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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Shin’s resolver (80) cannot be the claimed sensor because it is mounted on stationary hub outer race (74). The claim does not require the sensor to rotate with the rotor; it requires the sensor to detect the rotor’s rotational state. Shin expressly identifies resolver (80) as a sensor for measuring the rotor 44’s position (see para. 0053-0054). Hub inner race (72) is fixed to rotor member (42) and rotates with rotor (44) (see pa0052, and 0058). Thus, resolver (80), although stationary, detects rotor rotation.
Applicant also argues that hub outer race (74) is not attachable/detachable because it is connected to knuckle part (60) and remains stationary. This argument is unpersuasive as Shin’s Fig. 4 shows hub outer race (74) as a separate component of the exploded assembly, with resolver (80) mounted therein. It is assembled with and separable from hub inner race (72), rotor member (42), and rotor (44) (see para. 0050-0054). Its stationary operation does not preclude it from being attachable/detachable relative to the rotor assembly.
Applicant further argues that Shin lacks a friction member having a predetermined friction coefficient. Shin’s disk member (92) satisfies this limitation. Disk member (92) is part of brake part (90), is positioned between hub inner race (72) and rotor member (42) and cooperates with caliper (94) to generate braking force (see para. 0056-0059). A friction coefficient is inherent property of the disk and its friction interface. Because the claim specifies no particular coefficient, material, or range, this limitation does not distinguish over Shin.
Applicant contends that Shin lacks a positioning part defining a sensor to magnet relationship such that a set phase difference is established. This argument is unpersuasive. Shin discloses that resolver (80) detects the position of rotor (44), which is disclosed as magnetic or a permanent magnet (see para. 0044, and 0053-0054). Shin also discloses fixing bolt (100), which passes through hub inner race (72), disk member (92), and rotor member (42), and is secured by nut (102) (see para. 0064-0065). These components are thereby fixed in a known angular relationship and rotate as a unit. Because rotor (44) is fixed to rotor member (42), the assembly establishes the rotor’s positional relationship relative to resolver (80). The claim does not require Shin to use the exact terms “phase difference” or “set value.”
Applicant argues that no positional relationship would be defined because resolver (80) and rotor (44) rotate relative to one another during operation. This confuses operating movement with assembly position. Shin’s resolver must have a known relationship to the rotor to provide position information for motor control (see para. 0053-0055). The fastening arrangement establishes that relationship upon assembly.
Applicant’s argument regarding Lino are also unpersuasive. The rejection relied on the combined teachings of Shin and Lino, not Lino alone. Shin provides the in-wheel motor, resolver, brake disk, rotor assembly, and fastening structure. Lino teaches the use of cooperating positioning structures to establish a predetermined angular relationship between a sensor-related component and a rotor magnet. The relevant inquiry is whether the combination suggest the claimed arrangement.
In addition, Shin itself discloses disk member (92) between hub inner race (72) and rotor member (42), with bolt (100) extending through those components and nut (102) securing them. Thus, the claimed rotor side component, friction member, and fastening relationship are substantially disclosed by Shin.
Applicant’s alleged advantages, including stable torque transmission, sealing performance, and precise phase alignment, are not persuasive. These features are not recited in amended claim 1, and Applicant has provided no objective evidence of unexpected results. These asserted results would also be expected from the discloses fastening, braking, and rotor position sensing structures.
The amended limitations do not distinguish over the cited art. Shin teaches the claimed motor, stator, rotor, sensor, hub structure, friction disk, and fastening arrangement, while Lino supports the use of positioning structures to establish a sensor to magnet angular relationship.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin (US 20200391547A1).
Claim 1
Shin teaches: An in-wheel motor of an outer rotor type (in-wheel motor unit 1, wherein rotor 44 is radially outside of stator 46) including a stator (46) and a rotor (44), the in-wheel motor comprising:
a sensor which detects a rotational state of the rotor (resolver 80, which measures the position of hub inner race 72 that is rotationally fixed with rotor 44 and therefore detects the rotational state of rotor 44);
an attachable/detachable member which is attachable to and detachable from the rotor (hub outer race 74, which is separable from the rotating assembly as illustrated in Fig. 4) and is provided with the sensor on a surface facing an inner circumferential surface of the stator (resolver 80 is installed on hub outer race 74 and faces hub inner race 72/rotor assembly);
a friction member having a predetermined frictional coefficient (disk member 92 of brake part 90, which provides a braking surface having a frictional characteristic);
and a positioning part that defines a positional relationship between the sensor and a magnet of the rotor such that a phase difference between the sensor and the magnet reaches a set value when the attachable/detachable member is attached to the rotor via the friction member (fixing bolt 100 and fixing nut 102 establish the assembled positional relationship between hub inner race 72, disk member 92, and rotor member 42, with resolver 80 positioned relative to the rotating hub inner race 72; rotor 44 is expressly disclosed as a permanent magnet),
wherein the positioning part includes: a fitted part provided in each of the rotor, the friction member, and the attachable/detachable member (corresponding aligned passages/openings through hub inner race 72, disk member 92, and rotor member 42 for receiving fixing bolt 100);
and a fitting member which is attachable to and detachable from the rotor, the friction member, and the attachable/detachable member and is fitted into the fitted part (fixing bolt 100, which through hub inner race 72, disk member 92, and rotor member 42, and is secured by fixing nut 102).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 AHMED F SECK whose telephone number is (571)272-4638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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 Koehler can be reached at (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.
/AHMED F SECK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights