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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the drawings:
The drawings were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the specification and provided replacement drawings to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification was objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the specification to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the claims:
Claim 18 was objected to due to an informality. The Applicant amended the claim to correct the informality, therefore the objection was withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 were rejected as being anticipated by Fogle. Claim 5 was rejected as being obvious over Fogle in view of Palfenier. Claim 9 was rejected as being obvious over Fogle in view of Zeiler. Claim 10 was rejected as being obvious over Fogle in view of Bosch. Claim 11 was rejected as being obvious over Fogle in view of Uematsu. Claims 12 and 14-19 were rejected as being obvious over Fogle in view of Palfenier and Uematsu. Claims 13 and 20 were rejected as being obvious over Fogle in view of Palfenier, Uematsu, and Zeiler. The Applicant amended claims 2, 15, and 18-19 and added new claims 21-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 9/23/2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0201124 to Hall et al.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 9/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 12 under 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 “Design and Analysis of a High Power Density Brushless DC Motor for a Multi-Rotor Unmanned Aircraft” to Ozer and Yilmaz.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0343780 to Fogle et al. (hereinafter Fogle; cited by Applicant on 7/23/2024) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0201124 to Hall et al. (hereinafter Hall).
Regarding claim 1, Fogle teaches an electric power apparatus comprising:
a main planar body having a circular opening (FIG. 2, 52);
at least one brushless direct-current (BLDC) motor (FIG. 2, 500) mounted on the main planar body, the motor comprising:
a stator (FIG. 12A, 400) having a stator core (FIG. 12A, 410), a plurality of stator teeth extending radially from the stator core, and a plurality of windings (FIG. 13A, 420) wound around the plurality of stator teeth;
a rotor (FIG. 6E, 300) rotatably positioned relative to the stator and having a rotor core (FIG. 6E, 310) and a plurality of permanent magnets (FIG. 6C, 314) secured to the rotor core in magnetic interface with the plurality of stator windings;
a motor spindle (FIG. 3A, 340) coupled to the rotor and extending along a center axis through the circular opening of the main planar body;
a first end cap (FIG. 3A, 100) formed on a first side of the stator and mounted on the main planar body; and
a second end cap (FIG. 3A, 200) formed on a second side of the stator and secured to the first end cap to form a compartment around the stator and the rotor (Paragraph [0083]).
Fogle does not teach a front surface of the first end cap facing away from the stator comprising a projected inner circular surface sized to be fittingly received into the circular opening of the main planar body, and an annular outer recessed surface arranged to be mounted on the main planar body around the circular opening.
However, Hall teaches an end cap (FIG. 7, 84) of a motor (FIG. 7, 82) having a front surface comprising a projected inner circular surface (FIG. 7, 84, lower portion) sized to be fittingly received into a circular opening (FIG. 7, 111) of a main planar body (FIG. 7, 80), and an annular outer recessed surface (FIG. 7, 84, upper portion) arranged to be mounted on the main planar body around the circular opening.
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle with the end cap of Hall to provide better positioning and securement of the motor to the planar body.
Regarding claim 2, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 1, wherein Fogle further teaches the second end cap includes an outer annular surface (FIG. 7B, 202) extending along an outer circumferential surface of the stator, and a flange (FIG. 7B, 208) projecting outwardly from the outer annular body to create a mating surface with the first end cap (Paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 3, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 2, wherein Fogle further teaches the motor further comprises a plurality of first fasteners (FIG. 4B, 110) extending upwardly through a plurality of first through-holes (FIG. 9A, 125) of the first end cap and securely fastened into a plurality of threaded openings of the second end cap formed within the flange (Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 4, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 3, wherein Fogle further teaches a plurality of second fasteners (FIG. 4B, 110) through a plurality of second through-holes of the first end cap (FIG. 9A, 125) and fastened to a plurality of nuts (FIG. 4A, 112) to securely fasten the motor to the main planar body.
Fogle in view of Hall does not teach a plurality of corresponding through holes of the main planar body distributed around the circular opening and fastened to a plurality of nuts below the main planar body, wherein the plurality of first through-holes and the plurality of second through holes of the first end cap are alternatingly arranged.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the nuts and through holes of Fogle in view of Hall to locate them through and below the planar body and provide them alternatingly to provide a more secure connection for the motor (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 6, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 2, wherein Fogle further teaches the motor further comprises a plurality of fins (FIG. 7B, between openings 222) that extend longitudinally along the outer annular surface and include sloped outer edges proximate the flange.
Regarding claim 7, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first end cap includes a center opening (Fogle FIG. 9B, 126) through which the motor spindle passes and a center bearing pocket (Fogle FIG. 9B, 128) coaxial with the center opening sized to securely receive a front bearing (Fogle FIG. 4A, 130) mounted on the motor spindle, wherein the projected inner circular surface of the first end cap is located at a lower plane than a lower surface of the main planar body to allow a plane of an upper surface of the main planar body to intersect the front bearing (Fogle FIG. 2, 52; Hall FIG. 7, 89).
Regarding claim 8, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 1, wherein Fogle further teaches the main planar body is a part of a mow deck (FIG. 2, 52) and the motor spindle is coupled to a torque limiter member (Paragraph [0077]) mounted below the main planar body configured to rotatably drive a mow blade (FIG. 2, 14), wherein the torque limiter member is configured to provide torque protection for the motor during impact of the mow blade with hard objects.
Regarding claim 21, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 1, wherein Hall further teaches an outer diameter of the projected inner circular surface (FIG. 7, 84) being greater than an outer diameter of the rotor (FIG. 7, 89).
Regarding claim 22, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 1, wherein Fogle further teaches the first end cap includes a center opening through which the motor spindle passes and a center bearing pocket coaxial with the center opening sized to securely receive a front bearing (FIG. 5, 130) mounted on the motor spindle, wherein a plane of the annular outer recessed surface intersects the front bearing (FIG. 5, 116).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogle in view of Hall and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0021832 to Palfenier et al. (hereinafter Palfenier; cited by Applicant on 5/14/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 3, wherein Fogle further teaches the first end cap includes an annular peripheral projection (FIG. 9A, 125) within which the plurality of first through holes is formed, and the second end cap includes an annular projection (FIG. 8A, 208) sized to be fittingly received within the annular peripheral projection of the first end cap.
Fogle in view of Hall does not teach the motor further comprising an elastically deformable ring member located between the annular peripheral projection of the first end cap and the annular projection of the second end cap proximate the plurality of first fasteners to provide a substantially watertight seal between the first end cap and the second end cap.
However, Palfenier teaches a first motor end cap (FIG. 1, 18) connected to a second motor end cap (FIG. 1, 122) with an elastically deformable ring member (FIG. 1, 164) located between them to provide a substantially watertight seal (Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle in view of Hall with the ring member of Palfenier to prevent ingress of foreign materials and ensure proper operation of the motor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogle in view of Hall and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0105939 to Zeiler et al. (hereinafter Zeiler; cited by Applicant on 7/23/2024).
Regarding claim 9, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 8.
Fogle in view of Hall does not teach the circular opening of the main planar body including a larger diameter than an outer diameter of the torque limiter member, further comprising a plurality of fasteners received downwardly through a plurality of through holes formed through the projected inner circular surface of the first end cap, extending through the circular opening of the main planar body, and securely coupled to the torque limiter member.
However, Zeiler teaches a circular opening of a main planar body (FIG. 4) including a larger diameter than an outer diameter of a torque limiter member (FIG. 24, 1176), further comprising a plurality of fasteners (FIG. 25, 1196) received downwardly through a plurality of through holes formed through the projected inner circular surface of the first end cap, extending through the circular opening of the main planar body, and securely coupled to the torque limiter member (Paragraph [0100]).
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle in view of Hall with the fasteners of Zeiler to provide a more secure connection of the torque limiter member.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogle in view of Hall and in further view of European Patent No. 3837957 to Robert Bosch GmbH (hereinafter Bosch; provided by Applicant on 7/23/2024).
Regarding claim 10, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 1.
Fogle in view of Hall does not teach a thermally conductive gap pad disposed between the annular outer recessed surface and the main planar body to transfer heat from the motor to the main planar body.
However, Bosch teaches a thermally conductive gap pad (FIG. 3, 35) disposed between the outer surface of the motor end cap and a main planar body to transfer heat from the motor to the main planar body (Paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle in view of Hall with the thermally conductive gap pad of Bosch to more efficiently remove heat from the motor and ensure better thermal performance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogle in view of Hall and in further view of “Design and Analysis of a High Power Density Brushless DC Motor for a Multi-Rotor Unmanned Aircraft” to Ozer and Yilmaz (hereinafter Ozer).
Regarding claim 11, Fogle in view of Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 1.
Fogle in view of Hall does not teach a ratio of a maximum power output of the motor when powered by at least one battery pack to a height of the motor as measured from an upper surface of the main planar body to a top surface of the motor is greater than or equal to approximately 34 watts/mm.
However, Ozer teaches a 10.5 kW motor (Page 381) with dimensions (Page 380: 30mm in length) having a power ratio greater than 34 W/mm (346.67 W/mm).
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle with the motor power sizing of Ozer to meet specific power density requirements.
Claims 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer.
Regarding claim 12, Fogle teaches an electric power apparatus comprising:
a main planar body having a circular opening (FIG. 2, 52);
at least one brushless direct-current (BLDC) motor (FIG. 2, 500) mounted on the main planar body, the motor comprising:
a stator (FIG. 12A, 400) having a stator core (FIG. 12A, 410), a plurality of stator teeth extending radially from the stator core, and a plurality of windings (FIG. 13A, 420) wound around the plurality of stator teeth;
a rotor (FIG. 6E, 300) rotatably positioned relative to the stator and having a rotor core (FIG. 6E, 310) and a plurality of permanent magnets (FIG. 6C, 314) secured to the rotor core in magnetic interface with the plurality of stator windings;
a motor spindle (FIG. 3A, 340) coupled to the rotor and extending along a center axis through the circular opening of the main planar body;
a first end cap (FIG. 3A, 100) formed on a first side of the stator and mounted on the main planar body; and a second end cap (FIG. 3A, 200) formed on a second side of the stator and secured to the first end cap.
Fogle does not teach a substantially watertight seal around the stator and the rotor, wherein a ratio of a maximum power output of the motor when powered by at least one battery pack to a height of the motor as measured from an upper surface of the main planar body to a top surface of the motor being greater than or equal to approximately 34 watts/mm.
However, Palfenier teaches a first motor end cap (FIG. 1, 18) connected to a second motor end cap (FIG. 1, 122) with an elastically deformable ring member (FIG. 1, 164) located between them to provide a substantially watertight seal (Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle with the ring member of Palfenier to prevent ingress of foreign materials and ensure proper operation of the motor.
Fogle in view of Palfenier does not teach a ratio of a maximum power output of the motor when powered by at least one battery pack to a height of the motor as measured from an upper surface of the main planar body to a top surface of the motor is greater than or equal to approximately 34 watts/mm.
However, Ozer teaches a 10.5 kW motor (Page 381) with dimensions (Page 380: 30mm in length) having a power ratio greater than 34 W/mm (346.67 W/mm).
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle in view of Palfenier with the motor power sizing of Ozer to meet specific power density requirements.
Regarding claim 15, Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 12, wherein Fogle further teaches an outer annular surface (FIG. 7B, 202) extending along an outer circumferential surface of the stator, and a flange (FIG. 7B, 208) projecting outwardly from the outer annular body to create a mating surface with the first end cap (Paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 16, Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 12, wherein Fogle further teaches the motor further comprising a plurality of first fasteners (FIG. 4B, 110) extending upwardly through a plurality of first through-holes (FIG. 9A, 125) of the first end cap and securely fastened into a plurality of threaded openings of the second end cap formed within the flange (Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 17, Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 12, wherein the first end cap includes an annular peripheral projection (Fogle FIG. 9A, 125) within which the plurality of first through holes is formed, and the second end cap includes an annular projection (Fogle FIG. 8A, 208) sized to be fittingly received within the annular peripheral projection of the first end cap, and wherein the motor further comprises an elastically deformable ring member (Palfenier FIG. 1, 164) located between the annular peripheral projection of the first end cap and the annular projection of the second end cap proximate the plurality of first fasteners to provide a substantially watertight seal between the first end cap and the second end cap (Palfenier Paragraph [0036]).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer and in further view of Zeiler.
Regarding claim 13, Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 12, wherein Fogle further teaches the second end cap comprising a radial main body (FIG. 8A, 204) including a center opening (FIG. 8B, 240) through which the motor spindle extends and is arranged to support a position sensor assembly (FIG. 7C, 262) on a surface thereof that faces away from the stator.
Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer does not teach a motor cover mounted on the radial main body to substantially seal the second end cap.
However, Zeiler teaches a motor having a motor cover (FIG. 15, 804) to substantially seal the end cap.
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer with the motor cover of Zeiler to further prevent ingress of foreign materials into the motor and ensure proper operation of the motor.
Claims 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer and in further view of Hall.
Regarding claim 14, Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 12.
Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer does not teach a front surface of the first end cap facing away from the stator comprising a projected inner circular surface sized to be fittingly received into the circular opening of the main planar body, and an annular outer recessed surface arranged to be mounted on the main planar body around the circular opening.
However, Hall teaches an end cap (FIG. 7, 84) of a motor (FIG. 7, 82) having a front surface comprising a projected inner circular surface (FIG. 7, 84, lower portion) sized to be fittingly received into a circular opening (FIG. 7, 111) of a main planar body (FIG. 7, 80), and an annular outer recessed surface (FIG. 7, 84, upper portion) arranged to be mounted on the main planar body around the circular opening.
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle in view of Palfenier and Ozer with the end cap of Hall to provide better positioning and securement of the motor to the planar body.
Regarding claim 18, Fogle in view of Palfenier, Ozer, and Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first end cap includes a center opening (Fogle FIG. 9B, 126) through which the motor spindle passes and a center bearing pocket (Fogle FIG. 9B, 128) coaxial with the center opening sized to securely receive a front bearing (Fogle FIG. 4A, 130) mounted on the motor spindle, wherein the projected inner circular surface of the first end cap is located at a lower plane than a lower surface of the main planar body to allow a plane of an upper surface of the main planar body to intersect the front bearing (Fogle FIG. 2, 52; Hall FIG. 7, 89).
Regarding claim 19, Fogle in view of Palfenier, Ozer, and Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 14, wherein Fogle further teaches the main planar body being a part of a mow deck (FIG. 2, 52) and the motor spindle being coupled to a torque limiter member (Paragraph [0077]) mounted below the main planar body configured to rotatably drive a mow blade (FIG. 2, 14), wherein the torque limiter member is configured to provide torque protection for the motor during impact of the mow blade with hard objects.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogle in view of Palfenier, Ozer, and Hall and in further view of Zeiler.
Regarding claim 20, Fogle in view of Palfenier, Ozer, and Hall teaches the electric power apparatus of claim 19.
Fogle in view of Palfenier, Ozer, and Hall does not teach the circular opening of the main planar body including a larger diameter than an outer diameter of the torque limiter member, further comprising a plurality of fasteners received downwardly through a plurality of through holes formed through the projected inner circular surface of the first end cap, extending through the circular opening of the main planar body, and securely coupled to the torque limiter member.
However, Zeiler teaches a circular opening of a main planar body (FIG. 4) including a larger diameter than an outer diameter of a torque limiter member (FIG. 24, 1176), further comprising a plurality of fasteners (FIG. 25, 1196) received downwardly through a plurality of through holes formed through the projected inner circular surface of the first end cap, extending through the circular opening of the main planar body, and securely coupled to the torque limiter member (Paragraph [0100]).
Therefore, 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 electric power apparatus of Fogle in view of Palfenier, Ozer, and Hall with the fasteners of Zeiler to provide a more secure connection of the torque limiter member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834