DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
The amendments filed on 12/22/2025 have been entered, no new matter has been added. The arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The drawing objections and 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Response To Amendments
The amendments filed on 12/22/2025 have been entered, no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the applicant has amended these claims to include limitations from previous dependent claim 9, particularly the “rotor is positioned radially inwardly of the windings.” Applicant further argues that this is a critical limitation and distinct from Beltrame 1. This is persuasive, but previous claim 9 was rejected under 35 USC 103 over Beltrame 1 in view of Berger. Berger was relied upon to teach the “rotor is positioned radially inwardly of the windings.” Applicant does not address Beltrame 1 in view of Berger, thus this part of claims 1 and 12 are found to be taught by an obvious combination of Beltrame 1 and Berger, as set forth in the 103 rejection below.
Applicant further argues that Beltrame 1 does not teach that energy storage module is affixed to or positioned within the stator support structure and entirely within the wheel assembly. In support of this assertion, applicant points to figure 1, which does not teach the energy storage module’s position, let alone that it is entirely within the wheel assembly. However, the energy storage module is taught as affixed to the stator support structure and as part of the wheel assembly by column 2 lines 41-42 “For example, the removable battery pack may be located on the stationary side wall of the wheels.” Thus, Beltrame 1 does teach these limitations.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-8, 11, 13-15, and 17-19, applicant argues that these claims appropriately depend upon claims 1 or 12 and thus are allowable at least by merit of their dependency. Because claims 1 and 12 are rejected, this argument is not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawing objections have been overcome by cancelling the claims containing the objected to material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112 rejections have been overcome by canceling the rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltrame 1 (US 5343128 A) in view of Berger (DE 102016218628 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Beltrame 1 teaches a wheel assembly for a vehicle comprising:
a rotor housing (taught by annotated figure 1 attached below) adapted to be supported on wheel bearings of the vehicle (10 “bearing” taught in figure 1), said rotor housing having a support structure (9 “circumferential wall” taught by figure 3) connected to a rotor (15 “magnets” taught in figure 1), the support structure having a wheel rim (7 “outer side wall” taught by figure 3), the rotor having permanent magnets therein (15 “magnets” taught in figure 1);
a stator support structure adapted to be affixed to a non-rotatable portion of the vehicle, said stator support structure having windings therein, the windings being spaced from the permanent magnets of the rotor housing by an air gap (17 “electromagnetic field coil” taught in figure 1); and
an energy storage module affixed to or positioned within said stator support structure and entirely within the wheel assembly (19 “battery pack” taught by column 2 lines 41-42 “For example, the removable battery pack may be located on the stationary side wall of the wheels”), said energy storage module cooperative with the windings of said stator support structure so as to receive energy from the windings and transmit energy to the windings relative to a motion of the vehicle (19 “battery pack” taught by figure 2 and column 3 lines 46-50 “A rechargeable battery pack 19 is connected to the electromagnetic field coil 17 and is operable on actuation of an operator control switch 21 to energize the electromagnetic field coil 17 to generate a magnetic field”).
However, Beltrame 1 does not teach wherein the rotor is positioned radially inwardly of the windings.
Berger teaches wherein the rotor is positioned radially inwardly of the windings (64 “rotor” and 66 “stator” taught in figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the rotor and of Beltrame 1 so that the rotor is inward of the stator as taught by Berger, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a rotor being inward of a stator allows the rotor to be spun at high speed while having a lower moment of inertia because of its lower radial distance.
PNG
media_image1.png
704
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the wheel assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Beltrame 1 also teaches said energy storage module having a housing affixed only to said stator support structure (taught by column 2 lines 41-42 “For example, the removable battery pack may be located on the stationary side wall of the wheels.”)
Regarding claim 8, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the wheel assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Beltrame 1 also teaches said energy storage module having a energy storage element selected from the group consisting of capacitors, ultra-capacitors, chemical batteries, solid-state batteries and combinations thereof (19 “rechargeable battery pack” taught in figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the wheel assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Beltrame 1 also teaches wherein the air gap is concentric to an axis of rotation of said rotor housing (taught by figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 12, Beltrame 1 teaches an assembly comprising:
a vehicle having a plurality of wheel stations (taught by column 1 lines 12-13 “A conventional golf buggy comprises a support frame for a golf bag mounted on a pair of wheels”), each wheel station of the plurality of wheel stations having a wheel hub (8 “centrally located hub” taught in figure 1) and wheel bearings (10 “bearing” taught in figure 1) and wheel bolts (annotated figure 3 attached below teaches wheel bolt holes which inherently teaches wheel bolts), the wheel hub being connected to a hub shaft (5 “axle” taught in figure 3); and
a wheel assembly (3 “wheel” taught in figure 1) affixed to at least one of the plurality of wheel stations, said wheel assembly being affixed to the wheel hub and bolted to the wheel bolts (taught by figure 3), said wheel assembly comprising:
a rotor housing (taught by annotated figure 1 attached above) supported on the wheel bearings of said vehicle (10 “bearing” taught in figure 1), said rotor housing having a support structure (9 “circumferential wall” taught by figure 3) connected to a rotor (15 “magnets” taught in figure 1), the support structure defining a wheel rim (7 “outer side wall” taught by figure 3), wherein the rotor has permanent magnets therein (15 “magnets” taught in figure 1);
a stator support structure affixed to a non-rotatable portion of said vehicle, said stator support structure having windings therein, the windings being spaced from the permanent magnets of the rotor by an air gap (17 “electromagnetic field coil” taught in figure 1); and
an energy storage module affixed to or within said stator support structure and entirely with said wheel assembly (19 “battery pack” taught by column 2 lines 41-42 “For example, the removable battery pack may be located on the stationary side wall of the wheels”), said energy storage module cooperative with permanent magnets and the winding so as to receive and transmit energy from and to the permanent magnets and the windings (19 “battery pack” taught by figure 2 and column 3 lines 46-50 “A rechargeable battery pack 19 is connected to the electromagnetic field coil 17 and is operable on actuation of an operator control switch 21 to energize the electromagnetic field coil 17 to generate a magnetic field”).
However, Beltrame 1 does not teach wherein the rotor is positioned radially inwardly of the windings.
Berger teaches wherein the rotor is positioned radially inwardly of the windings (64 “rotor” and 66 “stator” taught in figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the rotor and of Beltrame 1 so that the rotor is inward of the stator as taught by Berger, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a rotor being inward of a stator allows the rotor to be spun at high speed while having a lower moment of inertia because of its lower radial distance.
PNG
media_image2.png
381
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the wheel assembly of claim 12, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Beltrame 1 also teaches said energy storage module having a housing affixed to said stator support structure (taught by column 2 lines 41-42 “For example, the removable battery pack may be located on the stationary side wall of the wheels”).
Regarding claim 18, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the wheel assembly of claim 17, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Beltrame 1 also teaches said energy storage module having a energy storage element selected from the group consisting of capacitors, ultra-capacitors, chemical batteries, solid-state batteries and combinations thereof (19 “rechargeable battery pack” taught in figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the wheel assembly of claim 12, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Beltrame 1 also teaches wherein the air gap is concentric to an axis of rotation of said rotor housing (taught by figures 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltrame 1 (US 5343128 A) in view of Berger (DE 102016218628 A1) and in further view of Beltrame 2 (US 20040079567 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the wheel assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Beltrame 1 does not teach a tire affixed to the wheel rim of said rotor housing.
Beltrame 2 teaches a tire affixed to the wheel rim of said rotor housing (9 “ground-engaging tread” taught in figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the tire of Beltrame 2 onto the wheel rim of Beltrame 1, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a tire makes a wheel more easily able to absorb small impacts, and makes a vehicle drive more smoothly over bumpy surfaces.
Regarding claim 13, Beltrame in view of Berger teaches the assembly of claim 12, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Beltrame 1 does not teach a tire affixed to the wheel rim of said rotor housing.
Beltrame 2 teaches a tire affixed to the wheel rim of said rotor housing (9 “ground-engaging tread” taught in figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the tire of Beltrame 2 onto the wheel rim of Beltrame 1, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a tire makes a wheel more easily able to absorb small impacts, and makes a vehicle drive more smoothly over bumpy surfaces.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltrame 1 (US 5343128 A) in view of Berger (DE 102016218628 A1) and in further view of Williams (US 7552787 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the wheel assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Beltrame 1 also teaches a wheel hub (8 “centrally located hub” taught in figure 1) wherein the rotor housing is adapted to be connected to the wheel hub (the rotor housing taught connected to circumferential wall 9 in figure 1 and column 3 lines 40-42 “The electromagnetic drive assembly comprises, a plurality of equi-spaced button magnets 15 connected to the circumferential wall 9” and the circumferential wall taught to be integrally formed with the wheel hub in figure 1 and column 3 lines 35-38 “The outer side wall 7 comprises a centrally located hub 8 which extends over the axle 5 and is supported by bearings 10 so that the outer side wall 7 and the integrally formed circumferential wall 9”).
However, Beltrame 1 does not teach wherein the rotor housing is adapted to be bolted to the wheel hub.
Williams teaches a housing (54 “motor mount” taught in figure 1) bolted (52 “lug bolt” taught in figure 1) to a wheel hub (taught by annotated figure 3 attached below).
PNG
media_image3.png
500
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the connection between the rotor housing and wheel hub of Beltrame 1 to include a bolt as taught by Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Beltrame 1 does not teach any means of connecting the rotor housing and wheel hub, and a bolt is a cheap, and reversable means of attaching parts.
Regarding claim 4, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger and in further view of Williams teaches the wheel assembly of claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Beltrame 1 in view of Williams also teaches the support structure of said rotor housing being bolted to the wheel hub (the above obviousness rejection incorporates the bolt of Williams to connect the rotor housing to the wheel hub).
Regarding claim 14, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the assembly of claim 12, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Beltrame 1 also teaches a wheel hub (8 “centrally located hub” taught in figure 1) wherein the rotor housing is adapted to be connected to the wheel hub (the rotor housing taught connected to circumferential wall 9 in figure 1 and column 3 lines 40-42 “The electromagnetic drive assembly comprises, a plurality of equi-spaced button magnets 15 connected to the circumferential wall 9” and the circumferential wall taught to be integrally formed with the wheel hub in figure 1 and column 3 lines 35-38 “The outer side wall 7 comprises a centrally located hub 8 which extends over the axle 5 and is supported by bearings 10 so that the outer side wall 7 and the integrally formed circumferential wall 9”).
However, Beltrame 1 does not teach wherein the rotor housing is adapted to be bolted to the wheel hub.
Williams teaches a housing (54 “motor mount” taught in figure 1) bolted (52 “lug bolt” taught in figure 1) to a wheel hub (taught by annotated figure 3 attached above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the connection between the rotor housing and wheel hub of Beltrame 1 to include a bolt as taught by Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Beltrame 1 does not teach any means of connecting the rotor housing and wheel hub, and a bolt is a cheap, and reversable means of attaching parts.
Claim(s) 5, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beltrame 1 (US 5343128 A) in view of Berger (DE 102016218628 A1) and in further view of Jeon (US 20240300316 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the wheel assembly of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Beltrame does not teach that the stator support structure is adapted to be affixed to a steering knuckle of the vehicle
Jeon teaches a stator support structure adapted to be affixed to a steering knuckle of the vehicle (taught by figure 2 and paragraph 63 “The knuckle body 210 may be coupled to the stator of the drive unit 100 by welding, bolting, or the like”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the stator support structure of Beltrame 1 to be affixed to a steering knuckle of the vehicle as taught by Jeon, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a steering knuckle connected to the stator allows “for independently adjusting a steering angle of the wheel 3 by using autonomous driving power” (Jeon paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 15, Beltrame 1 in view of Berger teaches the assembly of claim 12, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
However, Beltrame 1 does not teach the plurality of wheel stations having at least one steering wheel station, the at least one steering wheel station having a steering knuckle, said stator support structure being affixed to the steering knuckle.
Jeon teaches at least one steering wheel station, the at least one steering wheel station having a steering knuckle, said stator support structure being affixed to the steering knuckle (taught by figure 2 and paragraph 63 “The knuckle body 210 may be coupled to the stator of the drive unit 100 by welding, bolting, or the like”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the plurality of wheel stations of Beltrame 1 to be affixed to a steering knuckle of the vehicle as taught by Jeon, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a steering knuckle connected to the stator allows “for independently adjusting a steering angle of the wheel 3 by using autonomous driving power” (Jeon paragraph 53).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613