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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“a speed reducer” of claim 1
“a pair of rolling bearings” of claim 5
“a motor rotor” of claims 9, 10
“an arc-shaped portion” and “a non-arc-shaped portion” of claim 10
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the figures do not accurately depict the invention as described in the specification and the recited claims. Referring to figure 1, the hollow motor shaft (10) appears to be a sleeve rather than a shaft while the shaft on the right side of the figure looks to be the actual motor shaft. See the annotated figure 1 below.
The output shaft (20) of the speed reducer extends completely through the hollow motor shaft (10) and beyond the second shaft on the right labeled as the motor shaft in the annotated figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, “any one of sliding bearings, oil seals, rectangular rings, and O-rings” should be changed to “any one of sliding bearings, oil seals, rectangular rings, or O-rings”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 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 5 is indefinite because the recitation “a pair of rolling bearings with a seal ring” and further “corresponding to the bearings” makes the claim unclear which bearings the claim is referencing because claim 1 from which claim 5 depends already introduced “a pair of bearings.” Claim 1 also introduced “a pair of seals” making it unclear if the seal ring introduced in claim 5 is the same seals from claim 1 or a different set of seals.
For examining purposes the Examiner is interpreting the bearings and seal rings of claim 5 as the same bearings and seals previously introduced in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolan (US 3,141,416), in view of York (US 3,143,899).
Regarding claim 1, Bolan discloses a coaxial electric drive device, comprising:
a hollow motor shaft (14 of Figure 1), wherein two ends of the motor shaft are rotatably supported by a pair of bearings (10, 12 of Figure 1);
a flow channel (102 of Figure 1) for communicating an area outside of the flow channel (via 66, 76 of Figure 1) with an annular clearance between the motor shaft;
a pair of seals (62, 64 of Figure 1; Col. 2:8-9, 19-22) provided in the annular clearance at positions corresponding to the bearings; and
a pair of through holes (66, 76 of Figure 1) directed to the bearings provided at portions of the motor shaft close to the seals.
Bolan does not explicitly disclose a speed reducer drivingly connected to the motor shaft, wherein an output shaft of the speed reducer is coaxially arranged with clearance within the motor shaft;
an annular clearance between the output shaft and the motor shaft provided in the output shaft.
York discloses a speed reducer (10 of Figure 1) drivingly connected to the motor shaft (22 of Figure 1), wherein an output shaft (20 of Figure 1) of the speed reducer is coaxially arranged with clearance within the motor shaft (Col. 1:47-57; see Figure 1);
an annular clearance between the output shaft and the motor shaft provided in the output shaft (Col. 1:47-57; see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a speed reducer connected to and within the hollow motor shaft of Bolan, as taught by York, to provide for speed reduction with little or no backlash between forward and reverse drive [York: Col. 1:10-13].
Regarding claim 2, Bolan discloses wherein the seals (62, 64 of Figure 1; Col. 2:8-9, 19-22) are fixedly connected to the motor shaft (14 of Figure 1),
wherein, when a rotation speed of the motor shaft is not greater than a critical rotation speed, the seals are in a slight interference fit with the output shaft (inherent, interference fit is necessary because seals need physical compression against a surface to block leaks), and
wherein, when the rotation speed of the motor shaft is greater than the critical rotation speed, the seals are in a clearance fit with the output shaft (inherent, strong shaft rotation and the resulting centrifugal force can cause an interference fit to transition into a clearance fit this is an inherent physical phenomenon governed by mechanics and polymer behavior).
Regarding claims 3, 4, Bolan discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the critical rotation speed ranges from 15000 rpm to 20000 rpm (claim 3);
wherein a range of magnitude of interference of the slight interference fit is determined according to the critical rotation speed (claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the critical rotation speed in a range from 15000 rpm to 2000 rpm and the range of magnitude of interference of the slight interference fit determined by the critical rotation speed in the device of Bolan to prevent sudden fluid leakage, catastrophic seal failure, and thermal degradation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Bolan discloses a pair of rolling bearings (10, 12 of Figure 1) with a seal ring (62, 64 of Figure 1; Col. 2:8-9, 19-22) provided in the annular clearance at positions corresponding to the bearings, wherein the seal rings form the seals, and the seal rings are disposed close to the through holes (66, 76 of Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Bolan discloses wherein the seals (62, 64 of Figure 1; Col. 2:8-9, 19-22) are any one of sliding bearings, oil seals, rectangular rings, and O-rings (Col. 2:8-9, seal rings).
Regarding claim 8, Bolan discloses wherein the through holes (66, 76 of Figure 1) each extend obliquely at a preset angle with respect to a radial direction (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Bolan discloses wherein a radial hole (72, 94 of Figure 1), which leads to a motor rotor (16 of Figure 1) fixedly connected to the motor shaft (14 of Figure 1), is provided in a portion of the motor shaft that is located between the pair of through holes (66, 76 of Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bolan discloses wherein the motor shaft (14 of Figure 1) has a non-circular cross-section (see Figure 1), and
an outer wall of the motor shaft comprises an arc-shaped portion (see Figure 2-3) in an interference fit with the motor rotor (16 of Figure 1), and a non-arc-shaped portion (70 of Figure 1) forming a clearance with the motor rotor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolan (US 3,141,416) and York (US 3,143,899) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Plaideau (US 8,575,801).
Regarding claim 7, Bolan discloses wherein a main body of the flow channel (102 of Figure 1) extends axially, and
wherein a portion of the flow channel that leads to the annular clearance extends radially (via 66, 76 of Figure 1).
Bolan does not explicitly disclose an opening provided in an end face or a circumferential wall of the output shaft.
Plaideau discloses an opening (58 of Figure 1) provided in an end face or a circumferential wall of the output shaft (20 of Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have an opening at an end of a speed reducer output shaft coupled to the motor of Bolan, as taught by Plaideau, to provide an axial clearance between the front free end section of the armature shaft of the motor and the reducer output shaft [Plaideau: Col. 4:38-40].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolan (US 3,141,416) and York (US 3,143,899) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tornquist (US 6,750,572).
Regarding claim 11, Bolan discloses wherein the flow channel (102 of Figure 1) is configured to allow for an inflow of a lubricating and cooling medium (via 112 of Figure 1).
Bolan does not explicitly disclose the lubricating and cooling medium is an oil medium or a water medium.
Tornquist discloses the lubricating and cooling medium is an oil medium or a water medium (Col. 4:15-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the lubricating and cooling medium of Bolan be an oil or water medium, as taught by Tornquist, because it provides superior heat dissipation and enhanced lubrication performance.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noda (US 7,948,144), Bianchi (US 4,756,207), Osada (US 2010/0207474) disclose a motor shaft connected to a speed reducer.
Johnsen (US 6,707,205), Hawsey (US 5,117,141), Isozumi (US 5,019,739) disclose a hollow motor shaft and a speed reducer.
Vaghani (US 5,424,593), Koivikko (US 5,027,023), Isozumi (US 4,978,874), Macks (US 3,477,315), Krank (US 2023/0105191), Johnsen (US 2003/0011259), Tan (CN 106505790 A) disclose a hollow motor shaft connected to a speed reducer.
Jarczynski (US 5,189,325) discloses an electrical machine with a hollow shaft and a lubricating and cooling medium is an oil medium.
Huber (US 2021/0046970) discloses a hollow motor shaft and a speed reducer coaxially connected with an interference fit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 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, 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.
/Charles Reid Jr./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights