DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits of Application No. 19/282,429. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 13, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binder (US Patent Publication 20220219524).
Regarding claim 1, Binder discloses a hybrid module (“P2 module”) for a vehicle, comprising: an electric motor (22) comprising a stator (58) and a rotor (60); and a torque converter (torque converter 18) operably coupled to the electric motor, wherein an inner diameter of the stator in a radial direction is greater than an outer diameter of the torque converter in the radial direction (shown in Fig. 1, understood as stator would not fit with front cover otherwise).
Regarding claim 5, Binder discloses 5. The hybrid module of claim 1, further comprising a rotor hub (hub 44 with support plate 32), wherein the torque converter is removably coupled to the rotor hub (e.g. 76 and paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 13, Binder discloses the hybrid module of claim 5, wherein: the rotor hub comprises a rotor hub foot; and an outer diameter of the rotor hub foot in the radial direction is sized such that the rotor hub foot does not overlap magnets of the rotor (shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Binder discloses the hybrid module of claim 1, further comprising: a clutch (20) configured to selectively engage the torque converter with one or more of the electric motor and a drive engine of the vehicle; and a transmission input shaft (104) operably coupled to the clutch, the torque converter, and a transmission (14) of the vehicle, wherein the hybrid module is configured to distribute hydraulic fluid from the transmission to one or more of the electric motor, the clutch, and the torque converter, via the transmission input shaft (e.g. paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 19, Binder discloses the hybrid module of claim 1, further comprising a clutch (disconnect clutch 20) configured to selectively engage the torque converter with one or more of the electric motor and a drive engine of the vehicle (paragraph [0057]), wherein the hybrid module is configured to transmit power to a transmission of the vehicle via the torque converter, based on the selective engagement of the torque converter with the one or more of the electric motor and the drive engine (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 20, Binder discloses a device assembly, comprising: an electric motor (22) comprising a stator (58) and a rotor (60); a torque converter (torque converter 18)operably coupled to the electric motor, wherein an inner diameter of the stator in a radial direction is greater than an outer diameter of the torque converter in the radial direction (shown in Fig. 1, understood as stator would not fit with front cover otherwise).
Regarding claim 21, Binder discloses a hybrid module (“P2 module”) for a vehicle, comprising: an electric motor (22) comprising: a stator (58); and a rotor (60) comprising a rotor hub (hub 44 with support plate 32); and a torque converter (torque converter 18) operably coupled to the electric motor, wherein the torque converter is removably coupled to the rotor hub (e.g. 76 and paragraph [0066]); wherein: an inner diameter of the stator in a radial direction is greater than an outer diameter of the torque converter in the radial direction (shown in Fig. 1, understood as stator would not fit with front cover otherwise); an outer diameter of a rotor hub foot of the rotor hub in the radial direction is sized such that the rotor hub foot does not overlap magnets of the rotor (shown in Fig. 1).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samie (US Patent Publication 20190376589).
Regarding claim 1, Samie discloses a hybrid module (“parallel hybrid”) for a vehicle, comprising: an electric motor (motor-generator 14) comprising a stator (38) and a rotor (36); and a torque converter (12) operably coupled to the electric motor, wherein an inner diameter of the stator in a radial direction is greater than an outer diameter of the torque converter in the radial direction (shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Samie discloses the hybrid module of claim 1, wherein the stator is removable from the hybrid module in an axial direction, without removing the torque converter from the hybrid module (paragraph [0031], e.g. “bolting”).
Claims 1, 3-7, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klemen (US Patent 7810592).
Regarding claim 1, Klemen discloses a hybrid module (Fig. 3) for a vehicle, comprising: an electric motor (36a) comprising a stator (80a) and a rotor (82a); and a torque converter (14a) operably coupled to the electric motor, wherein an inner diameter of the stator in a radial direction is greater than an outer diameter of the torque converter in the radial direction (shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Klemen discloses the hybrid module of claim 1, further comprising a plate structure (housing near left side of Fig. 3) located at first axial end of the hybrid module, wherein: the stator is detachably mounted to the plate structure (shown in Fig. 3); and the torque converter is located at a second axial end of the hybrid module (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Klemen discloses the hybrid module of claim 3, wherein a surface of the plate structure which faces the stator is flat (shown in Fig. 3, flat near end region 80a).
Regarding claim 5, Klemen discloses the hybrid module of claim 1, further comprising a rotor hub (90), wherein the torque converter is removably coupled to the rotor hub (shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Klemen discloses the hybrid module of claim 5, wherein: removing the stator from the hybrid module exposes at least a portion of the rotor hub and at least a portion of the torque converter (shown in Fig. 3); and the torque converter is removable from the hybrid module in a state in which at least the portion of the rotor hub and at least the portion of the torque converter are exposed (shown in Fig. 3). The examiner notes that claim 6 is a product-by-process claim. “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. See MPEP § 2113. Therefore because all of the structure recited in claim 6 is present in the Klemen reference, claim 6 is included in the above 102 rejection.
Regarding claim 7, Klemen discloses the hybrid module of claim 5, wherein: the rotor hub comprises a rotor hub foot (92); a hole defined in the rotor hub foot penetrates through the rotor hub foot and a portion of the torque converter (shown in Fig. 3); and the torque converter is removably coupled to the rotor hub foot by a pin or a screw (shown in Fig. 3) which is removably inserted into the hole.
Regarding claim 12, Klemen discloses the hybrid module of claim 5, wherein: the rotor hub comprises a rotor hub foot (92) extending outward in a radial direction which is perpendicular to an axial direction of the hybrid module; the rotor hub foot is configured to prevent movement of the rotor in the axial direction (shown in Fig. 3); and the rotor hub foot is configured to prevent movement of the torque converter in a direction opposite the axial direction (shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Klemen discloses the hybrid module of claim 1, further comprising: a device assembly, wherein the electric motor and a rotor hub (90) constitute a portion of the device assembly and are assembly coupled to one another; and a dry damper (spring associated with 52a in Fig. 3) operably coupled to the device assembly and a drive engine (50a is part of the engine) of the vehicle, wherein: the device assembly is located between the dry damper and the torque converter in an axial direction of the hybrid module (shown in Fig. 3); an engine mounting face of the hybrid module is defined by an end of the dry damper which faces away from the device assembly (shown in Fig. 3); a rear face of the hybrid module is defined by an end of the torque converter which faces away from the device assembly (shown in Fig. 3); and an axial length from the engine mounting face to the rear face satisfies a target range (shown in Fig. 3. The term “target range” is interpreted broadly as paragraph [00102] for example just states the term and it is openly defined. Thus Fig. 3 axial meets the axial length as it is able to assembly in the vehicle.).
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satyaseelan (US Patent Publicaiton 20210237551).
Regarding claim 1, Satyaseelan discloses a hybrid module for a vehicle, comprising: an electric motor comprising a stator (170) and a rotor (180); and a torque converter (142) operably coupled to the electric motor, wherein an inner diameter of the stator in a radial direction is greater than an outer diameter of the torque converter in the radial direction (shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 16, Satyaseelan the hybrid module of claim 1, further comprising a bus bar (194) electrically coupled to leads of the stator, wherein the leads, the bus bar, or both are located at an axial side of the hybrid module which is associated with the torque converter (shown in Fig. 1 on the side of the torque converter).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klemen (US Patent 7810592) in view of Payne (US Patent Publication 20200271173).
Regarding claim 8, Klemen discloses the hybrid module of claim 5, wherein: the torque converter is removably coupled to the rotor hub.
Klemen does not disclose is removably coupled to the rotor hub by a snap ring
Payne discloses the torque converter is removably coupled to the rotor hub by a snap ring (e.g. Fig. 4, retainer 178); and the snap ring is radially compressible and is radially received within a groove (188, 190) formed in the torque converter (“a second section 176 that is non-rotatably fixed to front cover 31a”) or the rotor hub (28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Klemen to incorporate the snap ring and groove of Payne with a reasonable expectation of success to have ease of disassembly and repair (Payne, paragraph [0013]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binder (US Patent Publication 20220219524) in view of Payne (US Patent Publication 20200014283).
Regarding claim 11, Binder discloses the hybrid module of claim 5, further comprising: a clutch comprising oil and configured to selectively engage the electric motor with the torque converter (shown in Fig. 1).
Binder does not disclose the one or more holes.
Payne disclose the rotor hub (rotor carrier hub 105) comprises one or more holes (212, 220) which penetrate through the rotor hub; and at least a portion of the oil flows from the clutch to the stator of the electric motor, via the one or more holes (Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Binder to incorporate one or more holes Payne with a reasonable expectation of success to provide lubrication to the motor (Payne, e.g. claim 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder (US Patent Publication 20220219524).
Regarding claim 15, Binder discloses the hybrid module of claim 1, wherein: the stator comprises a first set of end turns and a second set of end turns (depicted in Fig. 1); the first set of end turns are relatively further from the torque converter compared to the second set of end turns (shown in Fig 1).
Binder does not explicitly a length of each end turn of the first set of end turns is less than 24mm. It would be obvious to keep short due to the location of housing (23).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Binder to incorporate a length of each end turn of the first set of end turns is less than 24mm with a reasonable expectation of success to fit the windings into the housing. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI WU whose telephone number is (469)295-9111. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/LORI WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655