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)(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 1-2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ido et al. US publication no.: US 2022/0407445 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ido et al. teach, A system, comprising: an electric motor (motor 50, figure 2) comprising: a rotor (rotor 53, figure 2) ; a stator comprising: a ring-shaped body: a plurality of stator poles coupled to the ring-shaped body; and a plurality of stator windings, wherein each stator winding of the plurality of stator windings is wound about a corresponding stator pole of the plurality of stator poles (see stator windings 51 and 52; where the remaining of the structure is inherently disclosed as they’re commonly used in a stator in the field of art) , wherein the stator is configured to be energized from a power source (power supply 200, figure 1) and operable, upon receiving power, to generate a rotating magnetic field that causes the rotor to rotate (see paragraph 36, where the stator windings are energized generating magnetic field for rotating the rotor of the motor) ; at least one motor brake (brake 27, figure 2) comprising at least one brake winding (brake coil 27a, figure 2) , wherein the at least one motor brake is configured to move between a disengaged position when the at least one brake winding is energized (see paragraph 36, where the exciting coil 27a is energized having the brake to be in disengaged position, where the rotor is rotating), and an engaged position when the at least one brake winding is de-energized, wherein the at least one motor brake inhibits a rotation of the rotor when in the engaged position (see paragraph 37, where the brake 27 is utilized to stop the rotation of the rotor by being in de-energized state); and a drive circuit (control board 20, figure 2) configured to deliver the power from the power source to the stator and to the at least one brake winding (see paragraph 7) , wherein the drive circuit is configured to deliver power to the at least one brake winding, wherein the at least one brake winding is energized when the stator is energized, wherein the at least one brake winding is de-energized when the stator is de-energized (see paragraph 36-37, where the energization of stator and brake device is disclosed) .
Regarding claim 2, Ido et al. teach, the system of claim 1, wherein the drive circuit delivers three phases of current to the stator and the at least one brake winding, wherein the at least one brake winding is energized upon receiving one or more phases of current (see paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 10, Ido et al. teach, the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one motor brake provides a biasing force directly against the rotor (see paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 11, Ido et al. teach, the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one motor brake is coupled to the stator (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Ido et al. teach, the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one motor brake provides a biasing force directly against the rotor (see paragraph 37).
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 6-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ido et al. US publication no.: US 2022/0407445 A1 in view of Roberts US publication no.: US 2023/0307989 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Ido et al. is silent on specifically teaching, The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one motor brake comprises a solenoid actuator.
However, Roberts is in the same field of art and teach: wherein the at least one motor brake comprises a solenoid actuator (see paragraph 3 where the brake assembly are known to be solenoid actuators).
In view of Roberts’s teaching, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Ido et al. to include; wherein the at least one motor brake comprises a solenoid actuator, for the purpose of increase the efficiency of braking assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Roberts teaches, The system of claim 6, wherein the at least one motor brake further comprises a biasing arrangement configured to provide a force that inhibits the rotation of the rotor when the at least one motor brake is in the engaged position (see paragraphs 60-61).
Regarding claim 8, The system of claim 7, wherein the biasing arrangement comprises a spring (see paragraphs 60-61).
Regarding claim 9, Ido et al. as modified is silent on specifically teaching, The system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises an inrunner electric motor.
However, selecting an inrunner electric motor could’ve easily been configured by one with the ordinary skills in the art as it is one of the obvious known choices to select between an inrunner or outrunner motor especially considering Ido et al. and Roberts.
Therefore, In view of Ido et al.’ as modified teaching, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Ido et al. to include; wherein the system comprises an inrunner electric motor, for the purpose of improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Ido et al. is silent on specifically teaching, The system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a brushless direct current motor.
However, Roberts is in the same field of art and teach: wherein the system comprises a brushless direct current motor (see paragraph 3 where the brake assembly are known to be solenoid actuators).
In view of Roberts’s teaching, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Ido et al. to include; wherein the system comprises a brushless direct current motor, for the purpose of improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, A method comprising: Supplying power to a drive circuit, wherein the drive circuit: delivers the power to a stator, wherein the stator is energized from receiving the power, causing the stator to bias a rotor to rotate; and delivers power to at least one solenoid actuator of at least one motor brake, wherein the at least one solenoid actuator is energized, causing the at least one solenoid actuator to bias a motor brake to a disengaged position, enabling a rotation of the rotor.
Ido et al. teach the limitations as presented in the claim 14 as seen in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Ido et al. is silent on specifically teaching that the brake is solenoid actuator.
However, Roberts is in the same field of art and teach: motor brake comprises a solenoid actuator (see paragraph 3 where the brake assembly are known to be solenoid actuators).
In view of Roberts’s teaching, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Ido et al. to include; motor brake comprises a solenoid actuator, for the purpose of increase the efficiency of braking assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Roberts teaches, The method of claim 14, further comprising interrupting power to the drive circuit, wherein interrupting power to the drive circuit: causes the stator to de-energize; and causes the at least one solenoid actuator to de-energize, causing the at least one solenoid actuator to bias the at least one motor brake to an engaged position, thereby inhibiting the rotation of the rotor (see claims 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHEB S IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4308. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-730pm.
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, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/ZOHEB S IMTIAZ/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights