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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording in the Abstract.
Replacing the text
“This vehicle has a plurality of in-wheel motors accommodated by a plurality of wheels. Each in-wheel motor has a rotor that rotated together with the wheel, and a stator that is provided to the inside of the rotor and that causes the rotor to rotate via magnetic force. Each stator has a coil and a connector. The vehicle has a plurality of front wheels that change the orientation of the vehicle in the left-right direction via the steering of the vehicle, and a plurality of rear wheels. The in-wheel motors are accommodated in the plurality of wheels such that the stator circumferential-direction positions of the connectors provided to the stators of the in-wheel motors accommodated in the front wheels and the stator circumferential-direction positions of the connectors provided to the stators of the in-wheel motors accommodated in the rear wheels differ.”
with the text
“A vehicle has a plurality of in-wheel motors accommodated by a plurality of wheels. Each in-wheel motor of the plurality of in-wheel motors has a rotor that rotates respectively together with a wheel of the plurality of wheels, and a stator that is provided inside of the rotor and that causes the rotor to rotate via magnetic force. The stator has a coil and a connector. The plurality of wheels includes a plurality of front wheels that change the direction of the vehicle, and a plurality of rear wheels. Each in-wheel motor of the plurality of in-wheel motors is accommodated respectively in a wheel of the plurality of wheels such that a stator circumferential-direction position of the connector provided to the stator of each in-wheel motor of the plurality of in-wheel motors accommodated in each front wheel of the plurality of front wheels and the stator circumferential-direction position of the connector provided to the stator of each in-wheel motor of the plurality of in-wheel motors accommodated in each rear wheel in the plurality of rear wheels differ.” (Emphasis added.)
Appropriate correction is required.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are indicated in the Objection to the Abstract, above.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout.
Replacing the text
“A vehicle comprising: a plurality of in-wheel motors that are accommodated in a plurality of wheels of the vehicle, wherein
the in-wheel motor include:
a rotor fixed to the wheel and rotates together with the wheel, and
a stator provided to an inner side of the rotor and rotates the rotor by generating magnetic force while being fixed to the vehicle,
the stator includes:
a coil, and
a connector provided on an inner surface of the stator in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle and connected to a cable for supplying electric power to the coil,
the vehicle includes, as the plurality of wheels:
a plurality of front wheels for changing a direction of the vehicle in a left-right direction by steering the vehicle, and
a plurality of rear wheels that do not change the direction of the vehicle in the left-right direction by steering the vehicle, wherein
the plurality of in-wheel motors are accommodated in the plurality of wheels in a state where a position of the connector, provided in the stator of the in-wheel motor accommodated in the front wheel, in the circumferential direction of the stator is different from a position of the connector, provided in the stator of the in-wheel motor accommodated in the rear wheel, in the circumferential direction of the stator.”
with the text
“A vehicle comprising: a plurality of in-wheel motors respectively accommodated in a plurality of wheels of the vehicle, wherein
each in-wheel motor of the plurality of in-wheel motors includes:
a rotor fixed to each wheel of the plurality of wheels that rotates together respectively with the wheel of the plurality of wheels, and
a stator provided to an inner side of the rotor and rotates the rotor by generating a magnetic force while being fixed to the vehicle,
the stator includes:
a coil, and
a connector provided on an inner surface of the stator in a vehicle width direction and connected to a cable for supplying electric power to the coil,
the plurality of wheels includes:
a plurality of front wheels for changing a direction of the vehicle in a left-right direction by steering the vehicle, and
a plurality of rear wheels that do not change the direction of the vehicle in the left-right direction by steering the vehicle, wherein
each in-wheel motor of the plurality of in-wheel motors is respectively accommodated in a wheel of the plurality of wheels in a state where a position of a connector, provided in the stator of each in-wheel motor of the plurality of in-wheel motors respectively accommodated in a front wheel of the plurality of front wheels, in a circumferential direction of the stator is different from a position of a connector, provided in the stator of each in-wheel motor of the plurality of in-wheel motors respectively accommodated in a rear wheel of the plurality of the rear wheels, in the circumferential direction of the stator.” is suggested. (Emphasis added.)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout. Modifying the existing text such that it is analogous to the suggested text for Claim 1, as an example, is suggested. (See Objection to Claim 1, above).
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout. Modifying the existing text such that it is analogous to the suggested text for Claim 1, as an example, is suggested. (See Objection to Claim 1, above).
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout. Modifying the existing text such that it is analogous to the suggested text for Claim 1, as an example, is suggested. (See Objection to Claim 1, above).
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout. Modifying the existing text such that it is analogous to the suggested text for Claim 1, as an example, is suggested. (See Objection to Claim 1, above).
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout. Modifying the existing text such that it is analogous to the suggested text for Claim 1, as an example, is suggested. (See Objection to Claim 1, above).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout. Modifying the existing text such that it is analogous to the suggested text for Claim 1, as an example, is suggested. (See Objection to Claim 1, above).
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout. Modifying the existing text such that it is analogous to the suggested text for Claim 1, as an example, is suggested. (See Objection to Claim 1, above).
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.
Claim 2 is 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the plurality of the cables” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the plurality” and “the cables” in the claim.
Claims 3-8 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation “the vicinity” in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-8 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. Claim 3 recites the term “vicinity” in Line 5; this term is indefinite as it does not provide an adequate structural relationship between the outlet and the inlet.
Claim 7 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the cables” in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the cables” in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the plurality of the cables” in Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the plurality” and “the cables” in the claim.
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.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cang et al. (CN 207328119 U) (hereinafter “Cang”) in view of Maslov et al. (US 20040263099 A1) (hereinafter “Maslov”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Cang teaches a vehicle comprising: a plurality of in-wheel motors that are accommodated in a plurality of wheels of the vehicle, wherein the in-wheel motor include: a rotor fixed to the wheel and rotates together with the wheel, and a stator provided to an inner side of the rotor and rotates the rotor by generating magnetic force while being fixed to the vehicle, the stator includes: a coil, and a connector provided on an inner surface of the stator in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle and connected to a cable for supplying electric power to the coil [Annotated Cang Figs. 2 and 3, below; Cang Abstract: “The utility model claims a direct drive hub motor for electric automobile steering wheel drive device comprising:…motor shaft; the motor shaft is directly connected with the wheel rim”; Cang Paragraph 0032: “a power transmission path of the device is the electric energy transmitted to the motor driving device 15 through electrical connector 1, electrical energy flows through stator assembly 5 so as to form a stable electromagnetic field by the electromagnetic induction action so that the stator assembly 5 and rotor assembly 6 generate relative movement, electric energy is converted into mechanical energy.”],
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Cang Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Cang Fig. 3
a plurality of front wheels for changing a direction of the vehicle in a left-right direction by steering the vehicle, and a plurality of rear wheels that do not change the direction of the vehicle in the left-right direction by steering the vehicle. It should be noted that while Cang does not explicitly specify a quantity of front wheels that change vehicle direction or a quantity of rear wheels that do not change direction, such components and functions are regarded as standard features common to automobiles, as presented by Cang. Note further that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent; where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Cang teaches wheels and connectors but does not teach different connector positions between the front and rear wheels. Maslov teaches that the plurality of in-wheel motors are accommodated in the plurality of wheels in a state where a position of the connector, provided in the stator of the in-wheel motor accommodated in the front wheel, in the circumferential direction of the stator is different from a position of the connector, provided in the stator of the in-wheel motor accommodated in the rear wheel, in the circumferential direction of the stator [Maslov Fig. 1. Connectors are illustrated (but unnumbered) as the components situated between each battery and its respective wheel: position of the front in-wheel motor connector: 0 degrees (12 o’clock); position of rear in-wheel motor connector: 270 degrees (9 o’clock). It is acknowledged that Maslov’s Specification does not explicitly indicate connector position and that Maslov Fig. 1 appears to be primarily schematic. It should be noted that the connector positions represented by Maslov Fig. 1 do however reflect optimal connector positions based on an interest in minimizing cable length and simplifying cable routing, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It should be further noted that positioning connectors in a variety of positions to meet design and packaging objectives is well known in the art. [See Cang et al. (CN 207328119 U), Li et al. (JP 2020104766 A), Ling et al. (WO 2017175409 A1), Omori et al. (JP 2016088269 A), Shimizu (JP 2014189107 A), Tokuda et al. (US 20070234559 A1), Yamamoto et al. (JP 2015137065 A).] This arrangement would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, since such a modification is a change of location of parts; the rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It should be further noted that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 2, Cang teaches cables but does not explicitly teach different connector alignments for the front and rear wheels. Maslov teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of the cables are connected to the connector, the in-wheel motors accommodated in the plurality of front wheels are provided with the connectors, and the in-wheel motors accommodated in the plurality of rear wheels are provided with the connectors, but does not teach height direction and front-rear direction alignments. It is acknowledged that Cang teaches a diagonal alignment [Annotated Cang Fig. 2, above] but this would however reflect optimal connector alignment based on minimizing cable length and simplifying cable routing, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It should be further noted however that aligning connectors according to a height direction or a front-rear direction to meet design and packaging objectives is well known in the art. [See Li et al. (JP 2020104766 A), Ling et al. (WO 2017175409 A1), Omori et al. (JP 2016088269 A), Shimizu (JP 2014189107 A), Tokuda et al. (US 20070234559 A1), Yamamoto et al. (JP 2015137065 A).] Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify different alignments for the front and rear connectors in order to minimize cable length and simplify cable routing. This arrangement would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, since such a modification is a change of location of parts; the rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Claims 3-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cang et al. (CN 207328119 U) (hereinafter “Cang”) in view of Maslov et al. (US 20040263099 A1) (hereinafter “Maslov”) and further in view of Osterlaenger et al. (US 20170085149 A1) (hereinafter “Osterlaenger”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Cang and Maslov teaches a vehicle comprising a stator including heat transfer medium inlets and outlets but does not teach the inlet and outlet being positioned higher than the center of the stator. Osterlaenger teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the stator further includes: an inlet, provided on the inner surface, into which a heat transfer medium that exchanges heat with the coil flows, and an outlet, provided in the vicinity of the inlet in the circumferential direction on the inner surface, from which the heat transfer medium flowing into the inlet flows out, wherein the plurality of in-wheel motors are provided such that the inlet and the outlet are positioned higher than a center of the stator in a height direction of the vehicle [Osterlaenger Figs. 1-3; Osterlaenger Paragraph 0047: “Cooling device 26 forms a further cooling channel 27, which extends inside stator carrier section 12 and which cools electronics receiving section 13. Cooling device 26 may have, for example, a cooling jacket section 28, which is embedded in stator housing section 11, and may have an inflow or outflow area 29, which implements further cooling channel 27. Stator 6 presses flatly with its radial outer surface in the form of a cylinder jacket on a contact surface 30 formed by stator housing section 11, so that a heat transfer is promoted between stator 6 and cooling device 26.”]. 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 modified the vehicle of Cang to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an inlet and outlet that are positioned higher than the center of the stator in view of Osterlaenger. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Cang and Osterlaenger because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the cooling device to be manufactured as a separate component from the stator, thereby increasing design freedom for the stator, and be manufactured in a way that is simple and capable of producing a cooling device that is coolant-tight, as recognized by Osterlaenger [Osterlaenger Paragraph 0011: “the cooling device be designed as a first insert, because it may be manufactured as a functional module with the aid of any arbitrary manufacturing technology in a simple and/or coolant-tight way.”].
Regarding Claim 4, Cang teaches different height positions for heat transfer medium the inlet and outlet but does not explicitly teach the outlet being positioned higher than the inlet. It should be noted that positioning heat transfer medium inlets and outlets to meet various design objectives is well known in the art. [See Gao (CN 215871090 U), Kanashige (JP 2005237176 A), Osterlaenger (US 20170085149 A1), Sakuma et al. (CN 101537788 A).] Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify different the outlet higher than the inlet in order to meet cooling system design objectives. Doing this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, since such a modification is a change of location of parts; the rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 5, Cang teaches the vehicle according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of in-wheel motors accommodated in the plurality of front wheels are provided in the front wheels but does not explicitly teach that the inlet, and the outlet in the front wheels have the same positional relationships when the in-wheel motors are viewed from inner sides of the plurality of front wheels. It should be noted that providing the same positional relationships between the connector, inlet, and outlet as viewed from inner sides of the plurality of front wheels would reflect optimal component positioning based on optimization and standardization of cable length, cooling line length, cable routing, cooling line length, and an associated reduction of component costs, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This arrangement would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, since such a modification is a change of location of parts; the rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It should be further noted that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 6, Cang teaches the vehicle according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of in-wheel motors accommodated in the plurality of rear wheels are provided in the rear wheels but does not explicitly teach that the inlet, and the outlet in the front wheels have the same positional relationships when the in-wheel motors are viewed from inner sides of the plurality of rear wheels. It should be noted that providing the same positional relationships between the connector, inlet, and outlet as viewed from inner sides of the plurality of rear wheels would reflect optimal component positioning based on optimization and standardization of cable length, cooling line length, cable routing, cooling line length, and an associated reduction of component costs, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This arrangement would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, since such a modification is a change of location of parts; the rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It should be further noted that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 7, Cang teaches the vehicle according to claim 3, further comprising: a first tube that is connected to the inlet; a second tube that is connected to the outlet; and a support component that supports the in-wheel motor, wherein the support component includes: a knuckle extending in a height direction of the vehicle and supporting the front wheel, and a shock absorber extending in a height direction of the vehicle and absorbing vibration of the vehicle, wherein the first tube and the second tube are disposed so as to pass through a space between the knuckle and the shock absorber, and a plurality of the cables extend along a direction parallel to an extending direction of the first tube and the second tube passing through the space [Annotated Cang Figs. 2 and 3 above, and Cang Fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 8, Cang teaches the vehicle according to claim 3, further comprising: a first tube that is connected to the inlet; a second tube that is connected to the outlet; and a support component that supports the in-wheel motor, wherein the support component includes: a knuckle extending in a height direction of the vehicle and supporting the front wheel, and a shock absorber extending in a height direction of the vehicle and absorbing vibration of the vehicle, wherein a plurality of the cables are arranged to pass through a space between the knuckle and the shock absorber, and the first tube and the second tube extend along a direction parallel to an extending direction of the plurality of the cables passing through the space [Annotated Cang Figs. 2 and 3 above, and Cang Fig. 5].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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 II, can be reached at 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 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613