DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 of U.S. Application No. 18284931 filed on 09/29/2023 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2023, 02/21/2024, and 07/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1-9 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites, “extending radially from a hub toward an outer ring…” should read “extending radially from the hub toward the outer ring…”
Claim 13 recites, “…the bearing carrier is mounted within …” should read “…a bearing carrier is mounted within …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duhamel et al. (US 2015/0298537; Hereinafter, “Duhamel”).
Regarding claim 1: Duhamel discloses a wheel assembly (wheel for vehicle; para [0002]) comprising: a stator (13) comprising a spacing (slots; para [0045]) for accommodating an electrical winding (38); and
a rotor (15) having an outer ring (60) and spokes (53) extending from a hub (54), the rotor (15) housing the stator (13) for relative rotation with respect to the stator (13), the rotor comprising magnets (61) for interacting with the electrical winding (38) to provide the relative rotation (of rotor 15) about a central longitudinal axis axle 12), the central longitudinal axis extending from a wheel assembly proximal side to a wheel assembly distal side (top to bottom as seen in fig, 5-6);
wherein the stator (13) comprises openings (between arms 34A, 34B, passing by fins 39A; openings (i.e., channels); para [0045]) and extending from a stator proximal side to a stator distal side (to bottom in fig. 5-6), to allow an air flow through the openings (para [0044], and para [0049] last sentence).
Regarding claim 2/1: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the spokes (63) and the outer ring (60) form spoke apertures (the spaces between spokes 53) at least partially coinciding with the openings for air communication and exhaust from the wheel assembly (annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3/1: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that each spoke of the spokes (53) comprises a radial spoke portion attached to and extending radially from a hub (54) toward an outer ring (60), and a spoke gap portion (annotated fig. 1 above), the spoke gap portion supporting the radial spoke portion (53) and configured to form a gap between the stator (13) and the hub (54) with attached radial spoke portions 53) attached to the hub (54).
Regarding claim 4/1: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that a cover (41) positioned coaxially with the rotor (15) on a distal side of the rotor to cover an area (cavity 32) about the central longitudinal axis (axle 12), the cover (41), the spokes (53) and the outer ring (60) forming gap apertures for air exhaust on the distal side around a periphery of the cover (funneling the air to the space in between the arms 34A,B to the other axial side of the motor).
Regarding claim 11/1: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that each opening of the openings is a recess extending from a central opening (at cavity 32) of the stator (13) towards a periphery of the stator (at the fins 39A).
Regarding claim 15: Duhamel discloses a wheel assembly (wheel for vehicle; para [0002]) comprising: a stator (13) comprising a spacing (slots; para [0045]) for receiving an electrical winding (38); and
a rotor (15) defining an outer ring (60), the rotor housing the stator (fig. 5-6) for relative rotation around the stator (13), the rotor (15) comprising magnets (61) for interacting with the electrical winding (38) to provide the relative rotation about a central longitudinal axis (axle 12); wherein the stator (13) comprises openings (i.e., channels); para [0045]) extending from a stator proximal side to a stator distal side (the top bottom direction in fig. 5-6); and wherein rotation of the rotor (15) around the stator (13) causes an air flow through the openings for heat dissipation (para [0044], and para [0049] last sentence).
Regarding claim 16/15: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 15 and further discloses that the air flows from the wheel assembly proximal side (one axial side of the rotor 15) towards the wheel assembly distal side through the openings (the other side of rotor 15; para [0049] last paragraph).
Regarding claim 17/15: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 15 and further discloses that the rotor (15) defines a hub (54) and spokes (53) extending from said hub (fig. 1, and 7), the spokes (53) being distant to provide openings from which the air flows during rotation (fig. 1, 7, and para [0044], and [0049]).
Regarding claim 18/17/15: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 17 and further discloses that rotation of the spokes (53) creates a centrifugal force that pushes the air found within the wheel assembly radially outwardly (through the opening in the stator), away from an axial center thereof “allow air circulation from one axial side to the other axial side of the rotor portion 15; para [0049]).
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duhamel in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0179803, Hereinafter, “Li”).
Regarding claim 9/1, and 10/1: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 1 and but does not specifically show the stator comprises a plurality of T-shaped peripheral arms, each of the T-shaped peripheral arms extending radially away from the center longitudinal axis, and each pair of adjacent T-shaped peripheral arms forming, between them, the spacing for the electrical winding; a plurality of stator plates having identical shape and assembled with the same angular orientation with respect to the central longitudinal axis.
Li shows (in fig. 5) the stator (30) comprises a plurality of T-shaped peripheral arms (fig. 5), each of the T-shaped peripheral arms extending radially away from the center longitudinal axis (the center of the annular yoke 312), and each pair of adjacent T-shaped peripheral arms forming, between them, the spacing for the electrical winding (33; para [0036]); a plurality of stator plates (laminations; para [0036]) having identical shape and assembled with the same angular orientation with respect to the central longitudinal axis (fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the motor of Duhamel with the stator comprises a plurality of T-shaped peripheral arms, each of the T-shaped peripheral arms extending radially away from the center longitudinal axis, and each pair of adjacent T-shaped peripheral arms forming, between them, the spacing for the electrical winding; a plurality of stator plates having identical shape and assembled with the same angular orientation with respect to the central longitudinal axis as disclosed by Li to reduce the eddy current in the stator core and to securely support in the slots.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duhamel in view of Lafontaine et al. (US 2009/0200884 Hereinafter, “Lafontaine”).
Regarding claim 12/1: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose two adjacent openings form an opening wall therebetween and each opening is a recess extending radially from the central longitudinal axis.
Lafontaine discloses (see fig. 7A) two adjacent openings (706) form an opening wall (710) therebetween and each opening is a recess extending radially from the central longitudinal axis (fig. 7A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the stator of Duhamel to have two adjacent openings form an opening wall therebetween and each opening is a recess extending radially from the central longitudinal axis as disclosed by Lafontaine to reduce the stator’s weight and to simplify its structure.
Claims 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duhamel in view of Ward et al. (US 2005/0035678 Hereinafter, “Ward”).
Regarding claim 14/1: Duhamel discloses the limitations of claim 1 including a motor controller, however, does not specifically disclose a processor configured to drive electric current to the electrical winding.
Ward discloses system (500) has a processor (502; para [0086]) configured to drive electric current (Ia, Ib, Ic; fig. 20) to the electrical winding (of motor 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the motor of Duhamel to have a processor configured to drive electric current to the electrical winding as disclosed by Ward to precisely and effectively control the motor.
Regarding claim 21: Duhamel discloses a vehicle (title) comprising:
a chassis (frame; para [0022]); at least one wheel assembly (wheel for vehicle; para [0002]), a wheel assembly comprising: a stator (13) comprising a spacing (slots; para [0045]) for receiving an electrical winding (38); and a rotor (15) defining an outer ring (60), the rotor (15) housing the stator (13) for relative rotation around the stator (13), the rotor (15) comprising magnets (61) for interacting with the electrical winding (38) to provide the relative rotation about a central longitudinal axis (axle 12); wherein the stator (13) comprises openings (between arms 34A, 34B, passing by fins 39A; openings (i.e., channels); para [0045]) extending from a stator proximal side to a stator distal side (up and down in claim 5-6); and wherein rotation of the rotor (15) around the stator (13) causes an air flow through the openings for heat dissipation (para [0044, and 0049]).
Duhamel does not disclose a processor configured to drive electric current to the electrical winding of the at least one wheel assembly for controlling rotation of the at least one wheel assembly.
Ward discloses a processor (502) configured to drive electric current (Ia, Ib, and Ic; fig. 20) to the electrical winding (of motor 30) of the at least one wheel assembly for controlling rotation of the at least one wheel assembly (para [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the motor of Duhamel to have a processor configured to drive electric current to the electrical winding of the at least one wheel assembly for controlling rotation of the at least one wheel assembly as disclosed by Ward to precisely and effectively control the motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13, 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5/1: the limitations of claim 5, “…a bearing carrier at an interface between the stator and the rotor, a static portion of the bearing carrier being secured to a chassis support of a vehicle, the chassis support comprising at least one chassis support hole having chassis support hole axis being parallel to a direction of movement of the vehicle to allow airflow therethrough when the vehicle moves” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior arts in record. Claims 6-8 are objected-to for depending on claim 5.
Regarding claim 13/12/1: the limitations of claim 13, “…the bearing carrier is mounted within a central opening of the stator and the opening wall of the stator is adjacent to the bearing carrier” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior arts in record.
Regarding claim 19/17/15: the limitations of claim 19, “…a cover covering at least the hub, and defining a free space with the rotor such that the air flow is forced to traverse through the stator and to be exhausted through the free space between the cover and the rotor” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior arts in record.
Regarding claim 20/15: the limitations of claim 20, “…an arm for connecting the stator to a chassis of a vehicle, the arm having through-openings along a longitudinal axis which is parallel to a movement direction of the vehicle to force air through the through-openings for additional heat dissipation from the stator.” in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior arts in record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ELNAKIB whose telephone number is (571)270-0638. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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.
/AHMED ELNAKIB/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2834