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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nio (US
10703201) and in view of Mackenzie (US 20200180430), and Verbridge (US 2019/0186617).
As to claim 1, Nio discloses a multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system comprising (216; Fig.
2): a first drive unit comprising (500; Fig. 5): a first motor casing (580; Fig. 5); and a first inverter
mounted to the first motor casing (Fig. 5), wherein the first drive unit is installed so that the first inverter
has a first orientation (Fig. 5); and a second drive unit (600; Fig. 6) comprising: a second motor casing,
wherein the second motor casing is identical to the first motor casing (680; Fig. 6); and a second inverter
mounted to the second motor casing, wherein the second drive unit is installed so that the second inverter has a second orientation (Fig. 6), the second orientation different from the first orientation (Fig.
6).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
705
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nio fails to disclose a first inverter mount; a first oil reservoir mounted to a bottom of the first motor casing; a second inverter mount, the second inverter mount is identical to the first inverter mount, a second oil reservoir mounted to a bottom of the second motor casing, wherein the second oil reservoir has a different shape than the first oil reservoir.
Mackenzie, however, discloses a first inverter mount (Para 0024, 0026), a second inverter mount (Para 0024, 0026), and the second inverter mount is identical to the first inverter mount (Para 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Nio with a first inverter mount, a second inverter mount, and the second inverter mount is identical to the first inverter mount, as disclosed by Mackenzie, to reduce the cost of manufacturing (Para 0023).
Verbridge, however, discloses a first oil reservoir mounted to a bottom of the first motor casing;
a second oil reservoir mounted to a bottom of the second motor casing (Para 0088), wherein the second
oil reservoir has a different shape than the first oil reservoir (Para 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Nio with a first oil reservoir mounted to a
bottom of the first motor casing; a second oil reservoir mounted to a bottom of the second motor casing, wherein the second oil reservoir has a different shape than the first oil reservoir, as disclosed by
Verbridge, to properly accommodate motor casings with different oil drop angles (Para 0088 of
Verbridge).
As to claim 2, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second motor casings has a cylindrical shape (130A-C; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
363
575
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 1, wherein the second motor casing is identical to the first motor casing due to the first and second motor casings being die cast (Para 0107 of Verbridge).
As to claim 4, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 1, wherein the first inverter has an identical mechanical structure to the second inverter (Col 10, lines 5-16 of Nio).
As to claim 5, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 4, further comprising: first software in the first inverter, the first software configured for controlling operation of the first drive unit with the first inverter in the first orientation (Fig. 3; Col 5, lines 38-40 of Nio); and second software in the second inverter, the second software different from the first software (Col 5, Lines 26-31), the second software configured for controlling operation of the second drive unit with the second inverter in the second orientation (Fig. 3; the power controller may include more than one controller, processor or modules to control the power output to one or more motors).
As to claim 6, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 1, wherein: the first drive unit further comprises a first mount at the first motor casing (Col 16; lines 10-11), the first mount configured for installing the first drive unit so that the first inverter has the first orientation (Col 16, lines 21-24); and the second drive unit further comprises a second mount at the second motor casing (Col 16, lines 11-13), the second mount different from the first mount, the second mount configured for installing the second drive unit so that the second inverter has the second orientation (Col 16, lines 21-24).
As to claim 7, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 6, wherein the first drive unit further comprises a brace (Col 16, lines 25-27), wherein a first end of the first mount connects to the first motor casing, and wherein the brace connects a second end of the brace to the first motor casing, the second end being opposite to the first end (the first modular drive unit mount set 920A may include a number of mount features 922 symmetrically disposed about a front drive shaft axis 968A, and the second modular drive unit mount set 920B may include a number of mount features 922 symmetrically disposed about a rear drive shaft axis 968B. The mount features 922 may correspond to the frame drive unit mounts 107A, 107B. In any event, the mount features 922 of the first and second modular drive unit mount sets 920A, 920B have the same mount pattern 707 as the drive units 700, 800; Col 16, lines 13-24).
As to claim 13, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 1, wherein the first and second drive units are installed so that the first and second orientations comprise a rotation of the second drive unit, relative to the first drive unit, about a rotor rotation axis (Para 0024 of Mackenzie), while the first and second oil reservoirs remain mounted at respective bottoms of the first and second motor casings (Para 0088 of Verbridge).
As to claim 14, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 13, and rotation.
Nio fails to disclose wherein the rotation is about 90 degrees.
However, those skilled in the art would recognize that the above limitations do not involve any
inventive concept. They would merely depend on how one decides design the rotation of the drive units.
Furthermore, the instant specification fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact that the rotation is about 90 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the system of Nio, such that the rotation is
about 90 degrees, in order to allow part of the system to be produced and rotated to desired positions.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge and in view of Niederer (US 2008/0000889)
As to claim 8, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 7, the brace, the first mount and the first drive unit.
Nio fails to disclose the brace and the first mount enclose a heat exchanger for the first drive
unit.
Niederer, however, discloses the brace (32; Para 0030) and the first mount enclose a heat
exchanger (18; Para 0030) for the first drive unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Nio with the brace and the first mount enclose
a heat exchanger for the first drive unit, as disclosed by Niderer, to convert the energy of an electric
drive created by the generator operation that cannot be stored into thermal energy (Para 0037).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, and in view of Kira (US 2008/0182712).
As to claim 10, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second motor casings initially includes a first oil inlet structure and a second oil inlet structure (Para 0080 of Verbridge), wherein the first oil inlet structure of the first motor casing is machined into a first oil inlet (Para 0080 of Verbridge), and wherein the second oil inlet structure of the second motor casing is machined into a second oil inlet (Para 0080 of Verbridge).
Nio fails to disclose the second oil inlet structure of the first motor casing is not functional, and
the first oil inlet structure of the second motor casing is not functional.
Kira, however, discloses the second oil inlet structure of the first motor casing is not functional
(Para 0094), and the first oil inlet structure of the second motor casing is not functional (Para 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Nio with the second oil inlet structure of the
first motor casing is not functional, and the first oil inlet structure of the second motor casing is not
functional, as disclosed by Kira, to have more control over the flow of oil.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, Kira, and in view of Kirkley, JR (US 2020/0116202).
As to claim 11, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, and Kira discloses the multi-motor electric- vehicle drive unit system of claim 10, wherein each of the first and second motor casings further includes a common oil inlet channel extending axially (Para 0080 of Verbridge), and the first and second oil inlet structures.
Nio fails to disclose the oil inlet structures extend circumferentially in opposite directions from
the common oil inlet channel.
Kirkley, JR, however, discloses the oil inlet structures extend circumferentially in opposite
directions from the common oil inlet channel (Para 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Nio with the oil inlet structures extends
circumferentially in opposite directions from the common oil inlet channel, as disclosed by Kirley, JR, in
order to minimize stress conditions of the motor and improve cooling.
As to claim 12, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, Kira, and Kirkley, JR discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 11, wherein each of the first and second oil inlet structures extends circumferentially from the common oil inlet channel.
Nio fails to disclose about 45 degrees about a rotor rotation axis from the common oil inlet
channel.
However, those skilled in the art would recognize that the above limitations do not involve any
inventive concept. They would merely depend on how one designs the extension of the oil inlet
structures from the common oil inlet channel. Furthermore, the instant specification fails to disclose any
unexpected results obtained from the fact that each of the first and second oil inlet structures extends
circumferentially about 45 degrees about a rotor rotation axis from the common oil inlet channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the system of Nio, such that each of the first
and second oil inlet structures extends circumferentially about 45 degrees about a rotor rotation axis
from the common oil inlet channel, to promote even cooling of the motor.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, and in view of Kiyokami (US 2018/0045295).
As to claim 16, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 1, the first drive unit and the second drive unit.
Nio fails to disclose a first oil system that includes the first oil reservoir; and a second oil system
that includes the second oil reservoir.
Kiyokami, however, discloses a first oil system that includes the first oil reservoir (50; Fig. 5; Para
0036); and a second oil system that includes the second oil reservoir (52; Fig. 5; Para 0036).
PNG
media_image4.png
460
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the system of Nio with a first oil system that includes
the first oil reservoir; and a second oil system that includes the second oil reservoir, as disclosed by
Kiyokami, to improve cooling of the motor as more heat can be dissipated.
As to claim 17, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, and Kiyokami discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 16, wherein: the first oil system further comprises a first oil pump (P1; Fig. 5) mounted at the first oil reservoir; and the second oil system further comprises a second oil pump (P2; Fig. 5) mounted at the second oil reservoir.
PNG
media_image4.png
460
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, and Kiyokami discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 16, wherein: the first oil system (Fig. 5 of Kiyokami) forms a first common oil channel (Para 0080 of Verbridge); and the second oil system (Fig. 5 of Kiyokami) forms a second common oil channel (Para 0080 of Verbridge), the second common oil channel substantially identical to the first common oil channel (Para 0088 of Verbridge).
PNG
media_image4.png
460
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, Kiyokami, and in view of Gui (CN 113251110)
As to claim 19, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, and Kiyokami discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 18, the first and second oil systems, and first and second common oil channel.
Nio fails to disclose a nut that is centered at a rotor rotation axis, and the nut creating an
annulus of oil.
Gui, however, discloses a nut that is centered at a rotor rotation axis, and the nut creating an
annulus of oil (“a plurality of oil holes communicating with the second oil passage are opened on the first sealing nut along the circumferential direction for lubrication and installing the ball bearing of the
primary driving cylindrical helical gear”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the system of Nio with a nut that is
centered at a rotor rotation axis, and the nut creating an annulus of oil, as disclosed by Gui, to ensure
that oil can reach internal portions for proper lubrication.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, Kiyokami, Gui and in view of Shajdorov (RU 2743494).
As to claim 20, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, Verbridge, Kiyokami, and Gui discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 19, wherein each of the first and second drive units includes a rotor with an active core (“differential assembly”), and wherein the nut includes holes that form a manifold so that oil spins into the active core of the rotor (“a plurality of oil holes communicating with the second oil passage are opened on the first sealing nut along the circumferential direction for lubrication and installing the ball bearing of the primary driving cylindrical helical gear”).
Nio fails to disclose the nut includes cross-drilled holes.
Shajdorov, however, discloses the nut includes cross-drilled holes (“through cross-drilled nuts”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the system of Nio with the nut includes
cross-drilled holes, as disclosed by Shajdorov, to better support the assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
As to claim 9, the combination of Nio, Mackenzie, and Verbridge discloses the multi-motor electric-vehicle drive unit system of claim 1, the first and second motor casings.
Kira discloses a first drain port structure (107; Para 0090) and a second drain port
structure (106; Para 0090), wherein the first drain port structure of the first motor casing is machined
into a first drain port and wherein the second drain port structure of the first motor casing is not functional (Para 0094), and wherein the first drain port structure of the second motor casing is not
functional and wherein the second drain port structure of the second motor casing is machined into a
second drain port (Para 0094).
Nio fails to disclose a first drain port structure and a second drain port structure cast on an exterior of the respective motor casing, and wherein the second drain port structure of the first motor casing is left un-machined, and wherein the first drain port structure of the second motor casing is left un-machined.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can
normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5pm.
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,
Christopher M Koehler can be reached on 571 272 3560. 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.
/ETHAN NGUYEN VO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights