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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 January 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶[0003], the grammar and syntax of the last sentence is incorrect.
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 1-3 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 11,283,319).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an axial flux machine (AFM) comprising:
a rotor assembly configured to rotate about an axis and including a first rotor core 110 and second rotor core 110, with each of the first rotor core and the second rotor core having a plurality of permanent magnets 130 attached thereto, and with each of the first rotor core and the second rotor core spaced apart and parallel to one another and perpendicular to the axis 120 (Fig.4); and
a stator assembly 150 including at least one PCB 200 located between the first rotor core and the second rotor core and parallel thereto, wherein the at least one PCB defines a stator winding (phase coils) 210 configured to generate a magnetic flux in an axial direction through each of the first rotor core and the second rotor core to cause the AFM to generate a torque (Figs.2-3A&4).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
302
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, a motor shaft (not numbered) extend[s] along the axis, wherein each of the first rotor core and the second rotor core is attached to the motor shaft to rotate therewith, and wherein each of the first rotor core and the second rotor core is disposed circumferentially about the motor shaft (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, the at least one PCB includes a first PCB 200A and a second PCB 200B each extending parallel to one another and each located between the first rotor core and the second rotor core and parallel thereto (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 7, the stator winding is one of a plurality of phase windings A-C, and wherein the at least one PCB (e.g., 200A, 200B, 200C) defines each of the plurality of phase windings (abstract; Fig.4).
Claims 1-3 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jore et al. (US 8,823,241).
Regarding claim 1, Jore teaches an axial flux machine (AFM) comprising: a rotor assembly configured to rotate about an axis and including a first rotor core 20A and second rotor core 20B, with each of the first rotor core and the second rotor core having a plurality of permanent magnets 22 attached thereto, and with each of the first rotor core and the second rotor core spaced apart and parallel to one another and perpendicular to the axis (c.1:56-59); and a stator assembly 24 including at least one PCB 32 located between the first rotor core and the second rotor core and parallel thereto (c.3:25-30), wherein the at least one PCB defines a stator winding configured to generate a magnetic flux in an axial direction through each of the first rotor core and the second rotor core to cause the AFM to generate a torque (c.8:53-58; Figs.1-3).
PNG
media_image3.png
632
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, a motor shaft 18 extend[s] along the axis, wherein each of the first rotor core 20A and the second rotor core 20B is attached to the motor shaft to rotate therewith, and wherein each of the first rotor core and the second rotor core is disposed circumferentially about the motor shaft (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, the at least one PCB includes a first PCB and a second PCB 200B each extending parallel to one another and each located between the first rotor core and the second rotor core and parallel thereto (i.e., each stator segment is constructed by stacking a plurality of PCB power conductor layers and a plurality of PCB series layers, abstract; Figs.2&10).
Regarding claim 7, the stator winding is one of a plurality of phase windings A-C, and wherein the at least one PCB defines each of the plurality of phase windings (i.e., the multiple layer stator segments 32 of the annular array comprising the entire stator are constructed by stacking the individual stator power segments 32A and stator series segments 32B for the A, B and C phases one on top the other with a substitute dielectric layer 33 provided between each layer; c.5:54-60; Fig.10).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park or Jore in view of Skellenger (US 10,071,762).
Neither Park nor Jore teaches the stator winding includes a first set of active windings and a second set of active windings independent of the first set of active windings, with either of the first set of active windings or the second set of active windings being operable to generate the magnetic flux and to cause the rotor assembly to generate a torque.
But, Skellenger teaches a motor drive for power steering systems comprising a six-phase (or dual three-phase) permanent magnet synchronous motor 19 with a stator winding including a first set of active windings A-C and a second set of active windings D-F independent of the first set of active windings, with either of the first set of active windings or the second set of active windings being operable to generate the magnetic flux and to cause the rotor assembly to generate a torque (i.e., each separate set of modules for the two inverter circuits 200 & 300 drives one phase set respectively; c.7:66-c.8:5; c.8:34-42 Fig.3). The dual-inverter configuration controlling two sets of active windings allows for control of the motor in response to detection of an error condition in one of the inverters (c.8:60-c.9:10).
PNG
media_image4.png
639
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the stator winding of Park or Jore with a first set of active windings and a second set of active windings independent of the first set of active windings, with either of the first set of active windings or the second set of active windings being operable to generate the magnetic flux and to cause the rotor assembly to generate a torque since Skellenger teaches this would have enabled control of the motor in response to detection of an error condition in an inverter driving one set of windings.
Regarding claim 5, in the combination, the at least one PCB of Park or Jore includes a first PCB and a second PCB each extending parallel to one another and each located between the first rotor core and the second rotor core and parallel thereto, with the first PCB defines the first set of active windings (e.g., phase A) and the second PCB defines the second set of active windings (e.g., phase B; Park c.3:41-43, Fig.4, Jore c.3:25-30; Fig.2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park or Jore in view of Butterfield (US 7,375,449).
Park’s motor comprises a single module with first and second rotor cores and a stator assembly therebetween. Jore teaches a similar arrangement. Neither further teaches “a second rotor assembly configured to rotate about the axis and including a third rotor core and fourth rotor core, with each of the third rotor core and the fourth rotor core having a plurality of permanent magnets attached thereto, and with each of the third rotor core and fourth rotor core spaced apart and parallel to one another and perpendicular to the axis; and a second stator assembly including at least one second PCB located between the third rotor core and fourth rotor core and parallel thereto, wherein the at least one second PCB defines a second stator winding configured to generate a magnetic flux in an axial direction through each of the third rotor core and fourth rotor core to cause the AFM to generate a torque.”
But, Butterfield teaches axial field electric machines can be stacked in a series of similar modules along an axis to achieve multiple levels of power generation or torque development (c.1:14-17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to stack similar motor modules of Park or Jore, thereby providing an axial flux machine with a second rotor assembly configured to rotate about the axis and including a third rotor core and fourth rotor core, with each of the third rotor core and the fourth rotor core having a plurality of permanent magnets attached thereto, and with each of the third rotor core and fourth rotor core spaced apart and parallel to one another and perpendicular to the axis; and a second stator assembly including at least one second PCB located between the third rotor core and fourth rotor core and parallel thereto, wherein the at least one second PCB defines a second stator winding configured to generate a magnetic flux in an axial direction through each of the third rotor core and fourth rotor core to cause the AFM to generate a torque since Butterfield teaches this would have enabled the axial flux machine to achieve multiple levels of power generation or torque development.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park or Jore in view of Jajtic et al. (US Pat.Pub.2009/0174266).
Neither Park nor Jore teaches the at least one PCB further includes a passive damping winding having one or more short circuited configurations to produce a braking torque.
But, Jajtic teaches an electrical machine with working/phase windings U/V/W and corresponding damping windings Du/Dv/Dw comprising one or more short circuited configurations (abstract; Figs.1&3). The damping windings reduce resonant overvoltages that damage the motor (¶[0002]& ¶[0004]).
PNG
media_image5.png
196
505
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Park or Jore with a passive damping winding having one or more short circuited configurations to produce a braking torque since Jajtic teaches this would have reduced resonant overvoltages.
Regarding claim 9, Jajtic teaches the damping windings can be short-circuited via a resistance (¶[0007]; ¶[0023]).
Claims 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park or Jore in view of Yura et al. (US 7,753,162).
Park or Jore do not further teach a hybrid damping winding with a switch configured to selectively conduct current through the hybrid damping winding to cause the hybrid damping winding to generate a braking torque (claim 12) or a plurality of such windings and switches (claim 14).
But, Yura teaches a linear motor including a stator 1 with hybrid damping windings comprising brake coils 6 each with a switch 7 for providing an adjustable braking force on slider 2 (abstract; Fig.1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to further provide Park or Jore with hybrid damping windings with switches configured to selectively conduct current through the hybrid damping winding to cause the hybrid damping winding to generate a braking torque since Yura teaches this would have provided an adjustable braking force.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park or Jore in view of Savin et al. (US Pat.Pub.2019/0077446).
As noted in the respective rejections of claim 1 above, each of Park & Jore teaches the claimed axial flux machine (AFM), but neither Park nor Jore teaches the axial flux machine is used for a handwheel actuator coupled to apply a torque to a steering wheel in a steer-by-wire system for a vehicle, per se.
But, Savin teaches a power steering system for a motor vehicle comprising an axial flux motor delivering additional assist torque for a steering wheel (abstract; ¶[0001]- ¶[0003]; ¶[0011]). Use of an axial flux motor delivers high mass torque having a smallest possible space as well as adjustable torque to the steering system according to the driving conditions with the possibility of redundancy (¶[0010]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the axial flux machine (AFM) of Park or Jore for a handwheel actuator coupled to apply a torque to a steering wheel in a steer-by-wire system for a vehicle since Savin teaches use of an axial flux motor in a power steering system would have been desirable to deliver high mass torque having a smallest possible space as well as adjustable torque to the steering system according to the driving conditions with the possibility of redundancy.
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches the at least one PCB includes a first PCB 200A and a second PCB 200B each extending parallel to one another and each located between the first rotor core and the second rotor core and parallel thereto (Fig.4). Similarly, Jore teaches at least one PCB includes a first PCB and a second PCB 200B each extending parallel to one another and each located between the first rotor core and the second rotor core and parallel thereto (i.e., each stator segment is constructed by stacking a plurality of PCB power conductor layers and a plurality of PCB series layers, abstract; Figs.2&10).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park or Jore in view of Savin as applied to claim 16, further in view of Skellenger.
None of Park of Jore teaches the stator winding includes a first set of active windings and a second set of active windings independent of the first set of active windings, with either of the first set of active windings or the second set of active windings being operable to generate the magnetic flux and to cause the rotor assembly to generate a torque. Savin does not remedy these deficiencies.
But, Skellenger teaches a motor drive for power steering systems comprising a six-phase (or dual three-phase) permanent magnet synchronous motor 19 with a stator winding including a first set of active windings A-C and a second set of active windings D-F independent of the first set of active windings, with either of the first set of active windings or the second set of active windings being operable to generate the magnetic flux and to cause the rotor assembly to generate a torque (i.e., each separate set of modules for the two inverter circuits 200 & 300 drives one phase set respectively; c.7:66-c.8:5; c.8:34-42 Fig.3). The dual-inverter configuration controlling two sets of active windings allows for control of the motor in response to detection of an error condition in one of the inverters (c.8:60-c.9:10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the stator winding of Park or Jore in view of Savin with a first set of active windings and a second set of active windings independent of the first set of active windings, with either of the first set of active windings or the second set of active windings being operable to generate the magnetic flux and to cause the rotor assembly to generate a torque since Skellenger teaches this would have enabled control of the motor in response to detection of an error condition in an inverter driving one set of windings.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park or Jore in view of Savin as applied to claim 16, further in view of Jajtic.
Neither Park nor Jore teaches the at least one PCB further includes a passive damping winding having one or more short circuited configurations to produce a braking torque. Savin does not remedy this deficiency.
But, Jajtic teaches an electrical machine with working/phase windings U/V/W and corresponding damping windings Du/Dv/Dw comprising one or more short circuited configurations (abstract; Figs.1&3). The damping windings reduce resonant overvoltages that damage the motor (¶[0002]& ¶[0004]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Park or Jore in view of Savin with a passive damping winding having one or more short circuited configurations to produce a braking torque since Jajtic teaches this would have reduced resonant overvoltages.
Regarding claim 20, Jajtic teaches the damping windings can be short-circuited via a resistance (¶[0007]; ¶[0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 13 & 15 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.
The prior art of record does not further teach the claimed AFM motor including, inter alia, “the at least one PCB includes: an active PCB defining the stator winding configured to generate the magnetic flux; and a passive damping PCB independent of the active PCB and defining the passive damping winding” (claim 10); or
“the stator winding includes a first set of active windings and a second set of active windings independent of the first set of active windings, with either of the first set of active windings or the second set of active windings being operable to generate the magnetic flux and to cause the rotor assembly to generate a torque, wherein the at least one PCB includes a first PCB and a second PCB each extending parallel to one another and each located between the first rotor core and the second rotor core and parallel thereto, wherein the first PCB defines the first set of active windings and the second PCB defines the second set of active windings, and wherein the AFM further includes a passive damping PCB defining the passive damping winding, the passive damping PCB disposed adjacent and parallel to each of first PCB and the second PCB” (claim 11); or
“a switch driver configured to control operation of the switch, and wherein the hybrid damping winding, the switch, and the switch driver are each disposed within or upon the at least one PCB” (claim 13); or
“the plurality of hybrid damping windings and the plurality of switches are each disposed within or upon the at least one PCB” (claim 15).
These determinations are based on keyword and citation searches performed in a limited number of subclasses. Artificial intelligence search tools were employed. Nomenclature in the art is inconsistent. Keyword searches in the foreign art was limited to the text of the abstract. For these reasons, the scope of the search was necessarily truncated and relevant art classified outside the subclasses searched and/or using different terminology or keywords may not have been reviewed. See the Search Notes for details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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 C 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights