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 Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims and specification dated 11/22/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 were amended.
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 “screw which passes through the casing and is screwed into a thread provided in one of the lugs” of claim 8 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description:
33 referring to a coil as seen in page 6 line 22.
30 referring to a first stator as seen in page 6 line 28.
32a referring to a first stator as seen in page 8 line 25.
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. 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
23 as seen in FIG. 4B.
34.1 as seen in FIG. 4B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In page 6 line 25 the phrase “permanent magnets 21” appears to have been meant to be “permanent magnets 22.”
In page 6 line 28 the phrase “first stator 30” appears to have been meant to be “first stator 30a.”
In page 7 lines 5-6 the phrase “pins 34” appears to have been meant to be “pins 41.”
In page 8 line 25 the phrase “first stator 32a” appears to have been meant to be “first stator 30a.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WIPO Publication No. 2014/087831 to Deguchi et al. (hereinafter Deguchi; provided by Applicant on 11/22/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Deguchi teaches an electric motor (FIG. 1, 100), comprising:
a casing (FIG. 1, 7) inside which there is mounted:
at least one stator (FIG. 1, 20); and
a rotor (FIG. 1, 30) that can rotate about an axis opposite the stator (Translation Pages 8-9), the rotor having magnetic poles (FIG. 1, 32) and the stator comprising a ferromagnetic yoke (FIG. 1, 1A) that bears windings (FIG. 1, 6) arranged to produce, together with the magnetic poles of the rotor, an axial flux electric motor (Translation Page 6 Paragraphs 2-4),
wherein the stator is fixed in place relative to the casing by a fastening device which includes:
lugs (FIG. 3, 4) projecting radially from a surface of the yoke; and
at least one fastening element (FIG. 15, 5) that is fastened to the casing and configured to interact with the lugs to lock that stator along and around the axis (Translation Page 22 Paragraphs 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Deguchi teaches the electric motor according to claim 1, wherein the lugs project from an inner surface of the yoke (FIG. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 3, Deguchi teaches the electric motor according to claim 1, further comprising pins (FIG. 3, 4) which are inserted into holes (FIG. 3, 2H) formed in the yoke, and wherein the pins have and end portion projecting radially from the surface of the yoke to form the lugs (FIG. 15, 4).
Regarding claim 4, Deguchi teaches the electric motor according to claim 1, wherein the lugs are evenly angularly distributed about the axis (FIG. 7, 4; Translation Page 10 Paragraph 4-Page 11 Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 5, Deguchi teaches the electric motor according to claim 1, wherein the yoke of the stator is generally annular in shape (FIG. 1, 1A; FIG. 3, 3) and comprises a plurality of teeth (FIG. 3, 2) around which the windings are wound (FIG. 1, 6), the lugs extending away from the teeth (FIG. 5, 4).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi in view of WIPO Publication No. 2022/238570 to Kolehmainen.
Regarding claim 6, Deguchi teaches the electric motor according to claim 1, wherein the fastening device comprises a single fastening element having a flange which includes a plate (FIG. 14, 5).
Deguchi does not teach the plate having bayonet fastening notches suitable for receiving the lugs.
However, Kolehmainen teaches an axial flux motor stator core having a protruding lug (FIG. 1, 210) and a plate (FIG. 1; 300, 100) having bayonet fastening notches (FIG. 4; 311, 111) for receiving the lugs (Paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Deguchi with the teachings of Kolehmainen to provide bayonet fastening notches to provide an easier to install removable connection between the fastening device and the lugs.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi in view of Kolehmainen and in further view of WIPO Publication No. 2017/094271 to Ogawa et al. (hereinafter Ogawa; provided by Applicant on 11/22/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Deguchi in view of Kolehmainen teaches the electric motor of claim 6.
Deguchi in view of Kolehmainen does not teach the plate comprising an outer cylindrical bearing surface arranged to interact with a corresponding bearing surface formed by an inner surface of the stator.
However, Ogawa teaches a plate (FIG. 24, 4) comprising an outer cylindrical bearing surface (FIG. 24, 41) arranged to interact with a corresponding bearing surface formed by an inner surface of the stator (FIG. 24, 217).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Deguchi in view of Kolehmainen with the teachings of Ogawa to provide a plate bearing surface to more securely radially position the stator.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi in view of Ogawa and WIPO Publication No. 2020/226011 to Saito et al. (hereinafter Saito).
Regarding claim 8, Deguchi teaches the electric motor according to claim 1.
Deguchi does not teach the fastening device comprising a plurality of fastening elements, each fastening element comprising a screw which passes through the casing and is screwed into a thread provided in one of the lugs along the axis.
However, Ogawa teaches a fastening device for an axial flux stator comprising a plurality of screws (FIG. 7, 43) which pass through the casing (FIG. 7, 31) and are screwed into a through hole (Translation Page 9 Paragraph 1) provided in one of the lugs (FIG. 7, 4) along the axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Deguchi with the teachings of Ogawa to provide screws through the lugs to further secure the stator to the casing.
Deguchi in view of Ogawa does not teach a thread being provided in one of the lugs.
However, Saito teaches a screw (FIG. 3, 6) fastening an axial flux stator score (FIG. 3, 1) wherein a thread (FIG. 4, 7; Paragraph [0068]) is provided in both members (FIG. 4, 11, 12) being screwed together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Deguchi in view of Ogawa with the teachings of Saito to provide a thread in the lug hole to provide a more secure connection between the screw and the lug.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi in view of Japanese Patent No. 2010-154610 to Inoue et al. (hereinafter Inoue; provided by Applicant on 11/22/2024).
Regarding claim 9, Deguchi teaches the electric motor according to claim 1.
Deguchi does not teach two identical stators extending symmetrically on either side of the rotor.
However, Inoue teaches an axial flux motor with two identical stators (FIG. 2, 12) on either side of a rotor (FIG. 2, 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Deguchi with the teachings of Inoue to provide a second identical stator to potentially increase the power output of the motor.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0102068 to Mombrinie.
Regarding claim 10, Deguchi teaches the electric motor according to claim 1.
Deguchi does not teach an aircraft comprising at least one landing gear which includes a strut pivotably mounted on a structure of the aircraft, wherein the strut is pivotable between a deployed position and a retracted position by an electric motor.
However, Mombrinie teaches an aircraft (FIG. 7, 100) comprising at least one landing gear (FIG. 7, 150) which includes a strut (FIG. 7, 151) pivotably mounted on a structure of the aircraft (Paragraph [0069]), wherein the strut is pivotable between a deployed position and a retracted position by an electric motor (FIG. 3, 1520; Paragraph [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Deguchi by incorporating it into the aircraft of Mombrinie for the aircraft of Mombrinie to benefit from the features of the electric motor of Deguchi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm 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, 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights