power." As such, the rejections of claims 4, 6, 17, and 18 should be withdrawn.
This argument is not persuasive.
The Mandelj reference discloses, figures 3, 4, paragraphs [0009] and [0032] disclose wherein a phase coil or a phase winding is selected from a plurality of phase coils and wherein a connection is opened to at least one other phase coil to disconnect the phase coil. Figure shows six semiconductor switching elements, which are operated to open and close, thus selecting or deselecting a phase winding.
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
H. Claim 20 - Wegener's Coupling Element Is a Dedicated Component, Not Polyphase Motor Windings
The applicant argues that Claim 20 recites, inter alia, that "the stator comprises a plurality of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the plurality of phase coils in a polyphase arrangement," that "the stator is disposed adjacent to the rotor in a horizontal direction," and that the method comprises "receiving, by at least some of the plurality phase coils, a polyphase high- frequency AC power in the horizontal direction from the WPT transmitter." The Office Action relies on Wegener for the horizontal-direction wireless power transfer. However, Wegener's coupling element 102 is a dedicated component positioned near a wheel box. It is not a motor winding, it is not polyphase, and it does not receive power through motor phase coils. See Wegener, 0002. No combination of the cited references arrives at polyphase wireless power reception through motor phase coils in a horizontal direction as recited by claim 20. The rejection of claim 20 should be withdrawn.
This argument is not persuasive.
The Wegener reference is not relied upon for polyphase coils, but teaches a plurality of coils positioned within a wheel box of an electric vehicle to facilitate horizontal wireless charging. Kuwayama teaches power transmission and teaches a plurality of coils to receive AC power in paragraph [0022] discloses wherein the system may include any number of power receiving devices 30, which includes any number of receiver coils, to receive high frequency AC power from the at least one transmitter coil item 41. The Seki references teaches phase coils in paragraph [0026]. Crevier teaches wherein the stator comprises a plurality of phase coils including the at least one phase coil, the plurality of phase coils in a polyphase arrangement, and wherein the stator is disposed adjacent to the rotor in a horizontal direction (shown in figure 2 wherein a plurality of coils item 16 are arranged in a one-to-one correspondence and spaced apart through a gap).
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
J. Dependent Claim 7: Turner's Park-Function Diagnosis Is Unrelated to Charging Readiness
The applicant argues that Claim 7 recites that the processing device is configured to "determine that the in- wheel electric motor is stationary or has been disengaged from the vehicle's driving train." The Office Action relies on Turner for this limitation. Turner discloses diagnosing whether a park function has been properly engaged in an in-wheel motor system. See Turner, 0002, 0012. However, Turner's determination relates to park-function fault diagnosis (i.e., whether the vehicle is safely parked) not to determining whether the motor is stationary or disengaged for the purpose of initiating wireless power transfer, as required by claim 7 in the context of claim l's WPT device.
The applicant argues the motivation cited for Turner (diagnosing park function) again is unrelated to wireless charging readiness. The Office Action does not explain how Turner's park-function diagnosis would be applied in the context of a WPT device to determine charging readiness. The rejection of claim 7 should be withdrawn.
This argument is not persuasive.
Turner discloses in paragraphs [0012] and [0044] discloses wherein data from sensors determine whether the in-wheel motors are engaged or disengaged. The Turner reference is analogous art as is pertains to in-wheel motors within an Electric vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain that the sensor system within an in-wheel motor to determine engagement or disengagement of the in-wheel motor reads on the limitation of, “determining that the in-wheel electric motor is stationary or has been disengaged from the vehicle’s driving train.”
For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
J. Any Subsequent Office Action Must be Made Non-Final
The applicant argues that his response traverses every ground of rejection on the merits. No claim has been amended, canceled, or added. Under MPEP § 706.07(a), a second or any subsequent action on the merits shall be final "except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant's amendment of the claims." Furthermore, such an action "will not be made final if it includes a rejection on newly cited art ... of any claim not amended or amended in a way that does not necessitate a new ground of rejection."
Because Applicant has made no amendment to any claim, no new ground of rejection in the next Office action could be necessitated by amendment. Accordingly, should the Examiner maintain the rejections on any new ground or on newly cited art, the next Office action must be made non-final, and Applicant respectfully requests that it be so designated.
This argument is not persuasive.
The examiner has maintained the rejections and addressed arguments as disclosed above. The references used has been unchanged and no new grounds of cited art has been used. For those reasons, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Us 20210188106 A1 Wireless Power System Asa; Erdem Et Al.
Us 20150246614 A1 Inductive Power Coupling Dames; Andrew Nicholas Et Al.
Us 20220416580 A1 Wireless Power Reception System Fujimoto; Hiroshi Et Al.
Us 20130234503 A1 Wireless Power Feeding Apparatus Ichikawa; Shinji
Us 20130057207 A1 Power Feeding System And Vehicle Ichikawa; Shinji Et Al.
Us 20180118040 A1 Wireless Power Transfer Kim; Bum Sik Et Al.
Us 20240204571 A1 Wireless Charging Kutluhan; Cengiz Hakan Et Al.
Us 20100231163 A1 Self-Charging Electric Mashinsky; Alex
Us 20110259694 A1 Electrically Powered Vehicle Matsumura; Naohide
Us 20230136386 A1 Electric Drive Unit Sato; Takayuki Et Al.
Us 20210300321 A1 Vehicle Drive System Toda; Isao Et Al.
Us 20190020227 A1 Cross-Coupled Composite Power Generator Umemori; Takashi.
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 ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
