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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 2/19/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2024-0023637 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
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:
22a and 22b as seen in paragraph [0064].
111a as seen in paragraph [0082].
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0082] it appears that the phrase “protrusion 111a” should instead be “protrusion 11a.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 4 the phrase “a coil mounted on the core” should instead be “a coil mounted on each core” to match in quantity with the claim limitation of “a plurality of cores.”
In claim 14 line 3 the phrase “a coil mounted on the core” should instead be “a coil mounted on each core” to match in quantity with the claim limitation of “a plurality of cores.”
In claim 20 line 5 the phrase “the axial flux permanent magnet motor of claim 12” is incorrect. Claim 12 refers to “The stator assembly of claim 11,” not an axial flux permanent magnet motor of claim 12. A more appropriate claim limitation would be “an axial flux permanent magnet motor comprising the stator assembly of claim 12,” or “the axial flux permanent magnet motor of claim 19,” which contains similar claim limitations to claim 12. For examination purposes, claim 20 will be treated as stating “an axial flux permanent magnet motor comprising the stator assembly of claim 12.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 20 recites the claim limitation of “driving means” in lines 3 and 7 which shall be interpreted to mean a wheel or a propeller as seen in paragraphs [0091]-[0093].
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0029734 to Yao et al. (hereinafter Yao) in view of Chinese Patent No. 112421812 to Wu and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0147291 to Woolmer et al. (hereinafter Woolmer; cited by Applicant on 9/20/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches a stator assembly (FIG. 1, 14) of an axial flux permanent magnet motor (FIG. 1, 10), the stator assembly comprising:
a plurality of cores (FIG. 4, 30) repeatedly provided in a circumferential direction of the motor; and
a coil mounted on each core (FIG. 4, 30),
wherein opposite end portions of the core in an axial direction of the motor include pole shoes (FIG. 4, 38) having an external diameter expanding in a radial direction of the motor, and
wherein one of the pole shoes is a fixed pole shoe provided integrally with the core (FIG. 5, 38), the other pole glued onto the core.
Yao does not teach the axial flux motor being an axial flux permanent magnet motor and another pole shoe of the pole shoes being a fixed pole shoe fastened to the core.
However, Wu teaches a pole shoe (FIG. 10, 1144) being a fixed pole shoe fastened to a core (FIG. 10, 1142).
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 stator assembly of Yao with the teachings of Wu to provide a fastenable pole shoe to the other end of the stator core as such a connection would be more secure compared to the glued connection of Yao.
Yao in view of Wu does not teach the axial flux motor being an axial flux permanent magnet motor.
However, Woolmer teaches an axial flux motor (FIG. 1, 10; Paragraph [0062]-[0064]) having permanent magnets (FIG. 2; 24a, 24b).
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 stator assembly of Yao in view of Wu with the teachings of Woolmer to provide permanent magnets to the rotor to increase the magnetic flux density of the motor and therefore its power output.
Regarding claim 2, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 1, wherein Wu further teaches the core and the fixed pole shoe being slidably coupled to each other (Paragraph [0127]).
Regarding claim 3, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 2, wherein Wu further teaches the core including a fastening groove (FIG. 10, 1148) and the fixed pole shoe including a fastening protrusion (FIG. 10, 1150).
Regarding claim 4, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 3, wherein Wu further teaches the fastening groove and the fastening protrusion being formed in the radial direction (FIG. 1; 1142, 1144; FIG. 10; 1148, 1150), and the fastening protrusion being slidably inserted into the fastening groove in the radial direction (Paragraph [0127]).
Regarding claim 9, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 3, wherein Wu further teaches the fastening protrusion linearly extending in the radial direction with a constant width (FIG. 10, 1150).
Regarding claim 10, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 9, wherein Wu further teaches the fastening groove linearly extending in the radial direction with a constant width to correspond to the fastening protrusion (FIG. 10, 1148).
Regarding claim 14, Yao teaches an axial flux motor (FIG. 1, 10) comprising:
a stator (FIG. 1, 14) including a plurality of cores (FIG. 4, 30) repeatedly provided in a circumferential direction of the motor and a coil (FIG. 4, 30) mounted on each core; and
a rotor (FIG. 1, 12) including a magnetic body (Paragraph [0041]) opposite to the stator in an axial direction of the motor,
wherein opposite end portions of the core in an axial direction of the motor include pole shoes (FIG. 4, 38) having an external diameter expanding in a radial direction of the motor, and
wherein one of the pole shoes is a fixed pole shoe provided integrally with the core (FIG. 5, 38), the other pole glued onto the core.
Yao does not teach the axial flux motor being an axial flux permanent magnet motor, the rotor fixedly provided on a rotation shaft of the motor, and another pole shoe of the pole shoes being a fixed pole shoe fastened to the core.
However, Wu teaches a pole shoe (FIG. 10, 1144) being a fixed pole shoe fastened to a core (FIG. 10, 1142).
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 axial flux motor of Yao with the teachings of Wu to provide a fastenable pole shoe to the other end of the stator core as such a connection would be more secure compared to the glued connection of Yao.
Yao in view of Wu does not teach the axial flux motor being an axial flux permanent magnet motor, the rotor fixedly provided on a rotation shaft of the motor.
However, Woolmer teaches an axial flux motor (FIG. 1, 10; Paragraph [0062]-[0064]) having permanent magnets (FIG. 2; 24a, 24b), the rotor (FIG. 1; 24a, 24b) fixedly provided on a rotation shaft of the motor (Paragraph [0065]).
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 axial flux motor of Yao in view of Wu with the teachings of Woolmer to provide permanent magnets and a shaft to the rotor to increase the magnetic flux density of the motor and therefore its power output.
Regarding claim 15, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the axial flux permanent magnet motor of claim 14, wherein Wu further teaches the core including a fastening groove (FIG. 10, 1148), and the fixed pole shoe including a fastening protrusion (FIG. 10, 1150), and wherein the core and the fixed pole shoe are slidably coupled to each other (Paragraph [0127]).
Regarding claim 18, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the axial flux permanent magnet motor of claim 15, wherein Wu further teaches the fastening protrusion linearly extending in the radial direction with a constant width (FIG. 10, 1150), and wherein the fastening groove linearly extends in the radial direction with a constant width to correspond to the fastening protrusion (FIG. 10, 1148).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer and in further view of WIPO Publication No. 2024/182691 to Mayer et al. (hereinafter Mayer).
Regarding claim 5, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 3, wherein Wu further teaches the fastening groove and the fastening protrusion having a same shape (FIG. 10; 1148; 1150).
Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer does not teach a coupling tolerance between the fastening groove and the fastening protrusion being 0.1 mm or less than 0.1 mm.
However, Mayer teaches an axial flux stator assembly (FIG. 22B, 840) with a stator tooth (FIG. 22B, 860) coupled to a fastening groove (FIG. 22B, 844) wherein the tolerance is less than 0.1 mm (Paragraph [0157]).
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 stator assembly of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer with the teachings of Mayer to provide a coupling tolerance of less than 0.1 mm to ensure a tight and secure fit for the protrusion and groove.
Regarding claim 16, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the axial flux permanent magnet motor of claim 15.
Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer does not teach a coupling tolerance between the fastening groove and the fastening protrusion being 0.1 mm or less than 0.1 mm.
However, Mayer teaches an axial flux stator assembly (FIG. 22B, 840) with a stator tooth (FIG. 22B, 860) coupled to a fastening groove (FIG. 22B, 844) wherein the tolerance is less than 0.1 mm (Paragraph [0157]).
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 axial flux permanent magnet motor of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer with the teachings of Mayer to provide a coupling tolerance of less than 0.1 mm to ensure a tight and secure fit for the protrusion and groove.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer and in further view of Chinese Patent No. 218633659 to Hu (provided by Applicant on 9/20/2024).
Regarding claim 6, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 3.
Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer does not teach a bond being coated between the fastening groove and the fastening protrusion.
However, Hu teaches a fastening of an axial flux stator core (FIG. 2, 1) to a pole shoe (FIG. 2, 2) wherein a bond is coated between the two (Paragraph [0027]).
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 stator assembly of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer with the teachings of Hu to provide a bond coating between the fastening groove and the fastening protrusion to further increase the secureness of the fastening.
Regarding claim 17, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the axial flux permanent magnet motor of claim 15.
Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer does not teach a bond being coated between the fastening groove and the fastening protrusion.
However, Hu teaches a fastening of an axial flux stator core (FIG. 2, 1) to a pole shoe (FIG. 2, 2) wherein a bond is coated between the two (Paragraph [0027]).
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 axial flux permanent magnet motor of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer with the teachings of Hu to provide a bond coating between the fastening groove and the fastening protrusion to further increase the secureness of the fastening.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0181922 to He et al. (hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 7, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 3.
Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer does not teach the fastening protrusion including a body protrusion extending in the axial direction from the core or the fixed pole shoe, and wherein an axial intermediate portion of the body protrusion includes a fastening recess having a thickness less than a thickness of other portions of the body protrusion in the axial direction.
However, He teaches a fastening protrusion (FIG. 7, 150) for a pole shoe including a body protrusion (FIG. 7, 153) extending in the axial direction (when applied to the axial flux stator of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer, the extension would be in the axial direction), and wherein an axial intermediate portion of the body protrusion includes a fastening recess (FIG. 7, 152) having a thickness less than a thickness of other portions of the body protrusion in the axial direction.
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 stator assembly of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer with the teachings of He to provide a body protrusion and fastening recess to the fastening protrusion to provide a more secure fastening.
Regarding claim 8, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 3.
Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer does not teach a surface of the fastening groove on which the core and the fixed pole shoe oppose each other including a body groove in the core or the fixed pole shoe in the axial direction, and wherein an axial intermediate portion of the body groove includes an inwardly protruding fastening protrusion.
However, He teaches a surface of the fastening groove on which the core and the fixed pole shoe oppose each other including a body groove (see annotated FIG. 6) in the core in the axial direction (when applied to the axial flux stator of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer, the extension would be in the axial direction), and wherein an axial intermediate portion of the body groove includes an inwardly protruding fastening protrusion (see annotated FIG. 6).
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 stator assembly of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer with the teachings of He to provide a body groove and a fastening protrusion to the fastening protrusion to provide a more secure fastening.
PNG
media_image1.png
274
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer and in further view of Chinese Patent No. 219513863 to Deng.
Regarding claim 11, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 3.
Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer does not teach a width of the fastening protrusion increasing in the radial direction.
However, Deng teaches a stator core fastening protrusion (FIG. 2, 123) increasing in width in the radial direction (Paragraph [0030]-[0031]).
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 stator assembly of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer with the teachings of Deng to provide an increasing width fastening protrusion increases an ease in attaching the fastening part due to it only fitting in one direction.
Regarding claim 12, Yao in view of Wu, Woolmer, and Deng teaches the stator assembly of claim 11, wherein Deng further teaches a width of the fastening groove (FIG. 2, 111) increasing in the radial direction to correspond to the fastening protrusion (Paragraph [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 19, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the axial flux permanent magnet motor of claim 15.
Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer does not teach a width of the fastening protrusion increasing in the radial direction, and a width of the fastening groove increasing in the radial direction to correspond to the fastening protrusion.
However, Deng teaches a stator core fastening protrusion (FIG. 2, 123) increasing in width in the radial direction (Paragraph [0030]-[0031]), and a fastening groove (FIG. 2, 111) increasing in width in the radial direction to correspond to the fastening protrusion (Paragraph [0030]-[0031]).
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 axial flux permanent magnet motor of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer with the teachings of Deng to provide an increasing width fastening protrusion increases an ease in attaching the fastening part due to it only fitting in one direction.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0095628 to Enomoto et al. (hereinafter Enomoto).
Regarding claim 13, Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer teaches the stator assembly of claim 1.
Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer does not teach the pole shoes including an external diameter further expanded than an external diameter of the core in all directions.
However, Enomoto teaches a pole shoe (FIG. 6C, 104) including an external diameter further expanded than an external diameter of a core (FIG. 6C, 103) in all directions.
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 stator assembly of Yao in view of Wu and Woolmer with the teachings of Enomoto to provide a pole shoe with a larger external diameter than the core to increase the maximum magnetic flux that can be transmitted across its air gap.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wu, Woolmer, and Deng and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0223884 to Yoshizawa et al. (hereinafter Yoshizawa).
Regarding claim 20, Yao in view of Wu, Woolmer, and Deng teaches an axial flux permanent magnet motor (Yao FIG. 1, 10) comprising the stator assembly of claim 12.
Yao in view of Wu, Woolmer, and Deng does not tach a mobility device comprising: a body; at least one driving means provided on the body; a battery mounted in the body; and the axial flux permanent magnet motor connected to the battery, the axial flux permanent magnet motor providing driving force to the at least one driving means.
However, Yoshizawa teaches a mobility device (Paragraph [0018]) comprising: a body (FIG. 1, 1); at least one driving means (FIG. 1; 3LF, 3RF) provided on the body; a battery (FIG. 1, 40) mounted in the body; and an axial flux motor (FIG. 1, 10F; Paragraph [0027]) connected to the battery (FIG. 2; 40, 10F; Paragraph [0026]), the axial flux motor providing driving force to the at least one driving means (Paragraph [0027]).
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 stator assembly of Yao in view of Wu, Woolmer, and Deng with the teachings of Yoshizawa to implement it into the mobility device of Yoshizawa for the mobility device of Yoshizawa to benefit from the features of the stator assembly of Yao in view of Wu, Woolmer, and Deng.
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