DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 of U.S. Application No. 18/647,665 filed on 04/26/2024 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 04/26/2024, 08/29/2024, 10/01/2024, 03/13/2025, and 10/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8: claim 8 recites, “…a ratio of a total fan circumference of the fans of the plurality of motors to a cross-sectional area of the multi-motor drive unit is approximately 4.56mm/cm2.
Normally, ratio is a mathematical comparison of two or more quantities, showing their relative sizes or quantities, often expressed as a fraction, with a colon (a:b), or using the word "to". It indicates how many times one number contains another, expressing a proportion or relationship between amounts. For example, “the ratio of the inner diameter to the outer diameter is 3:4”. In claim 8 the claimed ration is given as a single number and two different measuring unit. That being said, the claimed ratio is not understood as written.
Regarding claim 14: claim 14 requires a magnetic interface boundary/cross section ratio is in a range of approximately 1.5 mm/cm2 to 3.0 mm/cm2.
The claimed “magnetic interface boundary” is defined as Magnetic interface boundaries define how magnetic fields (B and H) behave at the intersection of two different materials, generally requiring the normal component of magnetic flux density to be continuous and the tangential component of magnetic field intensity to be discontinuous by any surface current density.
It is not clear from the specifications what are the two different materials being claimed and their location in the motor structure. Also, it is not known in what part of the motor the claimed “cross-section is taken.
Claims 16 is rejected for depending on claim 14.
Further, the term “approximately” in claims 8, 14-17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by R.R. Bander (US 2,463,349; Hereinafter, “Bander”).
Regarding claim 1: Bander discloses a multi-motor drive unit (fig. 1-2) comprising:
a rear cover (15’); a plurality of motors (three motors 25 are shown in fig. 1-3) disposed around a center longitudinal axis (center of shaft 28) along a radial plane (fig. 1), a rear end of the plurality of motors (25) being secured (at bearing 16) to the rear cover (15’; fig. 2) and each of the plurality of motors (25) including a pinion (27); a master gear (29; fig. 3) including peripheral teeth (fig. 3) that engage the pinion (27) of each of the plurality of motors (25); a motor adapter (19; fig. 2, 7) disposed between the master gear (29) and the plurality of motors (25) to pilot and support (by sleeve 22) the master gear (29) and a front end of the plurality of motors (25); an output shaft (28); and a front cover (30) to pilot and support (by bearing 34 of the cover 30) an output bearing (34, since 34 is supporting output shaft 28, it is output bearing) of the output shaft (28).
The Examiner notes that the labels of “front” or “rear” of the motor is a mere naming convention and does not affect the function of the motor.
Regarding claim 2/1: Bander discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the rear cover (15’) defines a center opening (the opening that houses bearing 16) around the center longitudinal axis (center of shaft 28); and each of the plurality of motors (25) includes terminals that are located radially inward (the pieces of the commutator (col.3, line 9) on the inner side of the motor shaft) of a circumference of the center opening (of bearing 16).
Regarding claim 4/1: Bander discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the plurality of motors (25) comprises motors of equal size and structure (since all the motor are referred to generally as motor 25).
Regarding claim 10/1: Bander discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that a sleeve (23; fig. 1-2, 4) to surround the plurality of motors (25), the sleeve (23) being disposed between the rear cover and the front cover (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13/1: Bander discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the motor adapter (19) forms a master bearing (by the virtue of sleeve 22) that pilots and supports the master gear (29), wherein the master bearing is radially aligned (. Fig, 2-3) with the pinion (27) of each of the plurality of motors (25).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bander in view of Weng et al. (US 10243431; Hereinafter, “Weng”).
Regarding claim 3/2/1: Bander disclose the limitations of claim 2 but does not disclose that the rear cover includes a plurality of air intakes disposed equidistantly around the center opening.
Weng discloses forming the rear cover (20) includes a plurality of air intakes (slots 22; fig. 4) disposed equidistantly around the center opening (fig. 4 shows equidistantly slots including a center hole/opening).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the rear cover includes a plurality of air intakes disposed equidistantly around the center opening as taught by Weng to provide significant improvement to the cooling of the motor (abstract).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bander in view of He (US 2004/0232702; Hereinafter, “He”).
Regarding claim 15/1: Bander disclose the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that a power/mass ratio is in a range of approximately 3 W/g to 10 W/g.
Meinke discloses a motor with a power/mass ratio is in a range of approximately 3 W/g to 10 W/g (more than 2.8 kW/kg; para [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the motor of Bander with a power/mass ratio is in a range of approximately 3 W/g to 10 W/g as taught by Meinke to increase the efficiency of the motor.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bander in view of Romig (US 8373375; Hereinafter, “Romig”).
Regarding claim 18/1: Bander disclose the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the master gear includes: a first sun gear (29) that meshes with the pinion (27) of each of the plurality of motors.
Bander does not disclose a second sun gear that is coaxial with the first sun gear.
Romig shows (see fig. 1) a second sun gear (150) that is coaxial with the first sun gear (134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the master gear of the motor of Bander with a second sun gear that is coaxial with the first sun gear as taught by Romig to be able to get a different speed output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, 11-12, 19-21 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.
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
Prosecution Insights