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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 7-9, 11-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vogler et al. (9,073,424).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 11-13, Vogler discloses a vehicle having a frame (e.g., a torsion beam, see Col. 3, lines 38-39) hub motor driving system for a vehicle, comprising:
a wheel axle (116, see Fig. 7), wherein the wheel axle (116) is fixedly connected to a frame of the vehicle (e.g., the torsion beam);
a driving motor, wherein the driving motor is provided with a motor stator (105) and a motor rotor (108) which is located on a radial inner side of the motor stator (see Fig. 7) and can rotate relative to the motor stator (see e.g., Col. 9, lines 59-63), and the driving motor and the wheel axle (116) are coaxially disposed (see Fig. 7);
an output flange (117/113), wherein the output flange (117) radially supports the motor rotor (108, see e.g., Col. 15, lines 62-63 and Fig. 7) and rotates along with the motor rotor (108), and wherein the output flange (117) is connected to a wheel rim (102) of a wheel on the axial direction side of the output flange (see Fig. 7 showing the rim mounted to the outboard face of the rotor support flange 117); and
a plurality of axially spaced bearing devices (115, 115), wherein the bearing devices (115) are radially supported between the output flange (117) and the wheel axle (116, see Fig. 7 and Col. 15, lines 37-39), and wherein the bearing devices (115) bear both a load of the driving motor and a load of the frame (see e.g., Col 15 lines 37-43; i.e., the bearings 115 couple the stationary elements, such as the vehicle frame/torsion bar/stator to the ground engaging/rotating elements, such as the rotor and wheels).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 14-15, Vogler further discloses braking devices (109-111) that are coaxially disposed on the wheel axle (116; see Fig. 7) braking devices include a brake drum (109), and wherein the output flange (117) is connected to the brake drum (see Col. 15, lines 35-36) on the other axial direction side of the output flange (see Fig. 7 showing the drum 109 coupled to the inboard face of the rotor support), such that the brake drum is configured to rotate with the output flange.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Vogler further discloses that the driving motor includes a motor housing (e.g., the outer peripheral walls radially surrounding the stator and including cooling system channels 103) and a motor housing cover (1), and the motor stator (105) is supported by the motor housing cover (1), and wherein the motor housing and the motor housing cover are supported on the output flange (117; i.e., as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the vehicle wheels support the entire vehicle, the wheels are mounted via the rim to the output flange/rotor support 117; the rotor support 117 through the bearings 115 support the frame, stator, and other fixed elements, such as the motor housing. The housing and cover are therefore supported on the output flange 117 when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “supported on”) .
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Vogler further discloses that the output flange (117) supports the motor rotor (108) via a motor rotor support (e.g., the horizontally running portion of the rotor support immediately radially inboard of the rotor 108 in Fig. 7), and wherein the motor rotor support is connected to the output flange and the motor rotor in a radial direction (i.e., as shown in Fig. 7, the rotor 108 is radially outside of the rotor support/horizontal portion, which is radially outside of the vertically oriented portion of the flange 117).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Vogler further discloses that the hub motor driving system further comprises: a wheel rim positioning member (e.g., the wheel studs 112 position the rim upon the flange 117) disposed on the output flange (117, see Fig. 7).
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 of this title, 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 5-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogler in view of Urano (JP2007253687, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Vogler does not disclose a bearing provided between the output flange and the motor housing cover.
Urano teaches another in-wheel motor having a pair of bearings (18/21) between the rotor (11) and the non-rotating frame-fixing stator support (12/14/28) and further includes an auxiliary bearing (29, which “suppresses” relevant movement between the rotating rotor and the fixed stator elements, which reads upon a “motor vibration bearing” when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term) provided between the fixed motor housing cover (14/28) and an output flange/rotor support (19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the hub motor driving system of Vogel to include a movement suppressing auxiliary bearing as taught by Urano to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using additional supplementary supports to reduce relative movement between rotating structures) to known devices (e.g., in-wheel motors) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Vogel further discloses that the outboard mating surface between the rotating output flange (117) and stator includes a dynamic lip seal (118), but does not a seal between two housing elements and the rotating rotor support.
Urano teaches another in-wheel motor where both the inboard mating surfaces and the outboard mating surfaces between the rotating rotor supports (11/23) and the fixed stator supports (13) include dynamic sealing members (26, 27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the hub motor driving system of Vogel to use both an inboard and an outboard seal between both the inboard and outboard portion of the fixed stator support/housing as taught by Urano to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using seals along all mating edges between the rotating and fixed outer surfaces of a wheel motor) to known devices (e.g., in-wheel motors) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618