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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 15 January 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 3 and 14 were previously cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application KR10-2022-0129809 filed in Republic of Korea on 11 October 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated 16 July 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous specification objections; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections; and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Double Patenting
The previous Double Patenting rejection has been previously withdrawn due to a timely filing of a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) (received 16 January 2026), along with a Request for Continued Examination (received 15 January 2026).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 12-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-5414339-A, hereinafter “Masaki” (previously of record), and further in view of JP-2013223298-A, hereinafter “Shibata” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1 and analogous claim 12, Masaki discloses a control method of a motor drive system (Masaki, Claim 9: “Method of controlling an electric vehicle powered by an electric motor…” and a “motor drive system”: Masaki, Claim 1: “Control system for controlling an electric vehicle powered by an electric motor…”), the control method comprising:
when a first motor corresponding to a first drive wheel (Masaki, col. 3, line 36: “Referring now to FIG. 1 there is shown a schematic diagram for an embodiment of the invention in which an induction motor 3 [i.e., a first motor] having two three-phase windings drives front wheels 2a [i.e., first drive wheel] and 2b of an electric vehicle 1.”) is being driven in a second drive mode (col. 4, line 27: “If the inverters are all normal, processing goes to step 105, and the total torque called for by the torque command
τ
R
is divided equally between the two torque commands
τ
R
1
and
τ
R
2
for the first and second inverters respectively [i.e., a second drive mode].”) among a first drive mode in which the first motor is driven by a first inverter of the motor drive system (col. 5, line 37: “It is essential that either the first inverter 5 or the second inverter 6, operating alone, can induce a rotating field in the secondary winding 26 of the induction motor 3. Thus, the rotor of the induction motor 3 can be driven by controlling either of the inverters 5 [i.e., a first inverter] and 6 [i.e., a first drive mode].”)
connected to a first end of each of coils of the first motor (Masaki, FIG. 3; col. 3, line 42: “Each of the two three-phase windings of the induction motor 3 [i.e., the first motor] (described later) is connected through respective first and second DC-AC inverters 5 and 6.”) and
the second drive mode in which the first motor is driven by the first inverter and a second inverter connected to a second end of each of the coils of the first motor (Masaki, FIG. 3; col. 8, line 12: “With the method described in this embodiment, when both inverters are operating normally [i.e., the second drive mode], the number of the inverters can be reduced from two [i.e., the first inverter and a second inverter] to one…”; col. 3, line 42: “Each of the two three-phase windings of the induction motor 3 [i.e., the first motor] (described later) is connected through respective first and second DC-AC inverters 5 and 6 [i.e., the first inverter and a second inverter].”) and
configured to selectively operate (Masaki, col. 5, line 40: “Thus, the rotor of the induction motor 3 can be driven by controlling either of the inverters 5 and 6.”),
determining whether the second inverter malfunctions (Masaki, col. 4, line 23: “In step 102, a determination is made based on the inverter failure signal
S
1
whether the inverter 5 is normal or has failed, and in steps 103 or 104 the same determination is made for inverter 6, based on signal
S
2
[i.e., determining whether the second inverter malfunctions].”);
changing a drive mode of the motor drive system so that the first motor is driven in the first drive mode when the second inverter malfunctions (Masaki, col. 4, line 32: “If only the second inverter 6 is judged to have failed from the inverter failure signal
S
2
, processing goes to step 106, the first torque command
τ
R
1
is set to the value of the motor torque command
τ
R
and the second torque command
τ
R
2
is set to 0 to stop the second inverter 6.”); and
relaxing an output limit of the first motor in the first drive mode (Masaki, col. 4, line 32: “If only the second inverter 6 is judged to have failed from the inverter failure signal
S
2
, processing goes to step 106, the first torque command
τ
R
1
is set to the value of the motor torque command
τ
R
[i.e., relaxing an output limit of the first motor] and the second torque command
τ
R
2
is set to 0 to stop the second inverter 6 [i.e., first drive mode].”),
wherein the changing of the drive mode includes: stopping controlling the second inverter when the second inverter malfunctions (Masaki, col. 4, line 32: “If only the second inverter 6 is judged to have failed from the inverter failure signal
S
2
[i.e., when the second inverter malfunctions], processing goes to step 106, the first torque command
τ
R
1
is set to the value of the motor torque command
τ
R
and the second torque command
τ
R
2
is set to 0 to stop the second inverter 6 [i.e., changing of the drive mode includes: stopping controlling the second inverter].”); and…
…in which the first end of each of the coils of the first motor is connected to the first inverter and the second end of each of the coils of the first motor is connected to the second inverter (Masaki, FIG. 3: first inverter 5, second inverter 6, induction motor 3; col. 3, line 42: “Each of the two three-phase windings of the induction motor 3 [i.e., the first motor] (described later) is connected through respective first and second DC-AC inverters 5 and 6.”).
Masaki does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
…turning on a transfer switch disposed between the second end of each of the coils of the first motor and the second inverter, such that the second ends of the coils of the first motor form a mutual electrical connection, thereby causing the second end of each of the coils of the first motor to be short-circuited to form a Y connection from an open-end state...
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shibata teaches:
…turning on a transfer switch disposed between the second end of each of the coils of the first motor and the second inverter, such that the second ends of the coils of the first motor form a mutual electrical connection, thereby causing the second end of each of the coils of the first motor to be short-circuited to form a Y connection from an open-end state (translated document of Shibata, para. 0008: “A switch circuit [i.e., a transfer switch] connected to switch between a shorted state [i.e., turning on a transfer switch] and an open state [i.e., an open-end state] of each phase coil of the second coil group [i.e., disposed between the second end of each of the coils of the first motor and the second inverter], and a control circuit for controlling the first and second inverters and the switch circuit, respectively; The control circuit normally forms a star connection consisting of the first and second coil groups through the second inverter and the switch circuit [i.e., disposed between the second end of each of the coils of the first motor and the second inverter], and then feeds power to the first and second coil groups through the first inverter. The state of, A star connection consisting of the first coil group is formed, and switching is possible between the second state in which power is supplied to the first coil group through the first inverter. After forming a star connection [i.e., causing the second end of each of the coils of the first motor to be short-circuited to form a Y connection] consisting of the first or second coil group through the two inverters and the switch circuit [i.e., such that the second ends of the coils of the first motor form a mutual electrical connection], power is supplied to the first or second coil group through the second inverter, and when the second inverter is abnormal, A rotating electrical machine is provided for supplying power to at least one of the first and second coil groups in the same manner as in the first or second state.”; para. 0010: “In the electric rotating machine, switching elements are provided on the high potential side feed paths in the first and second inverters, respectively, and the control circuit detects abnormality of the first or second inverter, It is preferable to turn off the switching element on the side where the abnormality is detected.”)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Masaki, with the concept of using a transfer switch to turn on/off driving modes for an electric vehicle where one or two inverters are used to power an electric motor, taught by Shibata, in order to build in system redundancy so that the electric vehicle can still function even if one inverter fails (translated document of Shibata, para. 0009: “That is, the operating range of the rotating electrical machine is expanded. In addition, when abnormality of the first inverter is detected, the second inverter is used, and conversely, when abnormality of the second inverter is detected, the first inverter is used. It becomes possible to make it drive. For this reason, redundancy is also ensured.”).
Regarding claim 2 and analogous claim 13, Masaki and Shibata teach the control method of claim 1, and Masaki further discloses the following:
wherein the determining of whether the second inverter malfunctions includes determining whether the second inverter malfunctions based on whether the second inverter operates according to a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal input to the second inverter in operation in the second drive mode (Masaki, col. 3, line 45: “The first and second inverters 5 and 6 are controlled in a manner that is known, per se, by pulse width modulated pulses
P
U
1
,
P
V
1
, and
P
W
1
and
P
U
2
,
P
V
2
, and
P
W
2
respectively, from a control unit 7, to convert d.c. power from battery 8 to a.c. before it is supplied to the induction motor 3.”; col. 4, line 20: “(The inverter failure signals S1 and S2 are fed out during a failure of the inverters, and continue until the inverters are recovered from the failures.)”; col. 5, line 44: “The pulse distribution circuits 20a, 20b, and 20c for distributing the pulses to the power devices in the inverter main circuit 18 can detect such failure by comparing the voltage across the power devices (transistors) of inverter main circuit 18 with predetermined reference voltages. When any of such voltages exceeds the reference value, the associated pulse distribution circuit provides a power device failure signal to the failure detection circuit 22…”).
Regarding claim 4, Masaki and Shibata teach the control method of claim 1, and Masaki further discloses the following:
wherein the relaxing of the output limit of the first motor includes adjusting an upper limit of torque of the first motor to a second torque higher than a predetermined first torque of the first motor according to revolutions per minute (rpm) for a predetermined RPM range in the first drive mode (Masaki, col. 6, line 66: “Step 123 examines the inverter failure signal
S
1
to determine which inverter has failed. That is, if the inverter failure signal
S
1
is normal, then only the second inverter 6 has failed, and step 124 then sets the first torque command
τ
R
1
to the torque limit value
τ
L
[i.e., adjusting an upper limit of torque of the first motor to a second torque higher than a predetermined first torque] and the second torque command
τ
R
2
to 0, thereby stopping the second inverter 6.”; col. 7, line 57: “FIG. 10 is a characteristic graph of available motor torque versus motor speed, which shows the area in which the motor torque command
τ
R
is less than half of the maximum torque
τ
M
A
X
, called the first area, and where the motor torque command
τ
R
is more than half of the maximum torque
τ
M
A
X
, called the second area here [i.e., according to revolutions per minute (rpm) for a predetermined RPM range]. If it is determined in step 132 that the motor toque command
τ
R
2
is greater than half of the maximum torque
τ
M
A
X
, step 133 sets each of the first torque command
τ
R
1
and the second torque command
τ
R
2
to half of the torque signal
τ
R
in the same manner as in FIG. 5.”).
Regarding claim 5, Masaki and Shibata teach the control method of claim 4, and Masaki further discloses the following:
wherein the motor drive system further includes a first controller (Masaki, FIG.1: control unit 7; col. 3, line 45: “The first and second inverters 5 and 6 are controlled in a manner that is known, per se, by pulse width modulated pulses
P
U
1
,
P
V
1
,
a
n
d
P
W
1
and
P
U
2
,
P
V
2
,
a
n
d
P
W
2
a respectively, from a control unit 7 [i.e., a first controller], to convert d.c. power from battery 8 to a.c. before it is supplied to the induction motor 3. The control unit 7, which may be in the form of a microprocessor, for example, receives an accelerator pedal position signal
X
a
and a brake pedal position signal
X
b
from acceleration pedal 9 and brake pedal 10, which are manipulated by a driver. In addition, the control unit 7 also receives a mode signal
M
D
, a motor speed
ω
M
, currents
i
U
1
,
i
V
1
,
a
n
d
i
W
1
from the first inverter 5 and currents
[
i
U
2
]
,
i
V
2
,
a
n
d
i
W
2
from the second inverter 6.”); and
a second controller configured to adjust the upper limit of the torque of the first motor (Masaki, FIG. 4: control unit 7 [i.e., a second controller]; FIG. 5; col. 6, line 41: “If only one of the two inverters has failed, additional processing steps 116 to 125 are performed as follows. Steps 116 and 117 provide limits on the maximum torque
τ
M
A
X
and the maximum speed
ω
M
A
X
of the induction motor 3 [i.e., adjust the upper limit of the torque of the first motor], which limits are lower than the ordinary rated values.”; Note: Duplication of Parts – The courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless new and unexpected results are produced. To one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the application, choosing to control a motor drive system with two controllers versus one controller would not yield new or unexpected results. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).), and
wherein the first controller is configured to relax the output limit of the first motor based on the upper limit of the torque of the first motor adjusted by the second controller (Masaki, col. 2, line 8: “For the torque command, the control unit [i.e., controller is configured to relax the output limit of the first motor] determines a power command for output from each of the power converters. The power command controls each power converter, which in turn supplies necessary power to the motor. In the ordinary condition, the control unit determines the optimum number of the power converters to be driven (depending on the output torque command and the motor speed), and activates the necessary number of the power converters, stopping the other power converter(s).”; col. 6, line 43: “Steps 116 and 117 provide limits on the maximum torque
τ
M
A
X
and the maximum speed
ω
M
A
X
of the induction motor 3, which limits are lower than the ordinary rated values. Next step 118 compares the current motor speed
ω
M
with the maximum speed
ω
M
A
X
, if the current motor speed
ω
M
greater than the maximum speed
ω
M
A
X
processing goes to step 119, in which a torque limit value
τ
L
is set to 0, So that the motor cannot generate torque until the motor speed
ω
M
is slowed down to a safe stopping speed. (Alternatively
τ
L
can be set to a negative figure, equivalent to engine braking.) [i.e., relax the output limit of the first motor based on the upper limit of the torque of the first motor]”).
Regarding claim 15, Masaki and Shibata teach the motor drive system of claim 12, and Masaki further discloses the following:
further including a second controller configured to adjust an upper limit of torque of the first motor to a second torque higher than a predetermined first torque of the first motor according to revolutions-per-minute (RPM) for a predetermined RPM range in the first drive mode (Masaki, col. 2, line 8: “For the torque command, the control unit [i.e., controller configured to adjust] determines a power command for output from each of the power converters. The power command controls each power converter, which in turn supplies necessary power to the motor. In the ordinary condition, the control unit determines the optimum number of the power converters to be driven (depending on the output torque command and the motor speed), and activates the necessary number of the power converters, stopping the other power converter(s).”; col. 6, line 66: “Step 123 examines the inverter failure signal
S
1
to determine which inverter has failed. That is, if the inverter failure signal
S
1
is normal, then only the second inverter 6 has failed, and step 124 then sets the first torque command
τ
R
1
to the torque limit value
τ
L
[i.e., adjust an upper limit of torque of the first motor to a second torque higher than a predetermined first torque of the first motor] and the second torque command
τ
R
2
to 0, thereby stopping the second inverter 6.”; col. 7, line 57: “FIG. 10 is a characteristic graph of available motor torque versus motor speed, which shows the area in which the motor torque command
τ
R
is less than half of the maximum torque
τ
M
A
X
, called the first area, and where the motor torque command
τ
R
is more than half of the maximum torque
τ
M
A
X
, called the second area here [i.e., according to revolutions-per-minute (RPM) for a predetermined RPM range]. If it is determined in step 132 that the motor toque command
τ
R
2
is greater than half of the maximum torque
τ
M
A
X
, step 133 sets each of the first torque command
τ
R
1
and the second torque command
τ
R
2
to half of the torque signal
τ
R
in the same manner as in FIG. 5.”),
wherein the first controller is further configured to relax the output limit of the first motor based on the upper limit of the torque of the first motor adjusted by the second controller (Masaki, col. 2, line 8: “For the torque command, the control unit [i.e., wherein the first controller is further configured to relax the output limit of the first motor] determines a power command for output from each of the power converters. The power command controls each power converter, which in turn supplies necessary power to the motor. In the ordinary condition, the control unit determines the optimum number of the power converters to be driven (depending on the output torque command and the motor speed), and activates the necessary number of the power converters, stopping the other power converter(s).”; col. 6, line 43: “Steps 116 and 117 provide limits on the maximum torque
τ
M
A
X
and the maximum speed
ω
M
A
X
of the induction motor 3, which limits are lower than the ordinary rated values. Next step 118 compares the current motor speed
ω
M
with the maximum speed
ω
M
A
X
, if the current motor speed
ω
M
greater than the maximum speed
ω
M
A
X
processing goes to step 119, in which a torque limit value
τ
L
is set to 0, So that the motor cannot generate torque until the motor speed
ω
M
is slowed down to a safe stopping speed. (Alternatively
τ
L
can be set to a negative figure, equivalent to engine braking.) [i.e., relax the output limit of the first motor based on the upper limit of the torque of the first motor adjusted by the second controller]”).
Regarding claim 8 and analogous claim 17, Masaki and Shibata teach the control method of claim 4, and Masaki further discloses the following:
wherein the adjusting of the upper limit of torque includes outputting warning information caused by the adjusting of the upper limit of torque (Masaki, col. 6, line 67: “That is, if the inverter failure signal
S
1
is normal, then only the second inverter 6 has failed, and step 124 then sets the first torque command
τ
R
1
to the torque limit value
τ
L
[i.e., adjusting of the upper limit of torque] and the second torque command
τ
R
2
to 0, thereby stopping the second inverter 6… The next step 126 outputs a signal
S
P
, which is sent from the torque distribution process section 15 to a signaling unit 29, which alerts the driver to the inverter failure by means of an audible or visible alarm signal [i.e., outputting warning information].”).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki, in view of Shibata, as applied to claims 4 and 15, above, and further in view of US-20150263662-A1, hereinafter “Lee” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 6 and analogous claim 16, Masaki and Shibata teach the control method of claim 4, but do not appear to explicitly teach the following:
wherein the adjusting of the upper limit of torque includes maintaining the adjusted upper limit of torque for a predetermined time period.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches:
wherein the adjusting of the upper limit of torque includes maintaining the adjusted upper limit of torque for a predetermined time period (Lee, FIG. 5; para. 0101: “Referring to FIG. 5, as described above, if the motor 140 operates at about 200% of the maximum instantaneous rating [i.e., the adjusting of the upper limit of torque], the control unit 160 may maintain the present set driving conditions of the motor 140 for the loading time corresponding to the critical time [i.e., maintaining the adjusted upper limit of torque for a predetermined time period].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Masaki, as modified by Shibata, with the concept of using a time limit when adjusting a motor torque upper limit, taught by Lee, in order to limit the temperature increase of the motor and/or other operating conditions that may prematurely cause the motor to fail (Lee, para. 0017: “Embodiments provide a method for preventing overheating of a traction motor in a vehicle, which determines driving conditions of the traction motor in consideration of magnitude of a load and a time for which a load is applied.”; para. 0018: “Embodiments also provide a method for preventing overheating of a traction motor in a vehicle, which determines driving conditions of the traction motor in consideration of magnitude of a load as well as a torque value under a condition in which an operation of the traction motor is limited.”).
Regarding claim 7, Masaki, Shibata, and Lee teach the control method of claim 6, and Lee further teaches the following:
wherein the predetermined time period is set to be a second time longer than a first time applied to a drive mode in which the adjusted upper limit of torque is used (Lee, para. 0024: “The controlling of the output torque of the motor may include: determining whether the loading time exceeds the critical time; and reducing an output torque value of the motor when the loading time exceeds the critical time.”; para. 0026: “The method may further include detecting a temperature of the motor, wherein the critical time may change according to the detected temperature.”; para. 0027: “The critical time may increase or decrease [i.e., predetermined time period is set to be a second time longer than a first time] in inverse proportion to the detected temperature.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Masaki, as modified by Shibata and Lee, with the concept of using different or adjustable time limits when adjusting a motor torque upper limit, taught by Lee, in order to limit the temperature increase of the motor and/or other operating conditions that may prematurely cause the motor to fail while also maximizing the torque output capabilities at different motor temperatures (Lee, para. 0017: “Embodiments provide a method for preventing overheating of a traction motor in a vehicle, which determines driving conditions of the traction motor in consideration of magnitude of a load and a time for which a load is applied.”; para. 0018: “Embodiments also provide a method for preventing overheating of a traction motor in a vehicle, which determines driving conditions of the traction motor in consideration of magnitude of a load as well as a torque value under a condition in which an operation of the traction motor is limited.”).
Claim(s) 9, 11, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki, in view of Shibata, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of WO-2016076142-A1, hereinafter “Kanda” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 9 and analogous claim 18, Masaki and Shibata teach the control method of claim 1, but do not appear to explicitly teach the following:
wherein the relaxing of the output limit of the first motor includes relaxing an output limit of a second motor corresponding to a second drive wheel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kanda teaches:
wherein the relaxing of the output limit of the first motor includes relaxing an output limit of a second motor corresponding to a second drive wheel (translated document of Kanda, para. 10: “As described above, based on the command torque set to suppress in accordance with the temperature detected by the temperature detecting means 49 corresponding to the second driving wheel 2 for which no abnormality has been detected, the first driving wheel 2 And limits the upper limit value of the output table torque of the motor 6 that drives the motor [i.e., includes relaxing an output limit of a second motor corresponding to a second drive wheel]. In other words, the torque for driving the motor 6 corresponding to the normal temperature detection means 49 is set to the upper limit value of the torque for driving the motor 6 corresponding to the abnormal temperature detection means 49 [i.e., relaxing of the output limit of the first motor]. In other words, the motor 6 corresponding to the abnormal temperature detection means 49 limits the torque which is larger than the torque corresponding to the normal temperature detection means 49 to be not outputted.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Masaki, as modified by Shibata, with the concept of adjusting the output limits of one motor that corresponds to one wheel when the output limits of another motor corresponding to another wheel are adjusted, taught by Kanda, in order to maintain a balanced output across all wheels and protect the motors from damage and/or unsafe operating conditions (translated document of Kanda, para. 30: “The motor temperature threshold value is determined with reference to the motor temperature when demagnetization occurs in the permanent magnet of the motor 6, for example. The power device temperature threshold is determined, for example, based on the heat resistant temperature of the semiconductor switching element. That is, the command torque is limited according to the result of determination using these temperature thresholds, that is, the output of the motor is limited. This prevents the motor 6 and the semiconductor switching element from being overloaded.”).
Regarding claim 11 and analogous claim 19, Masaki, Shibata, and Kanda teach the control method of claim 9, and Kanda further teaches the following:
wherein the relaxation of the output limit of the first motor further includes distributing a target torque to the first motor and the second motor based on whether the output limit of each of the first motor and the second motor is relaxed (translated document of Kanda, para. 21: “The ECU 21 includes a command torque calculation unit 47 and a torque distribution unit 48 [i.e., distributing a target torque to the first motor and the second motor].”; para. 10: “As described above, based on the command torque set to suppress in accordance with the temperature detected by the temperature detecting means 49 corresponding to the second driving wheel 2 for which no abnormality has been detected, the first driving wheel 2 And limits the upper limit value of the output table torque of the motor 6 that drives the motor [i.e., second motor based on whether the output limit of each of the first motor and the second motor is relaxed]. In other words, the torque for driving the motor 6 corresponding to the normal temperature detection means 49 is set to the upper limit value of the torque for driving the motor 6 corresponding to the abnormal temperature detection means 49 [i.e., relaxation of the output limit of the first motor]. In other words, the motor 6 corresponding to the abnormal temperature detection means 49 limits the torque which is larger than the torque corresponding to the normal temperature detection means 49 to be not outputted [i.e., distributing a target torque to the first motor and the second motor].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Masaki, as modified by Shibata and Kanda, with the concept of distributing the target output torque across multiple motors after the torque output limit of at least one motor has been changed, taught by Kanda, in order to attempt to achieve the requested output torque and not further reduce the capability of the motor drive system (translated document of Kanda, para. 30: “The motor temperature threshold value is determined with reference to the motor temperature when demagnetization occurs in the permanent magnet of the motor 6, for example. The power device temperature threshold is determined, for example, based on the heat resistant temperature of the semiconductor switching element. That is, the command torque is limited according to the result of determination using these temperature thresholds, that is, the output of the motor is limited. This prevents the motor 6 and the semiconductor switching element from being overloaded.”).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaki, in view of Shibata and Kanda, as applied to claims 9 and 18 above, and further in view of US-20190288628-A1, hereinafter “Kobayashi” (previously of record).
Regarding claim 10 and analogous claim 20, Masaki, Shibata, and Kanda teach the control method of claim 9, but does not appear to disclose the following:
where a first end of each of coils of the second motor is connected to a third inverter of the motor drive system and a second end of each of the coils of the second motor are connected to each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches:
where a first end of each of coils of the second motor is connected to a third inverter of the motor drive system (Kobayashi, FIG. 2: first motor generator 20 and first inverter 51; para. 0078: “In the U phase, the connecting point of the upper and lower arm first switches S1 p and S1 n is connected to a first end of a U-phase coil 20U of the first motor generator 20 [i.e., first end of each of coils of the second motor]. In the V phase, the connecting point of the upper and lower arm first switches S1 p and S1 n is connected to a first end of a V-phase coil 20V of the first motor generator 20 [i.e., first end of each of coils of the second motor]. In the W phase, the connecting point of the upper and lower arm first switches S1 p and S1 n is connected to a first end of a W-phase coil 20W of the first motor generator 20 [i.e., first end of each of coils of the second motor].”; para. 0079: “A terminal of the first inverter 51 or a first high-potential-side terminal CH1 is connected to the collectors of the upper arm first switches S1 p [i.e., connected to a third inverter of the motor drive system].”) and
a second end of each of the coils of the second motor are connected to each other (Kobayashi, FIG. 2: first motor generator 20; para. 0078: “Second ends of the U-, V-, and W- phase coils 20U, 20V, and 20W are connected to a neutral point.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Masaki, as modified by Shibata and Kanda, with the concept of a second motor connected to a third inverter through a first end of each of the coils of the motor, taught by Kobayashi, in order to convert DC-to-AC (or AC-to-DC) power between the motor and a secondary power source, like a rechargeable battery (Kobayashi, para. 0033: “…a third inverter electrically connected to a second end side of the two ends of each phase coil constituting the second AC rotating electrical machine and driving the second AC rotating electrical machine by transmitting electrical power between the third inverter and a second DC power source different from the first DC power source.”; para. 0070: “In this embodiment, the first inverter 51, the second inverter 52, and the third inverter 53 are three-phase inverters.”; para. 0071: “The vehicle includes a first power source 60 and a second power source 61. In this embodiment, the first power source 60 and the second power source 61 are secondary batteries, specifically, lithium-ion rechargeable batteries.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/Leah N Miller/Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights