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 .
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 “weight adjustment component” provided on a circumferential surface of a rotor, recited in Claim 4 Lines 1-2 (first occurrence) and Line 2 (second occurrence) must be shown or the feature must be cancelled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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 “weight adjustment component” provided on a circumferential surface of a rotor, recited in Claim 14 Lines 1-2 (first occurrence) and Line 2 (second occurrence) must be shown or the feature must be cancelled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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 “weight adjustment component” provided on a circumferential surface of a rotor, recited in Claim 20 Lines 1-2 (first occurrence) and Line 2 (second occurrence) must be shown or the feature must be cancelled 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 4-6. Replacing “a first rotor, wherein the first shaft body is fastened to the first rotor; a stator rotatably connected to the rotating shaft; and a second rotor sleeved on the rotating shaft” with “a first rotor fastened to the first shaft body; a stator rotatably connected to the rotating shaft; and a second rotor are sleeved on the rotating shaft” (Emphasis added.) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 7-9. Replacing “a first rotor, wherein the first shaft body is fastened to the first rotor; a stator rotatably connected to the rotating shaft; and a second rotor sleeved on the rotating shaft” with “a first rotor fastened to the first shaft body; a stator rotatably connected to the rotating shaft; and a second rotor are sleeved on the rotating shaft” (Emphasis added.) Appropriate correction is required
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 4-6. Replacing “a first rotor, wherein the first shaft body is fastened to the first rotor; a stator rotatably connected to the rotating shaft; and a second rotor sleeved on the rotating shaft” with “a first rotor fastened to the first shaft body; a stator rotatably connected to the rotating shaft; and a second rotor are sleeved on the rotating shaft” (Emphasis added.) Appropriate correction is required
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Paragraph 0003, Line 10: Replacing “usually includes three” with “usually one of three” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation “connected to the fastening element through cooperation”. The meaning of this limitation cannot be ascertained. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation “connected to the fastening element through cooperation” will be construed as “connected to the fastening element”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the rings” in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the fastening elements” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “circumferential direction” in Lines 2-3 is used by the claim to mean “on a circle concentric with the rotor”, as shown in Fig. 5 of the instant application, while the accepted meaning is “a direction that follows the outside edge or circumference of a circular object”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation “the rings” in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation “the fastening elements” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “circumferential direction” in Lines 2-3 is used by the claim to mean “on a circle concentric with the rotor”, as shown in Fig. 5 of the instant application, while the accepted meaning is “a direction that follows the outside edge or circumference of a circular object”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20220040320 A) (hereinafter “Lee”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a disk motor [Lee Abstract: “Disclosed is an axial magnetic flux rotating machine which comprises: a housing; a rotating shaft rotatably coupled to the housing; at least one pair of rotors installed to be spaced apart from each other in an axial direction of the rotating shaft and having a plurality of permanent magnets fixed to opposite surfaces; and a stator fixed to the housing at a position between the pair of rotors and having a coil wound thereon.”], comprising: a rotating shaft including a first shaft body and a second shaft body detachably connected to each other [Lee Figs. 2 and 3; Paragraph 0031: “The rotation shaft 400 includes a first shaft 410 for fixing any one of the pair of rotors 100 and a second shaft 420 for fixing the other of the pair of rotors 100. The first shaft 410 and the second shaft 420 are separated from each other and are coupled to each other to be detachable.”]; a first rotor, wherein the first shaft body is fastened to the first rotor [Lee Figs. 2 and 3; Lee Paragraph 0033: “Hub plates 411 and 421 to which the rotor 100 is fixed are formed on the first shaft 410 and the second shaft 420 , respectively. That is, the hub plates 411 and 421 are formed with a plurality of screw coupling holes that can be fastened to the rotor 100.”]; a stator rotatably connected to the rotating shaft [Lee Figs. 2 and 3; Lee Paragraph 0026: “The stator 300 includes a plurality of stator coils 310 and a coil fixing frame 380 in which a plurality of stator coil seating parts 384 to which the stator coil 310 is fixed are formed.”]; and a second rotor sleeved on the rotating shaft [Lee Figs. 2 and 3, Reference Character 100 (typ)], wherein the first rotor, the stator, and the second rotor are sequentially spaced apart [Lee Figs. 2 and 3, Reference Characters 100 (typ)(rotor) and 300 (stator)], and wherein the second shaft body is fastened to the second rotor [Lee Figs. 2 and 3; Lee Paragraph 0033: “Hub plates 411 and 421 to which the rotor 100 is fixed are formed on the first shaft 410 and the second shaft 420 , respectively. That is, the hub plates 411 and 421 are formed with a plurality of screw coupling holes that can be fastened to the rotor 100.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the disk motor according to claim 1, wherein a connection manner of the first shaft body and the second shaft body comprises at least one of an interference fit connection, a bonding connection, a coupling connection, a pin connection, or a flange connection [Lee Fig. 2; Lee Paragraph 0031: “The first shaft 410 and the second shaft 420 are separated from each other and are coupled to each other to be detachable.”; Lee Paragraph 0032: “when the first shaft and the second shaft are coupled, the shaft coupling bolt 430 is coupled using an M5 screw, and when the first shaft and the second shaft are separated, the M5 screw that is the shaft coupling bolt 430 is separated.”].
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20220040320 A) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view Niwa et al. (US 20240258884 A1) (hereinafter “Niwa”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches a disk motor comprising a first rotor and a second rotor but does not teach a weight adjustment component. Niwa teaches the disk motor according to claim 1, wherein at least one of a side surface of the first rotor and perpendicular to the rotating shaft and away from the stator and a side surface of the second rotor and perpendicular to the rotating shaft and away from the stator is provided with a weight adjustment component [Niwa Figs. 73 and 74, Reference Character 326; Niwa Paragraph 0395: “In the rotor 300, the center of gravity may deviate from the motor axis Cm in the radial direction RD and the rotor 300 may be out of balance. In the rotor 300, a weight member is attached to the magnet holder 320 to maintain balance. The weight member attached to the rotor 300 is inserted into any of the multiple holder adjustment holes 326 according to a balance state of the rotor 300. The weight member is fixed to the holder adjustment hole 326 by being fitted into the holder adjustment hole 326. The balance of the rotor 300 includes static balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is not rotating and rotation balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is rotating. The holder adjustment hole 326 corresponds to a balance adjustment hole.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a weight adjustment component in view of Niwa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Niwa because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the ability to maintain balance, as recognized by Niwa [Niwa Paragraph 0395: “a weight member is attached to the magnet holder 320 to maintain balance.”].
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches a disk motor comprising a rotor having a side surface but does not teach a weight adjustment component or fastening element. Niwa teaches the disk motor according to claim 3, wherein the weight adjustment component comprises a fastening element disposed on the first rotor and/or the second rotor and a weight adjustment block connected to the fastening element through cooperation [Niwa Figs. 73 and 74, Reference Character 326; Niwa Paragraph 0395: “In the rotor 300, the center of gravity may deviate from the motor axis Cm in the radial direction RD and the rotor 300 may be out of balance. In the rotor 300, a weight member is attached to the magnet holder 320 to maintain balance. The weight member attached to the rotor 300 is inserted into any of the multiple holder adjustment holes 326 according to a balance state of the rotor 300. The weight member is fixed to the holder adjustment hole 326 by being fitted into the holder adjustment hole 326. The balance of the rotor 300 includes static balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is not rotating and rotation balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is rotating. The holder adjustment hole 326 corresponds to a balance adjustment hole.”; Paragraph 0396: “A part of the holder adjustment hole 326 is in a state of being closed by the rim 344 in the axial direction AD. The weight member is inserted into the holder adjustment hole 326 from the second rotor surface 302 in the axial direction AD.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a fastening element in view of Niwa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Niwa because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the ability to use a weight adjustment component which would enable maintaining balance, as recognized by Niwa [Niwa Paragraph 0395: “a weight member is attached to the magnet holder 320 to maintain balance.”].
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches a disk motor comprising a rotor having a side surface but does not teach a weight adjustment component or a fastening element. Niwa teaches the disk motor according to claim 5, wherein the fastening element comprises at least one of an opening or a protruding column [Niwa Fig. 73, Reference Character 326]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an opening in view of Niwa. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Niwa because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the ability to use a weight adjustment component which would enable maintaining balance, as recognized by Niwa [Niwa Paragraph 0395: “a weight member is attached to the magnet holder 320 to maintain balance.”].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20220040320 A) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Fuchs et al. (CN 110486419 A) (hereinafter “Fuchs”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches a disk motor comprising a first rotor and a second rotor, but does not teach a weight adjustment component provided on a rotor circumferential surface. Fuchs teaches the disk motor according to claim 1, wherein at least one of a circumferential surface of the first rotor and a circumferential surface of the second rotor is provided with a weight adjustment component [Fuchs Figs. 1, 3, and 8, Reference Characters 20 and 21; Fuchs Paragraph 0055: “in the design scheme shown in FIG. 1 to 3, on the outer peripheral surface 11 of the protrusion 11a is arranged with a balance weight 20 and connected 21 and the carrier 10 are connected by riveting. Here, the balance weight 20 with attached side of the profile corresponding to the protruding part 11a of the external circumferential surface 11.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a weight adjustment component in view of Fuchs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee and Fuchs because this would have achieved the desirable result of avoiding the need for drilling the rotors, as recognized by Fuchs [Fuchs Paragraph 0009: “{to avoid} balance being realized by placing drilling with high consumption and high material and associated manufacturing and production cost.”].
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20220040320 A) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view Niwa et al. (US 20240258884 A1) (hereinafter “Niwa”) and further in view of Song et al. (CN 105429403 A) (hereinafter “Song”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Lee and Niwa teaches a disk motor comprising a rotor having a side surface, a weight adjustment component, and a plurality of fastening elements, but does not teach a concentric ring arrangement. Song teaches the disk motor according to claim 5, wherein the fastening element is disposed on the side surface of the first rotor and perpendicular to the rotating shaft and away from the stator, there are a plurality of fastening elements, and the plurality of fastening elements form concentric rings in a radial direction of the first rotor [Song Fig. 3, Reference Characters 3, 4, and 5; Song Paragraph 0017: “the balance plate 3 is provided with a plurality of balance holes 4…according to the requirement of adjusting the dynamic balance, part or all of the balance hole 4 is provided with a balance screw 5. Outer wall of the balance screw 5 is provided with a balance hole 4 matched with the screw thread, the size should be with the balance hole 4 matched to the low balance screw 5 can be smoothly screwed into the balance hole 4.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of the combination of Lee and Niwa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, concentric rings in view of Song. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee, Niwa, and Song because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing convenience in adding balancing screws, as recognized by Song [Song Paragraph 0017: “convenient to add balance screw 5 and balancing screw 5 is fixed.”].
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches a disk motor comprising a rotor having a side surface but does not teach a weight adjustment component or a plurality of fastening elements. Niwa teaches the disk motor according to claim 6, wherein in any one of the rings formed by the fastening elements, a plurality of fastening elements are evenly arranged in a circumferential direction of the first rotor [Niwa Figs. 73 and 74, Reference Character 326]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of the combination of Lee and Niwa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, concentric rings in view of Song. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee, Niwa, and Song because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing convenience in adding balancing screws, as recognized by Song [Song Paragraph 0017: “convenient to add balance screw 5 and balancing screw 5 is fixed.”].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Lee and Niwa teaches a disk motor comprising a weight adjustment component but does not teach fastening elements arranged in concentric rings. Song teaches the disk motor according to claim 5, wherein the fastening element is disposed on the side surface of the second rotor and perpendicular to the rotating shaft and away from the stator, there are a plurality of fastening elements, and the plurality of fastening elements form concentric rings in a radial direction of the second rotor [Song Fig. 3]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of the combination of Lee and Niwa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, concentric rings in view of Song. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee, Niwa, and Song because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing convenience in adding balancing screws, as recognized by Song [Song Paragraph 0017: “convenient to add balance screw 5 and balancing screw 5 is fixed.”].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lee and Niwa teaches a disk motor comprising a weight adjustment component but does not teach fastening elements arranged in concentric rings. Song teaches the disk motor according to claim 8, wherein in any one of the rings formed by the fastening elements, a plurality of fastening elements are evenly arranged in a circumferential direction of the second rotor [Song Fig. 3]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of the combination of Lee and Niwa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, concentric rings in view of Song. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee, Niwa, and Song because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing convenience in adding balancing screws, as recognized by Song [Song Paragraph 0017: “convenient to add balance screw 5 and balancing screw 5 is fixed.”].
Claims 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (US 20240258884 A1) (hereinafter “Niwa”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220040320 A) (hereinafter “Lee”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 11, Niwa teaches a powertrain, comprising: a transmission mechanism [Niwa Paragraph 0235: “A speed reducer 53 is attached to the motor device unit 50. The speed reducer 53 mechanically connects the motor 61 and an external device. For example, the external device is mechanically connected to the rotation shaft of the motor 61 via the speed reducer 53. The speed reducer 53 decelerates rotation of the motor 61 and transfers the rotation to the external device. Examples of the external device include a wheel and a propeller. The speed reducer 53 includes multiple gears, and may be referred to as a transmission gear and a gear box.”]; and a disk motor connected to the transmission mechanism [Niwa Fig. 12, Reference Characters 200 and 300 (typ); Niwa Fig. 3, Reference Characters 50 and 53], but does not teach a first body shaft and a second body shaft.
Lee teaches that the disk motor comprises: a rotating shaft including a first shaft body and a second shaft body detachably connected to each other; a first rotor, wherein the first shaft body is fastened to the first rotor; a stator rotatably connected to the rotating shaft; and a second rotor sleeved on the rotating shaft, wherein the first rotor, the stator, and the second rotor are sequentially spaced apart, and wherein the second shaft body is fastened to the second rotor [Lee Figs. 2 and 3; Lee Paragraph 0031: “The rotation shaft 400 includes a first shaft 410 for fixing any one of the pair of rotors 100 and a second shaft 420 for fixing the other of the pair of rotors 100. The first shaft 410 and the second shaft 420 are separated from each other and are coupled to each other to be detachable.”; Lee Paragraph 0026: “The stator 300 includes a plurality of stator coils 310 and a coil fixing frame 380 in which a plurality of stator coil seating parts 384 to which the stator coil 310 is fixed are formed.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the powertrain of Niwa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a first body shaft and a second body shaft in view of Lee. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niwa and Lee because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating separation between the rotors and enabling easy disassembling of the stator, as recognized by Lee [Lee Abstract: “an advantage of not only facilitating separation between the rotors, but also easily disassembling the stator located therebetween.”].
Regarding Claim 12, Niwa teaches a powertrain but does not teach a first shaft body connected to a second shaft body. Lee teaches the powertrain according to claim 11, wherein a connection manner of the first shaft body and the second shaft body comprises at least one of an interference fit connection, a bonding connection, a coupling connection, a pin connection, or a flange connection [Lee Fig. 2; Lee Paragraph 0031: “The first shaft 410 and the second shaft 420 are separated from each other and are coupled to each other to be detachable.”; Lee Paragraph 0032: when the first shaft and the second shaft are coupled, the shaft coupling bolt 430 is coupled using an M5 screw, and when the first shaft and the second shaft are separated, the M5 screw that is the shaft coupling bolt 430 is separated.]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the powertrain of Niwa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a detachably coupled first body shaft and a second body shaft in view of Lee. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niwa and Lee because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating separation between the rotors and enabling easy disassembling of the stator, as recognized by Lee [Lee Abstract: “an advantage of not only facilitating separation between the rotors, but also easily disassembling the stator located therebetween.”].
Regarding Claim 13, Niwa teaches the powertrain according to claim 11, wherein at least one of a side surface of the first rotor and perpendicular to the rotating shaft and away from the stator and a side surface of the second rotor and perpendicular to the rotating shaft and away from the stator is provided with a weight adjustment component [Niwa Figs. 73 and 74, Reference Character 326; Niwa Paragraph 0395: “In the rotor 300, the center of gravity may deviate from the motor axis Cm in the radial direction RD and the rotor 300 may be out of balance. In the rotor 300, a weight member is attached to the magnet holder 320 to maintain balance. The weight member attached to the rotor 300 is inserted into any of the multiple holder adjustment holes 326 according to a balance state of the rotor 300. The weight member is fixed to the holder adjustment hole 326 by being fitted into the holder adjustment hole 326. The balance of the rotor 300 includes static balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is not rotating and rotation balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is rotating. The holder adjustment hole 326 corresponds to a balance adjustment hole.”].
Regarding Claim 15, Niwa teaches the powertrain according to claim 13, wherein the weight adjustment component comprises a fastening element disposed on the first rotor and/or the second rotor and a weight adjustment block connected to the fastening element through cooperation [Niwa Figs. 73 and 74, Reference Character 326; Niwa Paragraph 0395: “In the rotor 300, the center of gravity may deviate from the motor axis Cm in the radial direction RD and the rotor 300 may be out of balance. In the rotor 300, a weight member is attached to the magnet holder 320 to maintain balance. The weight member attached to the rotor 300 is inserted into any of the multiple holder adjustment holes 326 according to a balance state of the rotor 300. The weight member is fixed to the holder adjustment hole 326 by being fitted into the holder adjustment hole 326. The balance of the rotor 300 includes static balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is not rotating and rotation balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is rotating. The holder adjustment hole 326 corresponds to a balance adjustment hole.”; Paragraph 0396: “A part of the holder adjustment hole 326 is in a state of being closed by the rim 344 in the axial direction AD. The weight member is inserted into the holder adjustment hole 326 from the second rotor surface 302 in the axial direction AD.”].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (US 20240258884 A1) (hereinafter “Niwa”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220040320 A) (hereinafter “Lee”) and further in view of Fuchs et al. (CN 110486419 A) (hereinafter “Fuchs”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Niwa and Lee teaches a powertrain comprising a first rotor and a second rotor a disk motor but does not teach a weight adjustment component provided on a rotor circumferential surface. Fuchs teaches the powertrain according to claim 11, wherein at least one of a circumferential surface of the first rotor and a circumferential surface of the second rotor is provided with a weight adjustment component [Fuchs Figs. 1, 3, and 8, Reference Characters 20 and 21; Fuchs Paragraph 0055: “in the design scheme shown in FIG. 1 to 3, on the outer peripheral surface 11 of the protrusion 11a is arranged with a balance weight 20 and connected 21 and the carrier 10 are connected by riveting. Here, the balance weight 20 with attached side of the profile corresponding to the protruding part 11a of the external circumferential surface 11.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of the combination of Niwa and Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a weight adjustment component in view of Fuchs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niwa, Lee, and Fuchs because this would have achieved the desirable result of avoiding the need for drilling the rotors, as recognized by Fuchs [Fuchs Paragraph 0009: “{to avoid} balance being realized by placing drilling with high consumption and high material and associated manufacturing and production cost.”].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (US 20240258884 A1) (hereinafter “Niwa”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220040320 A) (hereinafter “Lee”) and further in view of Song et al. (CN 105429403 A) (hereinafter “Song”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Lee and Niwa teaches a disk motor comprising a rotor having a side surface, a weight adjustment component, and a plurality of fastening elements, but does not teach a concentric ring arrangement. Song teaches the disk motor according to claim 5, wherein the fastening element is disposed on the side surface of the first rotor and perpendicular to the rotating shaft and away from the stator, there are a plurality of fastening elements, and the plurality of fastening elements form concentric rings in a radial direction of the first rotor [Song Fig. 3, Reference Characters 3, 4, and 5; Song Paragraph 0017: “the balance plate 3 is provided with a plurality of balance holes 4…according to the requirement of adjusting the dynamic balance, part or all of the balance hole 4 is provided with a balance screw 5. Outer wall of the balance screw 5 is provided with a balance hole 4 matched with the screw thread, the size should be with the balance hole 4 matched to the low balance screw 5 can be smoothly screwed into the balance hole 4.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of the combination of Lee and Niwa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, concentric rings in view of Song. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Lee, Niwa, and Song because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing convenience in adding balancing screws, as recognized by Song [Song Paragraph 0017: “convenient to add balance screw 5 and balancing screw 5 is fixed.”].
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (US 20240258884 A1) (hereinafter “Niwa”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220040320 A) (hereinafter “Lee”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 17, Niwa teaches a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle frame; and a drive system mounted on the vehicle frame, wherein the drive system comprises: a wheel and a disk motor [Niwa Figs. 73 and 74; Niwa Paragraph 0185: “A driving system 30 shown in FIG. 1 is mounted on a moving object such as a vehicle or a flight vehicle. Examples of the vehicle on which the driving system 30 is mounted include an electric vehicle (EV), a hybrid vehicle (HV), and a fuel cell vehicle.”; Niwa Paragraph 0186: “The driving system 30 is a system that drives the moving object to move.”; Niwa Paragraph 0235: “The speed reducer 53 decelerates rotation of the motor 61 and transfers the rotation to the external device. Examples of the external device include a wheel and a propeller.”], but does not teach a first shaft body and second shaft body. Lee teaches a rotating shaft including a first shaft body and a second shaft body detachably connected to each other; a first rotor, wherein the first shaft body is fastened to the first rotor; a stator rotatably connected to the rotating shaft; and a second rotor sleeved on the rotating shaft, wherein the first rotor, the stator, and the second rotor are sequentially spaced apart, and wherein the second shaft body is fastened to the second rotor [Lee Figs. 2 and 3; Lee Paragraph 0031: “The rotation shaft 400 includes a first shaft 410 for fixing any one of the pair of rotors 100 and a second shaft 420 for fixing the other of the pair of rotors 100. The first shaft 410 and the second shaft 420 are separated from each other and are coupled to each other to be detachable.”; Lee Paragraph 0026: “The stator 300 includes a plurality of stator coils 310 and a coil fixing frame 380 in which a plurality of stator coil seating parts 384 to which the stator coil 310 is fixed are formed.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drive system of Niwa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a first body shaft and a second body shaft in view of Lee. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niwa and Lee because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating separation between the rotors and enabling easy disassembling of the stator, as recognized by Lee [Lee Abstract: “an advantage of not only facilitating separation between the rotors, but also easily disassembling the stator located therebetween.”].
Niwa further teaches that the disk motor is configured to drive the wheel to rotate [Niwa Paragraph 0235: “The speed reducer 53 decelerates rotation of the motor 61 and transfers the rotation to the external device. Examples of the external device include a wheel and a propeller.”].
Regarding Claim 18, Niwa teaches a drive system but does not teach a first shaft body connected to a second shaft body. Lee teaches the powertrain according to claim 17, wherein a connection manner of the first shaft body and the second shaft body comprises at least one of an interference fit connection, a bonding connection, a coupling connection, a pin connection, or a flange connection [Lee Fig. 2; Lee Paragraph 0031: “The first shaft 410 and the second shaft 420 are separated from each other and are coupled to each other to be detachable.”; Lee Paragraph 0032: “when the first shaft and the second shaft are coupled, the shaft coupling bolt 430 is coupled using an M5 screw, and when the first shaft and the second shaft are separated, the M5 screw that is the shaft coupling bolt 430 is separated.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drive system of Niwa to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a detachably coupled first body shaft and a second body shaft in view of Lee. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niwa and Lee because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating separation between the rotors and enabling easy disassembling of the stator, as recognized by Lee [Lee Abstract: “an advantage of not only facilitating separation between the rotors, but also easily disassembling the stator located therebetween.”].
Regarding Claim 19, Niwa teaches the vehicle according to claim 17, wherein at least one of a side surface of the first rotor and perpendicular to the rotating shaft and away from the stator and a side surface of the second rotor and perpendicular to the rotating shaft and away from the stator is provided with a weight adjustment component [Niwa Figs. 73 and 74, Reference Character 326; Niwa Paragraph 0395: “In the rotor 300, the center of gravity may deviate from the motor axis Cm in the radial direction RD and the rotor 300 may be out of balance. In the rotor 300, a weight member is attached to the magnet holder 320 to maintain balance. The weight member attached to the rotor 300 is inserted into any of the multiple holder adjustment holes 326 according to a balance state of the rotor 300. The weight member is fixed to the holder adjustment hole 326 by being fitted into the holder adjustment hole 326. The balance of the rotor 300 includes static balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is not rotating and rotation balance in a state in which the rotor 300 is rotating. The holder adjustment hole 326 corresponds to a balance adjustment hole.”].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (US 20240258884 A1) (hereinafter “Niwa”) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20220040320 A) (hereinafter “Lee”) and further in view of Fuchs et al. (CN 110486419 A) (hereinafter “Fuchs”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Niwa and Lee teaches a drive system comprising a first rotor and a second rotor a disk motor but does not teach a weight adjustment component provided on a rotor circumferential surface. Fuchs teaches the powertrain according to claim 11, wherein at least one of a circumferential surface of the first rotor and a circumferential surface of the second rotor is provided with a weight adjustment component [Fuchs Figs. 1, 3, and 8, Reference Characters 20 and 21; Fuchs Paragraph 0055: “in the design scheme shown in FIG. 1 to 3, on the outer peripheral surface 11 of the protrusion 11a is arranged with a balance weight 20 and connected 21 and the carrier 10 are connected by riveting. Here, the balance weight 20 with attached side of the profile corresponding to the protruding part 11a of the external circumferential surface 11.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the disk motor of the combination of Niwa and Lee to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a weight adjustment component in view of Fuchs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niwa, Lee, and Fuchs because this would have achieved the desirable result of avoiding the need for drilling the rotors, as recognized by Fuchs [Fuchs Paragraph 0009: “{to avoid} balance being realized by placing drilling with high consumption and high material and associated manufacturing and production cost.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights