DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 Regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 does not require a non-threaded connection, does not specify translational movement of the axle relative to the mounting plate, and does not recite that the movement must occur specifically during compression and rebound of the suspension. Those limitations will not be read into the claim from the specification. Applicant argues James fails to disclose any specific opening sizing
on the mounting plate, let alone opening sizing to permit freedom of movement of the axle. Applicant characterizes James as providing a threaded connection between the axle and mounting plate, which is not accurate. James’s threaded nut engages the end of axle 66 to retain bearing assembly 90. The bearing assembly surrounds the axle and expressly permits relative movement between the rotor and stator. The threaded retention arrangement therefore does not eliminate the clearance or freedom of movement supplied by the bearing structure. However, the former anticipation rejection based on James is withdrawn. James describes its rotor as mechanically attached to the wheel and secured by lug nuts and therefore does not, standing alone, disclose the claimed integral rim and rotor assembly without fastening means. The present rejection relies on Gilmore for that limitation and on James for the newly claimed axle opening and relative movement teaching see below.
Applicant’s arguments see page 8, filed 7/2/2026 regarding claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed7/2/2026 regarding the allowance of claim 21 have been fully considered but they /are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All limitations of claim 18 have been incorporated into claim 17. Claim 18 is therefore a direct duplicate and claim 18 fails to further limit claim 17 at all. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore (US 20110061956) and further in view of by James (US 20080066980).
In regards to claim 1, Gilmore discloses a wheel assembly (see 20 fig. 2) for a vehicle (10, see fig. 1), the wheel assembly (20 see fig.2) comprising: a rim (62) on which a tire (98) is mountable (see para. 16); and an electric motor assembly (18) operably coupled to the rim (62), the electric motor assembly (18) comprising a rotor (30), a stator (32) and power electronics (14, 16), wherein the electric motor assembly (18) is operably coupled to a battery (24) of the vehicle to provide motive force to the rim (62)(see fig. 1) to rotate the tire (98) with the rim (62) responsive to application of a rotating electric field in the stator (32)(see para. 13) that causes corresponding rotation of the rotor (30) under control of the power electronics (controller 16 and power electronics 14), and wherein the rim (62) and the rotor (30) are integrally formed as a combined assembly without any fastening means therebetween (see fig. 2, rotor 30 embedded in the rim, here embedded is understood as being integral with, see para. 18), and wherein the stator (32) is operably coupled to a mounting plate (76) opposite the rim (62) with respect to the hub (60) (see fig. 2, para. 15).
Gilmore does not expressly describe the details of the center opening on mounting plate (76) relative to the axle as claimed. However, James teaches a wheel mounted motor having a stator structure (80) positioned around an axle (66) similar to Gilmore. James teaches a stator bearing assembly (90) with a bearing race (92), bearing (94), which holds a stator (80) concentrically around axle (66) while permitting relative movement between the rotor and stator. The axle passes through the central stator and bearing structure. The opening receiving the axle and surrounding bearing necessarily has a diameter larger than the axle itself. James teaches that the stator support arrangement may accommodate movement associated with vehicle suspension action, see para. 31-34 and fig. 1C – 2E. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the central region of Gilmore’s stator mounting plate with James’s axle receiving clearance and bearing arrangement. The modification would maintain rotor/stator concentricity, prevent interference between the axle and stator support, permit relative movement, and accommodate ordinary wheel and suspension movement with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 2, Gilmore, in combination with James, teaches wherein the rim (62) and rotor (30) are cast together to form the combined assembly (see para. 18, the rotor is cast into the rim 62).
In regards to claim 4, Gilmore, in combination with James, teaches wherein a hub (60) and axle (see axle fig. 1, 2) are operably coupled to the rim (62) via a plurality of lugs (80), and no fasteners attach to the rim other than the lugs.
In regards to claim 8, Gilmore, in combination with James, teaches wherein the stator (32) is inserted inside the rim (62) to operably couple the stator (32) to the rotor (30)(see fig.2).
In regards to claim 9, Gilmore, in combination with James, teaches wherein the rim (62) comprises a hub interface portion (lower flange 90 directly coupled to and extending about hub 60) and a tire interface portion (upper flange 90 including 92, 94, 100, 102, 104), and wherein the rotor (30) is integrated into the tire interface portion (wall portion 92 and sealing beads 94, sealingly engage sidewalls 96 of tire 98).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore (US 20110061956) and James (US 20080066980) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Geisler (US 20180065468).
In regards to claim 3, Gilmore and James teach claim 1 as discussed above. Gilmore fails to explicitly teach wherein the rim and rotor are forged together to form the combined assembly. However, Geisler teaches a rim and rotor forged together to form a combined assembly (see para. 0018-0022, "it can be advantageous if the rotor housing, particularly as an at least partially integral component of the wheel rim, is cast or forged in one piece with the wheel rim’, see also para. 0030). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Gilmore and James in view of the improvement technique Geisler teaches for the rim and rotor to form the combined assembly because Geisler teaches direct and more efficient transfer of force from the rotor housing to the tires takes place with this technique (see para. 0017).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore (US 20110061956) and James (US 20080066980) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kim (US 20250055401, filed 11/8/2023).
In regards to claim 6, Gilmore and James teach the claim 1 and 4 as discussed above but fails to teach wherein the electric motor assembly further comprises a capacitor ring disposed between the power electronics and the stator. However, Kim teaches a similar wheel assembly with an electric motor assembly (see fig. 1, 100) further comprises a capacitor ring (140) disposed between the power electronics (150) and the stator (120) in order to support the operation of the stator 120. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Gilmore in view of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success including the capacitor ring 140 for additional current needed when the in-wheel motor starts to provide additional support to the stator as Kim teaches (see para. 50).
In regards to claim 7, Gilmore, and James in combination fails to teach wherein a protective cover operably couples to the mounting plate to enclose the capacitor ring and the power electronics between the protective cover and the mounting plate. Kim teaches a protective cover (see fig. 1, 160) operably coupled to a mounting plate (130) of a wheel assembly (100) to enclose the capacitor ring (140) and the power electronics (150) between the protective cover (160) and the mounting plate (130) so as to protect from dust, water, or stones (see par. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Gilmore in view of Kim before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to include the protective cover in order to protect the internal components from being damaged, reducing need for repair or replacement.
Claim 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore (US 20110061956) and James (US 20080066980) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Arrowsmith (GB 2540631 A).
In regards to claim 10, Gilmore, and James in combination teach wherein the hub interface portion (Gilmore lower flange 90 directly coupled to and extending about hub 60) However, Gilmore and James fail to teach includes an annular plate disposed in a plane substantially perpendicular to a rotational axis of the rim the annular plate has a plurality of aerodynamic vanes operably coupled thereto.
Arrowsmith teaches a wheel assembly including a braking system including an annular plate (15 on a mount 12 understood as a hub interface portion, see fig. 3a-3d) disposed in a plane substantially perpendicular to a rotational axis of the rim (around the center of the plate 15 see. Fig. 3a), and wherein a plurality of aerodynamic vanes (328a, b) are operably coupled to the annular plate (15)(see para. 0028-31). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Gilmore and James wherein the hub interface portion includes a plate with the improvement technique of aerodynamic vanes as Arrowsmith teaches for the weight reduction and cooling benefits to the wheel system.
In regards to claim 11, Gilmore, James, and Arrowsmith in combination teach wherein the aerodynamic vanes (see para. 0028-32, vanes 328a,b) extend radially outwardly with respect to the rotational axis (around the center of the disc see fig.3a) toward the tire interface portion and direct airflow from an outer side of the rim (see rim, 12) toward a brake assembly (Arrowsmith, vanes directing air to the caliper 4) of the vehicle disposed on an inner side of the rim (see fig. 2e, 6e).
Claim 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore (US 20110061956) in view of James (US 20080066980), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Sagawa (JP 2016030526 A), English translation provided.
In regards to claim 12, Gilmore and James teach wherein a hub interface portion (lower flange 90 directly coupled to and extending about hub 60) However, Gilmore and James fail to teach an annular plate disposed in a plane substantially perpendicular to a rotational axis of the rim and wherein the annular plate has a plurality of aerodynamic ducts disposed on an inner side of the rim.
Sagawa teaches a vehicle wheel assembly similar to Gilmore and James wherein the assembly further includes a hub interface portion with an annular plate (see plate 230, fig.4, engaged with hub 210) having a plurality of aerodynamic ducts (231) disposed on an inner side of the rim (see fig. 1, inner side of the rim of wheel assembly). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Gilmore and James, further in view of Sagawa's improved cooling technique of the aerodynamic ducts disposed on an inner side of the rim with a reasonable expectation of success to provide passive cooling airflow toward the brake and in wheel motor components.
In regards to claim 13, Gilmore, James, and Sagawa in combination teach wherein the aerodynamic ducts (231) extend tangentially (see fig. 4) with respect to the rotational axis (the center of the wheel assembly which the wheel rotates around) toward the tire interface portion (on the exterior of the rim) and direct airflow from an outer side of the rim toward a brake assembly of the vehicle disposed on an inner side of the rim (when the vehicle travels the plate draws air towards the brake disc, therefore cooling the brakes and the motor without using any dedicated power for cooling).
In regards to claim 14, Gilmore, James, and Sagawa in combination teach wherein the aerodynamic ducts (Sagawa, 231) comprise a scoop portion ( the open portion of the scoop 231 where the airflow path enters) disposed on the outer side of the rim (on the outside of the plate 231) and a duct portion (the closed portion of the scoop in contact with the plate, see fig. 4) extending through the annular plate to direct the airflow toward the brake assembly (introducing airflow to the path of 221a of the brake disc 220).
In regards to claim 15, Gilmore, James, and Sagawa in combination teach wherein the scoop portion (the open, extended portion of 231) has a cross sectional area larger than a cross sectional area of the duct portion (the portion flat with the plate, see fig. 4, Sagawa).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore (US 20110061956) and James (US 20080066980), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Woolmer (US 20130187492).
In regards to claim 16, Gilmore in view of James fails to explicitly teach wherein a plurality of airflow generation elements are disposed on hub interface portion to generate and direct airflow from an outer side of the rim toward the stator disposed on an inner side of the rim to cool the stator such that the airflow is in direct proportion to a current draw of the stator. However, Woolmer teaches a similar wheel assembly with a rim of a wheel where the tire is mounted, wherein a plurality of airflow generation elements (apertures 91) are disposed on hub interface portion (90, see fig. 3) to generate and direct airflow from an outer side of the rim toward the stator (12) disposed on an inner side of the rim (see fig.3, rim hub interface portion 90) to cool the stator such that the airflow is in direct proportion to a current draw of the stator (see para. 0024, 0044, the vehicle motion creates its own flow of air and the vehicle can be designed to funnel air towards and over the stator housing fins, its rotation causes a flow of air to draw it over the stator 12 with the provided scalloped apertures 91). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified Gilmore and James with the improvement technique Woolmer teaches with a reasonable expectation of success including a plurality of airflow generation elements to direct airflow toward the stator, so as to cool the stator without any additional cooling means.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilmore (US 20110061956), and further in view of Sagawa (JP 2016030526 A).
Regarding claim 21, Gilmore discloses a wheel assembly (see 20 fig. 2) for a vehicle (10, see fig. 1), the wheel assembly (20 see fig.2) comprising: a rim (62) on which a tire (98) is mountable (see para. 16); and an electric motor assembly (18) operably coupled to the rim (62), the electric motor assembly (18) comprising a rotor (30), a stator (32) and power electronics (14, 16), wherein the electric motor assembly (18) is operably coupled to a battery (24) of the vehicle to provide motive force to the rim (62)(see fig. 1) to rotate the tire (98) with the rim (62) responsive to application of a rotating electric field in the stator (32)(see para. 13) that causes corresponding rotation of the rotor (30) under control of the power electronics (controller 16 and power electronics 14), and wherein the rim (62) and the rotor (30) are integrally formed as a combined assembly without any fastening means therebetween (see fig. 2, rotor 30 embedded in the rim, here embedded is understood as being integral with, see para. 18), wherein the rim (62) comprises a hub interface portion (lower flange 90 directly coupled to and extending about hub 60) and a tire interface portion (upper flange 90 including 92, 94, 100, 102, 104), and wherein the rotor (30) is integrated into the tire interface portion (wall portion 92 and sealing beads 94, sealingly engage sidewalls 96 of tire 98). Gilmore and James fail to teach or suggest wherein the hub interface portion includes an annular plate disposed in a plane substantially perpendicular to a rotational axis of the rim, and wherein a plurality of aerodynamic ducts are tangentially disposed in the annular plate.
However, Sagawa teaches an annular wheel associated plate (230) positioned substantially perpendicular to the rotational axis and having a plurality of circumferentially spaced aerodynamic ducts 231 tangentially disposed In the plate. Ducts 231 collect air during wheel rotation and direct the resulting airflow toward the brake assembly. See Sagawa, Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Gilmores wheel assembly. The modification would generate passive cooling airflow toward the brake assembly and adjacent components of wheel motor 18 during rotation of wheel 02, thereby reducing temperatures without a separate cooling device. This combination would have involved the predictable use of Sagawa’s cooling structure according to its established function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 19-20 are allowed.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 17, a wheel rim having an annular plate with a plurality of aerodynamic vanes extending over a plurality of lugs fastening the rim, wherein each aerodynamic vane extends across a majority of radius of the annular plate. Arrowsmith teaches vanes associated with an annular mounting structure, however they are confined to an annular region radially outward of the mounting holes and bolts. Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 17 and therefore incorporate all of the limitations found allowable in claim 17.
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 CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights