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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heinen et al. (US 20140159468).
1. Heinen et al. teach:
An in-wheel motor system 1 comprising:
a fixed part/stator 50;
a rotating part/rim 63/wheel plate 64/wheel hub 67/magnets 62 configured to be rotatable relative to the fixed part; and
a brake/drum brake 68/brake cylinder 72/brake shoes 71a and 71b mounted on the fixed part, the brake comprising a friction material/brake shoes 71 and 71b disposed to contact the rotating part.
2. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 1, wherein the rotating part comprises: a rotor/rim 63/wheel plate 64/wheel hub 67 comprising a permanent magnet 62; and an inner cover/brake drum 68 disposed inside the rotor and configured to contact the friction material (fig 5).
3. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 2, wherein the friction material is configured to contact an inner surface of the inner cover (since the cylinder expands to press the shoes against the drum, col 8 last para).
4. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 2, wherein the brake further comprises a cylinder 72 configured to move the friction material to enable the friction material to contact the inner cover.
5. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 2, wherein the fixed part comprises a stator 50 disposed inside the rotor, wherein a coil is wound around the stator (for windings, see col 7 lines 9-11).
6. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 1, wherein the fixed part comprises a wheel bearing (bearing support 67 has bearings inside of it, see col 7 last para) configured to rotatably support the rotating part and wherein the brake is mounted on the wheel bearing (figs 3 and 5).
18. Heinen et al. teach:
A vehicle driven (abstract) by the in-wheel motor system of 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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinen et al. in view of Schulz et al. (US 11658551).
7. Heinen et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach a seal disposed between the fixed part and the rotating part and configured to seal a space between the fixed part and the rotating part.
Schulz et al. teach that a seal/can 34 disposed between the fixed part/stator 30 and the rotating part/rotor 32 and configured to seal a space/airgap (fig 1) between the fixed part and the rotating part to provide a canned motor which improves the reliability of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Heinen et al. was effectively filed to modify it with a seal disposed between the fixed part and the rotating part and configured to seal a space between the fixed part and the rotating part, as taught by Schulz et al. so as to improve the reliability of the motor.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinen et al. in view of Eastham (US 20100117479).
8. Heinen et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the fixed part comprises a stator having a modular coil mounted thereon and wherein a current is applicable to the modular coil.
Eastham teaches that the fixed part/stator (figs 4a & 4b) comprises a stator having a modular coil 120 (para 0046) mounted thereon and wherein a current (the current is inherent in motor operation, MPEP 2112) is applicable to the modular coil which reduces production costs of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Heinen et al. was effectively filed to modify it so that the fixed part comprises a stator having a modular coil mounted thereon and wherein a current is applicable to the modular coil, as taught by Eastham so as to reduce production costs of the motor.
9. Heinen et al. in view of Eastham teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 8, wherein the modular coil (of Eastham) comprises: a coil main body (Eastham see fig 4a & 4b) having a flat plate coil (Eastham see fig 4a & 4b) formed in a preset shape (rectangular, Eastham see fig 4a & 4b); and a coating layer (for insulation coated on the conductor, see para 0003) configured to surround the coil main body.
10. Heinen et al. in view of Eastham teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 8, wherein the stator comprises teeth (Eastham see fig 4a & 4b) spaced apart from each other along a circumference of the stator (of Heinen et al.) and wherein the modular coil (of Eastham) is mounted on each of the teeth (of Eastham).
12. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 8, wherein the stator comprises a cooling housing/hollow body 40 comprising a cooling channel/groove 42 configured to allow a coolant to flow through the stator.
13. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 12, wherein: the cooling channel comprises an inlet/start point 42a and an outlet/end point 42b, wherein the inlet allows the coolant to flow thereinto, and the outlet allows the coolant to be discharged therethrough (fig 2A); and the cooling channel is continuous from the inlet to the outlet (fig 2A).
14. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 13, wherein the cooling channel is a single channel from the inlet to the outlet (fig 2A).
15. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 12, wherein the cooling channel extends in a circumferential direction of the stator and an axial direction of the stator (fig 2A).
16. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 12, wherein the cooling housing is integrally formed with the stator (claim 1).
17. Heinen et al. teach:
The in-wheel motor system of claim 12, wherein the cooling housing is disposed between the modular coil and the brake (fig 50.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinen et al. in view of Eastham and in further view of Ishizaki et al. (US 20170353075).
11. Heinen et al. has been discussed above, re claim 8; but does not teach an insulating paper disposed between the modular coil and the stator.
Ishizaki et al. teach that an insulating paper (para 0002) disposed between the modular coil (of Eastham) and the stator (para 0002) which improves the reliability of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Heinen et al. was effectively filed to modify it with an insulating paper disposed between the modular coil and the stator, as taught by Ishizaki et al. so as to improve the reliability of the motor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights