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 .
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.
Claim 13 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 13 contains the trademark/trade name “Somaloy 1000 3P”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a particular soft magnetic composite material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr (US2015/0209214) in view of Woolmer et al (US2011/0309699), Hunstable (US2017/0222494), in view of Zhou et al. (US20220123607), and Mooney et al (US2018/0104075).
Regarding claim 1, Herr discloses an exosuit (Fig. 21, exoskeleton 2100 is considered an “exosuit.” See annotated Fig. 21 below for convenience) comprising: one or more sensors configured to measure movement of at least one body part of a wearer of the exosuit ([0127] discloses that torque is supplied to the individual wearer during certain portion of gait, but no torque is applied during other portions of the gait. This requires some type of sensing of movement of at least one body part of a wearer. [0090] discloses that these types of sensors can be an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a mechanical pressure sensor, a pneumatic pressure sensor, an angle sensor, an encoder, a strain gauge, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a force sensitive resistor, an EMG electrode, and a thermistor); one or more actuators (Fig. 5 actuator 2500); an exosuit controller comprising of one or more processors and control circuits ([0090] discloses a microcontroller, which requires a processor and associated circuits); and one or more axial flux electric motors ([0127] discloses that an axial flux brushless motor may be used as the motor 2536 within the hip actuator 2102/2500. See annotated Fig. 25 below for convenience).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
423
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Herr does not disclose any of the claimed structural details of an “axial flux brushless motor.”
However, Woolmer teaches an axial flux motor (Figs. 1-2, yokeless and segmented armature machine 10. See annotated Figs. 1-2 below) comprising a yokeless stator having a circular array of teeth (Figs. 1-2 stator 12 is yokeless and comprises a circular array of stator bars 16 that serve as “teeth”), each tooth of the circular array of teeth wound with one or more coils of electric wire to generate a magnetic field when the one or more coils are energized with current (Figs. 1-2, a coil stack 22 is located on each stator bar 16 and generates a magnetic field 30), wherein the one or more coils of electric wire are arranged to make magnetic field direction parallel to an axis of rotation of the axial flux electric motor (Fig. 1 depicts magnetic circuit 30 as having a component that is parallel to the motor’s axis of rotation 20); a first rotor having a first plurality of permanent magnets, wherein the first rotor is mounted above the yokeless stator (Figs. 1-2, rotor 14a is a first rotor that comprises a plurality of permanent magnets 24a. The permanent magnets 24a are mounted “above” the stator 12. Either of the rotors 14a/14b can be considered “above” or “below” the stator 12), and wherein a first air gap is between the first rotor and the yokeless stator (Fig 1, air gap 26a); a second rotor having a second plurality of permanent magnets, wherein the second rotor is mounted below the yokeless stator (Figs. 1-2, rotor 14b is a second rotor that comprises a plurality of permanent magnets 24b. The permanent magnets 24b are mounted “below” the stator 12. Either of the rotors 14a/14b can be considered “above” or “below” the stator 12), and wherein a second air gap is between the second rotor and the yokeless stator (Fig. 1, air gab 26b).
PNG
media_image3.png
390
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
two back-irons, each back-iron comprises a circular plate (Fig. 1, back-irons 14a and 14b), wherein a first back-iron is present above the first rotor and a second back-iron is present below the second rotor, and wherein the back-irons cover the first and second pluralities of permanent magnets of the first rotor and the second rotor (Figs. 1-2, back-iron 32a is located above and cover the plurality of magnets 24a that form the first rotor and back iron 32b is located below and cover the plurality of magnets 24b that form the second rotor) and provide a return path to magnetic flux caused by the magnetic field of the yokeless stator ([0002] discloses that the back irons provide a return path for the magnetic circuit 30); and a motor assembly that connects the yokeless stator, the first rotor, the second rotor and the back-irons ([0064] discloses that the rotors 14a,b and stator 12 are fixed to one another via a non-depicted housing). Woolmer additionally teaches that this type of motor is advantageous because of reduced iron in the stator enabling an improved torque density ([0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial flux brushless motor of Herr to be the above disclosed axial flux electric motor of Woolmer. Such a modification provides improved torque density due to the reduction of iron necessary in the stator (Woolmer, [0002]). Additionally, such a modification is the simple substitution of one known axial flux electric motor in an exoskeleton (i.e. axial flux electric motor of Woolmer) for another known axial flux electric motor (i.e. the generic “axial flux brushless motor” of Herr) to obtain the predictable result of generating torque in an exoskeleton.
The modified exosuit of Herr does not have: (1) the plurality of permanent magnets “affixed” to their respective rotors because the permanent magnets themselves form the entirety of the first and second rotors; (2) the back-irons comprising a circular plate made of steel.
However, Hunstable teaches an electric motor comprising a rotor (Fig. 1A, magnetic disc 400) that is connected to a back-iron comprising a first outer cylindrical wall that supports the plurality of magnets (Fig. 1A, cylindrical wall 206. [0047] discloses that wall 206 couples to the magnets 406 of the magnetic disc 400) and a circular back plate made of steel (Fig. 1A, flat side wall 210. [0041] discloses that this wall is made of steel). Hunstable additionally teaches that this type of back-iron configuration serves to strengthen magnetic elements and constrain the magnetic circuit to limit reluctance by removing or reducing the return air path ([0039]).
PNG
media_image4.png
320
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the back-irons of the modified exosuit of Herr to be made of steel and to have an additional side wall to support the plurality of rotor magnets as taught by Hunstable to strengthen magnetic elements and constrain the magnetic circuit to limit reluctance by removing or reducing the return air path (Hunstable, [0039]). While Hunstable describes the side wall 206 as part of the back-iron, the side wall 206 couples with the rotor magnets and could easily be described as part of the rotor while the flat side wall 210 alone serves as the “circular steel plate” back-iron in the modified device of Herr.
The modified exosuit of Herr does not have: the motor assembly comprises of thermally conductive epoxy and an axial length of the motor assembly is less than 20 millimeter (mm); and the motor assembly enforces the one or more coils to hold in place and creates a mounting surface to attach the one or more axial flux electric motors to the one or more actuators.
However, Zhou teaches an axial flux motor (Abstract), comprising of an actuator (Fig. 5, shaft 101), a motor assembly (assembly shown in Fig. 5), wherein the motor assembly connects stator coils (par. 0065), the motor assembly comprises of thermally conductive epoxy (par. 0065, “After the stator assemblies are well positioned on the shaft, the stator coils 202 are in contact with the shaft 101 via a thermally conductive yet electrically insulating epoxy 502”) and the motor assembly enforces the one or more coils to hold in place (par. 0065, “the stator coils 202 are in contact with the shaft 101 via a thermally conductive yet electrically insulating epoxy 502”) and creates a mounting surface to attach the one or more axial flux electric motors to the one or more actuators (See Fig. 5, the epoxy 502 creates a mounting surface that connects the motor to the actuator 101). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Herr, and use thermally conductive epoxy to attach the motor to the actuator, for effectively conducting heat and cooling as taught by Zhou (Zhou, par. 0065).
The modified Herr does not have an axial length of the motor assembly is less than 20 mm.
However, Mooney teaches an exoskeleton (Fig. 4, exoskeleton 30) comprising a motor (Fig. 4, motor 1), having an axial length of less than 20 mm ([0045] discloses a motor thickness of 17.22, which is “well suited” for use with an exoskeleton).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the axial length of the modified motor of Herr to be less than 20 mm as taught by Mooney. Having a relatively thin motor is advantageous for an exosuit or any other application where reduced bulkiness and/or weight of a motor is an important feature.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified exosuit of Herr does not disclose the motor assembly connecting on both sides and the at least one of the one or more axial flux electric motors includes cycloid transmission that is connected to the motor assembly.
However, Mooney et al (2018/0104075) teaches an exoskeleton (Fig. 4, exoskeleton 30) comprising a motor (Fig. 4, motor 1) that can directly connect to a drive spool (Fig. 4, drive spool 3) or first connected to a reduction transmission such as a cycloid transmission ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the modified exosuit of Herr to have a cycloid transmission connected to the motor assembly as taught by Mooney. Use of a cycloid transmission is beneficial in adjusting the speed/torque of the motor output to an appropriate or target level for the exoskeleton.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified exosuit of Herr discloses the exosuit of claim 1, wherein the motor assembly comprises of thermally conductive epoxy (Zhou, par. 0065) and an axial length of the motor assembly is less than 20 mm (Mooney par. 0045).
Regarding claim 5, the modified exosuit of Herr does not disclose the magnetic circuit mass of the axial flux electric motor or the torque constant of the motor.
However, Zhou further teaches altering the weight and torque of the motor can be advantageous (par. 0090, “Further, more benefits and advantages can include: (1) an increase in an amount of a motor's total torque… a reduced amount of overall weight”). Therefore, the magnetic circuit mass and the torque constant of the motor are considered an obvious optimization through routine experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The applicant’s disclose has not provided any criticality to these motor parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation on the magnetic circuit mass of the electric motor (e.g. for weight and efficiency purposes) and the torque constant to ensure that the motor is tailored for the needs of actuating the joint of the modified exosuit of Herr.
Regarding claim 6, the modified exosuit of Herr has a height of the first air gap the same as a height of the second air gap (Woolmer, Fig. 1, air gaps 26a and 26b are the same height).
Regarding claim 7, the modified exosuit of Herr has the one or more coils of electric wire including multiple coils of electric wire configured in series connection (Woolmer, Fig. 1, coil stacks 22 are coils connected in series; see [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified exosuit of Herr does not disclose the resistance of each coil.
However, Woolmer further teaches adjusting conductivity in each coil to minimize eddy currents (par. 0070, “Steel is an excellent conductor of a magnetic field. It provides a low reluctance path therefore and has low hysteresis loss. However, a problem with most ferromagnetic materials is that they are generally also electrical conductors. Therefore, the changing flux through an electrical conductor creates eddy currents...”), conductivity is mathematically inversely related to resistance, therefore, the resistance of the coils of the motor is considered an obvious optimization through routine experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The applicant’s disclose has not provided any criticality to the value of the resistance of the coils. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation on resistance of coils to ensure that the motor is tailored for the needs of actuating the joint of the modified exosuit of Herr.
Regarding claim 9, the modified exosuit of Herr has a magnetic flux of the axial flux electric motor parallel to the axis of rotation (Woolmer, Fig. 1, depicts magnetic circuit 30 as having a component that is parallel to the motor’s axis of rotation 20).
Regarding claim 10, the modified exosuit of Herr has a cycloid transmission that is connected substantially middle of the motor assembly (Woolmer, [0064], discloses that a shaft would connect first rotor 14a to second rotor 14b along the axis 20. Figs. 1-2 depicts this axis in the middle of the motor assembly. Therefore, in the modified device, the shaft of the motor would connect to the cycloid transmission (as taught by Mooney) in the middle of the motor assembly).
Regarding claim 11, the modified exosuit of Herr does not disclose the wire fill factor of the yokeless stator. However, Woolmer does disclose a high fill factor for its coil stacks for better form factor and better winding utilization (Woolmer, [0062], [0070]).
However, the wire fille factor of the stator of the motor is considered an obvious optimization through routine experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The applicant’s disclosure has not provided any criticality to the value of the resistance of wire fill factor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation on the wire fill factor to ensure that the motor is tailored for the needs of actuating the joint of the modified exosuit of Herr.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herr in view of Woolmer, Hunstable, Zhou, and Mooney, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng (CN 118017721; see accompanying English translation).
Regarding claim 4, the modified exosuit of Herr does not disclose the material of the stator.
However, Cheng teaches a yokeless stator (Abstract), wherein the stator teeth are made of a soft magnetic composite material (Page, 9, paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the stator of the motor of the modified exosuit of Herr to be made of Somaloy-100-3P material as taught by Cheng because such a material is appropriate for use in a motor using a yokeless stator.
Claims 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolmer in view of Hunstable, Zhou, and Mooney.
Regarding claim 12, Woolmer discloses an axial flux electric motor (Figs. 1-2, yokeless and segmented armature machine 10. See annotated Figs. 1-2 below) comprising a yokeless stator having a circular array of teeth (Figs. 1-2 stator 12 is yokeless and comprises a circular array of stator bars 16 that serve as “teeth”), each tooth of the circular array of teeth wound with one or more coils of electric wire to generate a magnetic field when the one or more coils are energized with current (Figs. 1-2, a coil stack 22 is located on each stator bar 16 and generates a magnetic field 30), wherein the one or more coils of electric wire are arranged to make magnetic field direction parallel to an axis of rotation of the axial flux electric motor (Fig. 1 depicts magnetic circuit 30 as having a component that is parallel to the motor’s axis of rotation 20); a first rotor having a first plurality of permanent magnets, wherein the first rotor is mounted above the yokeless stator (Figs. 1-2, rotor 14a is a first rotor that comprises a plurality of permanent magnets 24a. The permanent magnets 24a are mounted “above” the stator 12. Either of the rotors 14a/14b can be considered “above” or “below” the stator 12), and wherein a first air gap is between the first rotor and the yokeless stator (Fig 1, air gap 26a); a second rotor having a second plurality of permanent magnets, wherein the second rotor is mounted below the yokeless stator (Figs. 1-2, rotor 14b is a second rotor that comprises a plurality of permanent magnets 24b. The permanent magnets 24b are mounted “below” the stator 12. Either of the rotors 14a/14b can be considered “above” or “below” the stator 12), and wherein a second air gap is between the second rotor and the yokeless stator (Fig. 1, air gab 26b); two back-irons, each back-iron comprises a circular plate (Fig. 1, back-irons 14a and 14b), wherein a first back-iron is present above the first rotor and a second back-iron is present below the second rotor, and wherein the back-irons cover the first and second pluralities of permanent magnets of the first rotor and the second rotor (Figs. 1-2, back-iron 32a is located above and cover the plurality of magnets 24a that form the first rotor and back iron 32b is located below and cover the plurality of magnets 24b that form the second rotor); and a motor assembly that connects the yokeless stator, the first rotor, the second rotor and the back-irons ([0064] discloses that the rotors 14a,b and stator 12 are fixed to one another via a non-depicted housing).
PNG
media_image3.png
390
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Woolmer does not disclose: (1) the plurality of permanent magnets “affixed” to their respective rotors because the permanent magnets themselves form the entirety of the first and second rotors; (2) the back-irons comprising a circular plate made of steel; (3) the motor assembly comprising of thermally conductive epoxy; or (4) an axial length of the motor assembly is less than 20 mm.
However, Hunstable teaches an electric motor comprising a rotor (Fig. 1A, magnetic disc 400) that is connected to a back-iron comprising a first outer cylindrical wall that supports the plurality of magnets (Fig. 1A, cylindrical wall 206. [0047] discloses that wall 206 couples to the magnets 406 of the magnetic disc 400) and a circular back plate made of steel (Fig. 1A, flat side wall 210. [0041] discloses that this wall is made of steel). Hunstable additionally teaches that this type of back-iron configuration serves to strengthen magnetic elements and constrain the magnetic circuit to limit reluctance by
PNG
media_image4.png
320
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
removing or reducing the return air path ([0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the back-irons of Woolmer to be made of steel and to have an additional side wall to support the plurality of rotor magnets as taught by Hunstable to strengthen magnetic elements and constrain the magnetic circuit to limit reluctance by removing or reducing the return air path (Hunstable, [0039]). While Hunstable describes the side wall 206 as part of the back-iron, the side wall 206 couples with the rotor magnets and could easily be described as part of the rotor while the flat side wall 210 alone serves as the “circular steel plate” back-iron in Woolmer.
The modified motor of Woolmer does not have: the motor assembly comprises of thermally conductive epoxy that mechanically secures the one or more coils of the yokeless stator in place and provides a structural mounting surface for coupling the axial flux electric motor to an external actuator or housing, and wherein an axial length of the motor assembly is less than 20 mm.
However, Zhou teaches an axial flux motor (Abstract), comprising of an actuator (Fig. 5, shaft 101), a motor assembly (assembly shown in Fig. 5), wherein the motor assembly connects stator coils (par. 0065), the motor assembly comprises of thermally conductive epoxy (par. 0065, “After the stator assemblies are well positioned on the shaft, the stator coils 202 are in contact with the shaft 101 via a thermally conductive yet electrically insulating epoxy 502”) and the motor assembly secures one or more stator coils in place (par. 0065, “the stator coils 202 are in contact with the shaft 101 via a thermally conductive yet electrically insulating epoxy 502”) and provides a structural mounting surface for coupling the axial flux electric motor to an external actuator or housing (See Fig. 5, the epoxy 502 creates a mounting surface that connects the motor to the actuator 101). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Herr, and use thermally conductive epoxy to attach the motor to the actuator, for effectively conducting heat and cooling as taught by Zhou (Zhou, par. 0065).
The modified motor of Woolmer does not have an axial length of the motor assembly is less than 20 mm.
However, Mooney teaches a motor on an exoskeleton having an axial length of less than 20 mm ([0045] discloses a motor thickness of 17.22, which is “well suited” for use with an exoskeleton).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the axial length of the modified motor of Woolmer to be less than 20 mm as taught by Mooney. Having a relatively thin motor is advantageous for an exosuit or any other application where reduced bulkiness and/or weight of a motor is an important feature.
Regarding claim 14, the modified motor of Woolmer does not disclose the magnetic circuit mass of the axial flux electric motor or the torque constant of the motor.
However, Zhou further teaches altering the weight and torque of the motor can be advantageous (par. 0090, “Further, more benefits and advantages can include: (1) an increase in an amount of a motor's total torque… a reduced amount of overall weight”). Therefore, the magnetic circuit mass and the torque constant of the motor are considered an obvious optimization through routine experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The applicant’s disclose has not provided any criticality to these motor parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation on the magnetic circuit mass of the electric motor (e.g. for weight and efficiency purposes) and the torque constant to ensure that the motor is tailored for the particular motor application.
Regarding claim 15, the modified motor of Woolmer has a height of the first air gap the same as a height of the second air gap (Woolmer, Fig. 1, air gaps 26a and 26b are the same height).
Regarding claim 16, the modified motor of Woolmer has the one or more coils of electric wire includes multiple coils of electric wire configured in series connection (Woolmer, Fig. 1, coil stacks 22 are coils connected in series; see [0062]).
Regarding claim 17, the modified motor of Woolmer does not disclose the resistance of each coil.
However, Woolmer further teaches adjusting conductivity in each coil to minimize eddy currents (par. 0070, “Steel is an excellent conductor of a magnetic field. It provides a low reluctance path therefore and has low hysteresis loss. However, a problem with most ferromagnetic materials is that they are generally also electrical conductors. Therefore, the changing flux through an electrical conductor creates eddy currents...”), conductivity is mathematically inversely related to resistance, therefore, the resistance of the coils of the motor is considered an obvious optimization through routine experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The applicant’s disclose has not provided any criticality to the value of the resistance of the coils. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation on resistance of coils to ensure that the motor is tailored for the particular motor application.
Regarding claim 18, the modified motor of Woolmer has a magnetic flux of the axial flux electric motor parallel to the axis of rotation (Woolmer, Fig. 1, depicts magnetic circuit 30 as having a component that is parallel to the motor’s axis of rotation 20).
Regarding claim 19, the modified motor of Woolmer has a transmission that is connected substantially middle of the motor assembly (Woolmer, [0064], discloses that a shaft would connect first rotor 14a to second rotor 14b along the axis 20. Figs. 1-2 depicts this axis in the middle of the motor assembly. Therefore, any transmission from the motor would connect to the shaft of the motor in the middle of the motor assembly).
The modified motor of Woolmer does not disclose a cycloid transmission.
However, Mooney teaches an exoskeleton (Fig. 4, exoskeleton 30) comprising a motor (Fig. 4, motor 1) that can directly connect to a drive spool (Fig. 4, drive spool 3) or first connected to a reduction transmission such as a cycloid transmission ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the modified motor of Woolmer to have a cycloid transmission connected to the motor assembly as taught by Mooney. Use of a cycloid transmission is beneficial in adjusting the speed/torque of the motor output to an appropriate or target level for an exoskeleton (or any other motor application).
Regarding claim 20, the modified motor of Woolmer does not disclose the wire fill factor of the yokeless stator. However, Woolmer does disclose a high fill factor for its coil stacks for better form factor and better winding utilization (Woolmer, [0062], [0070]).
However, the wire fille factor of the stator of the motor is considered an obvious optimization through routine experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The applicant’s disclosure has not provided any criticality to the value of the resistance of wire fill factor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation on the wire fill factor to ensure that the motor is tailored for the particular motor application.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woolmer, Hunstable, Zhou, and Mooney, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cheng (CN 118017721; see accompanying English translation).
Regarding claim 13, the modified motor of Woolmer does not disclose the material of the stator.
However, Cheng teaches a yokeless stator (Abstract), wherein the stator teeth are made of a soft magnetic composite material in the form of Somaloy-1000-3P (Page, 9, paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the stator of the modified motor of Woolmer to be made of Somaloy-100-3P material as taught by Cheng because such a material is appropriate for use in a motor using a yokeless stator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhou. Specifically, Zhou teaches using thermally conductive epoxy to create a mounting surface to attach an axial flux electric motor to an actuator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Abbott (US2020/0274431) discloses an exosuit using an axial flux electric motor (see [0123]).
Fu (US2012/0212085) and Keum (US2023/0387735) disclose axial flux electric motors.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights