DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. US 20210091615 A1 in view of Brown et al. US 20060119203 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Hu et al. discloses [a motor comprising: a stator assembly; and a rotor assembly configured to be rotatable relative to the stator assembly,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0016 & 0039) [wherein the rotor assembly comprises a rotor body 10 that comprises: a first group of magnet pockets comprising three first magnet pockets 121-123;] (Annotated Fig. 2 below; Paragraph 0046) and [a second group of magnet pockets comprising two second magnet pockets 111-112.] (Annotated Fig. 2 below; Paragraph 0057)
PNG
media_image1.png
638
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Hu et al.
Hu et al. does not disclose the second group of magnet pockets being positioned closer toward an inner surface of the rotor body than the first group of magnet pockets.
Brown et al. teaches [the second group of magnet pockets being positioned closer toward an inner surface of the rotor body than the first group of magnet pockets.] (Fig. 1; As shown Fig. 1, Brown et al. illustrates wherein a second group of magnet pockets 110 are closer to an inner surface of the rotor body 102 than a first group of magnet pockets 120.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the arrangement of magnet pockets of Brown et al. with the motor of Hu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for positioning of the second group of magnet pockets to be closer to the inner surface of the rotor body, thus providing an alternative arrangement of magnet pockets within the rotor body and allowing the magnetic flux paths and performance characteristics of the motor to be suitably configured.
Regarding claim 2, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the rotor assembly surrounds the stator assembly.] (Fig. 1 of Hu et al.; Paragraph 0039 of Hu et al.)
Regarding claim 4, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the three first magnet pockets form a U-shape structure with a bottom of the U-shape structure being flat and made up of one of the three first magnet pockets and two legs of the U-shape structure being respectively made up of a remaining two of the three first magnet pockets.] (Annotated Fig. 2 of Hu et al. above; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 above, Hu et al. illustrates wherein the three first magnet pockets form a U-shape structure with a bottom of the U-shape structure being flat and made up of one of the three first magnet pockets and two legs of the U-shape structure being respectively made up of a remaining two of the three first magnet pockets.)
Regarding claim 5, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the two second magnet pockets 111-112 form a V-shape structure, and the two second magnets are positioned within the U-shape structure formed by the three first magnet pockets 121-123.] (Annotated Fig. 2 of Hu et al. above; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 above, Hu et al. illustrates wherein the two second magnet pockets 111-112 form a V-shape structure, and the two second magnets are positioned within the U-shape structure formed by the three first magnet pockets 121-123.)
Regarding claim 6, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a single pole of the rotor body comprises one set of the three first magnet pockets 121-123 and one set of the two second magnet pockets 111-112.] (Annotated Fig. 2 of Hu et al. above; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 above, Hu et al. illustrates wherein a single pole of the rotor body comprises one set of the three first magnet pockets 121-123 and one set of the two second magnet pockets 111-112.)
Regarding claim 7, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the rotor assembly further comprises magnets 20, 30 installed within at least one of the first group of magnet pockets 121-123 or the second group of magnet pockets 111-112 in one or more magnet combinations, each of the one or more magnet combinations affecting a torque output of the motor.] (Paragraph 0054-0057 of Hu et al.)
Regarding claim 8, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the one or more magnet combinations comprises combinations made up of a first set of magnets 121, 123, a second set of magnets 111-112, and a third set of magnets 112, the first set of magnets occupying the two legs of the U-shape structure formed by the three first magnet pockets, the second set of magnets occupying the two second magnet pockets forming the V-shape structure, and the third set of magnets occupying the one of the three first magnet pockets making up the bottom of the U-shape structure.] (Fig. 2 of Hu et al.; As shown in Fig. 2, Hu et al. illustrates wherein the one or more magnet combinations comprises combinations made up of a first set of magnets 121, 123, a second set of magnets 111-112, and a third set of magnets 112, the first set of magnets occupying the two legs of the U-shape structure formed by the three first magnet pockets, the second set of magnets occupying the two second magnet pockets forming the V-shape structure, and the third set of magnets occupying the one of the three first magnet pockets making up the bottom of the U-shape structure.)
Claims 3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Brown et al. and further in view of Lee US 20210344239 A1 and Glide DE 102023132539 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Hu et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the rotor assembly further comprises a skew hole and an overmold hole.
Lee teaches [wherein the rotor assembly comprises a skew hole 311.] (Fig. 2-7; Paragraph 0065)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the skew hole of Lee with the motor of Hu et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for providing a predetermined skew angle of the rotor assembly to reduce torque ripple and other undesirable effects during operation, thus improving the smoothness and performance of the motor.
Hu et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the rotor assembly further comprises an overmold hole.
Glide teaches [wherein the rotor assembly further comprises an overmold hole 14;] (Fig. 1-4; Page 6, lines 41-46) [wherein the overmold hole is connected to at least one of the first and/or second groups of magnet pockets;] (Fig. 1-4; As shown in Fig. 1-4, Glide illustrates wherein the overmold hole 14 is connected between at least one of the first and/or second groups of magnet pockets 28.) [wherein the overmold hole is a hole in which molding material flows for backfilling at least one of the three first magnet pockets or at least one of the two second magnet pockets during a molding process of the rotor assembly;] (Fig. 1-4; Page 6, lines 41-46; Page 7, lines 1-10) [and an area between at least two of the plurality of the first group of magnet comprises only one of either the skew hole or the overmold hole.] (Fig. 2-3; As shown in Fig. 2-3, Gilde illustrates wherein an area between at least two of a first group of magnets 28 comprises a portion of the overmold hole 14.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the overmold hole of Glide with the motor of Hu et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for molding material to be retained within the rotor assembly to secure the magnets within the magnet pockets, thus improving retention of the magnets and structural integrity of the rotor assembly during operation.
Regarding claim 9, Hu et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the overmold hold arrangement recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 10, Hu et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the overmold hold configuration recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, Hu et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the skew hole is positioned closer to an outer surface of the rotor body than the overmold hole, the outer surface of the rotor body being further away from the stator assembly than the inner surface of the rotor body. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, positioning the skew hole closer to an outer surface of the rotor body than the overmold hole would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 12, Hu et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the first group of magnets and overmold hole positioning recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Hu et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the motor comprises a plurality of the first group of magnet pockets, the skew hole is positioned between at least two of the plurality of the first group of magnet pockets and shifted by θskew/2 from a centerline of the motor. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, positioning the skew hole between at least two of the plurality of the first group of magnet pockets and shifting the skew hole by θskew/2 from a centerline of the motor would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Brown et al. and further in view of Carpenter WO 2023056508 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 13, Hu et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the motor is an in-wheel motor for an electric vehicle.
Carpenter teaches [wherein the motor is an in-wheel motor for an electric vehicle.] (Fig. 1-4; Page 9, lines 10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the in-wheel motor arrangement of Carpenter with the motor of Hu et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for integrating the motor within a vehicle wheel to directly drive the wheel, thus reducing the need for separate transmission components between the motor and wheel.
Claims 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Brown et al. and Carpenter.
Regarding independent claim 14, Hu et al. discloses [a motor comprising: a stator assembly; and a rotor assembly configured to be rotatable relative to the stator assembly,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0016 & 0039) [wherein the rotor assembly comprises a rotor body 10 that comprises: a first group of magnet pockets comprising three first magnet pockets 121-123;] (Annotated Fig. 2 above; Paragraph 0046) and [a second group of magnet pockets comprising two second magnet pockets 111-112.] (Annotated Fig. 2 above; Paragraph 0057)
Hu et al. does not disclose a vehicle comprising: one or more road wheels configured to cause the vehicle to move; a steering wheel configured to generate an input for controlling the one or more road wheels; a brake assembly configured to operate a vehicle brake associated with the one or more road wheels; and one or more motors operatively connected to one or more of the one or more road wheels, the steering wheel, and the brake assembly; the second group of magnet pockets being positioned closer toward an inner surface of the rotor body than the first group of magnet pockets.
Brown et al. teaches [the second group of magnet pockets being positioned closer toward an inner surface of the rotor body than the first group of magnet pockets.] (Fig. 1; As shown Fig. 1, Brown et al. illustrates wherein a second group of magnet pockets 110 are closer to an inner surface of the rotor body 102 than a first group of magnet pockets 120.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the arrangement of magnet pockets of Brown et al. with the motor of Hu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for positioning of the second group of magnet pockets to be closer to the inner surface of the rotor body, thus providing an alternative arrangement of magnet pockets within the rotor body and allowing the magnetic flux paths and performance characteristics of the motor to be suitably configured.
Hu et al., as modified, does not disclose a vehicle comprising: one or more road wheels configured to cause the vehicle to move; a steering wheel configured to generate an input for controlling the one or more road wheels; a brake assembly configured to operate a vehicle brake associated with the one or more road wheels; and one or more motors operatively connected to one or more of the one or more road wheels, the steering wheel, and the brake assembly
Carpenter teaches [a vehicle comprising: one or more road wheels 10 configured to cause the vehicle to move;] (Fig. 1-4; Page 9, lines 10) [a steering wheel configured to generate an input for controlling the one or more road wheels;] (Fig. 18-20; Page 18, lines 3-20) [a brake assembly configured to operate a vehicle brake associated with the one or more road wheels;] (Page 12, lines 30-37) and [one or more motors operatively connected to one or more of the one or more road wheels, the steering wheel, and the brake assembly.] (Fig. 1-4; Page 9, lines 10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the vehicle configuration of Carpenter with the motor of Hu et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the motor to be incorporated into a vehicle having road wheels, steering, and braking systems, thus adapting the motor for use in a vehicle application and allowing the motor to provide motive power and operate one or more vehicle systems.
Regarding claim 15, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the rotor assembly surrounds the stator assembly.] (Fig. 1 of Hu et al.; Paragraph 0039 of Hu et al.)
Regarding claim 17, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the three first magnet pockets form a U-shape structure with a bottom of the U-shape structure being flat and made up of one of the three first magnet pockets and two legs of the U-shape structure being respectively made up of a remaining two of the three first magnet pockets.] (Annotated Fig. 2 of Hu et al. above; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 above, Hu et al. illustrates wherein the three first magnet pockets form a U-shape structure with a bottom of the U-shape structure being flat and made up of one of the three first magnet pockets and two legs of the U-shape structure being respectively made up of a remaining two of the three first magnet pockets.)
Regarding claim 18, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the two second magnet pockets 111-112 form a V-shape structure, and the two second magnets are positioned within the U-shape structure formed by the three first magnet pockets 121-123.] (Annotated Fig. 2 of Hu et al. above; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 above, Hu et al. illustrates wherein the two second magnet pockets 111-112 form a V-shape structure, and the two second magnets are positioned within the U-shape structure formed by the three first magnet pockets 121-123.)
Regarding claim 19, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a single pole of the rotor body comprises one set of the three first magnet pockets 121-123 and one set of the two second magnet pockets 111-112.] (Annotated Fig. 2 of Hu et al. above; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 above, Hu et al. illustrates wherein a single pole of the rotor body comprises one set of the three first magnet pockets 121-123 and one set of the two second magnet pockets 111-112.)
Regarding claim 20, Hu et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the rotor assembly further comprises magnets 20, 30 installed within at least one of the first group of magnet pockets 121-123 or the second group of magnet pockets 111-112 in one or more magnet combinations, each of the one or more magnet combinations affecting a torque output of the motor.] (Paragraph 0054-0057 of Hu et al.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Brown et al., Carpenter, and further in view of Lee and Glide.
Regarding claim 16, Hu et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the rotor assembly further comprises a skew hole and an overmold hole.
Lee teaches [wherein the rotor assembly comprises a skew hole 311.] (Fig. 2-7; Paragraph 0065)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the skew hole of Lee with the motor of Hu et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for providing a predetermined skew angle of the rotor assembly to reduce torque ripple and other undesirable effects during operation, thus improving the smoothness and performance of the motor.
Hu et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the rotor assembly further comprises an overmold hole.
Glide teaches [wherein the rotor assembly further comprises an overmold hole 14.] (Fig. 1-4; Page 6, lines 41-46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the overmold hole of Glide with the motor of Hu et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for molding material to be retained within the rotor assembly to secure the magnets within the magnet pockets, thus improving retention of the magnets and structural integrity of the rotor assembly during operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blaz et al. US 20200161933 A1 – comprises an electric drive motor including a stator with pole shoes and at least one electrically controllable stator winding. A permanent magnet rotor is rotatably mounted in the field of the stator winding leaving an annular gap. The rotor includes a motor shaft and a laminated core on the shaft. The core includes at least a number of permanent magnets corresponding to the number of poles of the rotor. The magnets in the core are coated with a plastic envelope having at least one side wall covering the core on at least one axial front side. The side wall includes at least one recess freeing areas of the axial front side covered by the side wall, as access openings for boring the core to balance the rotor. A household appliance has an electric drive motor and an injection mold is used for producing the electric drive motor coated with the envelope.
Liu et al. US 20170187257 A1 – comprises a motor including a stator, and a rotor, which is arranged within the stator. An end part of at least one air-gap slot of the rotor has an offset with a predetermined distance and/or a predetermined angle relative to a main body part adjacent immediately to the end part. With the offset of a predetermined distance and/or a predetermined angle configured at the end part of at least one air-gap slot of the rotor, ripple torque of the motor is effectively lower down while complexity of the motor, stator or rotor will not be increased.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:30 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights