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 .
2nd Non-Final
The applicant objected to the examiner's non-detailed rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-20 where the examiner wrote:
"Re claims 2-4 and 6-20: See above. The claimed invention follows from the structure and arrangement seen above."
The examiner agreed that (following a response by the applicant) the examiner would make a second non-final response in which the above claims would be addressed in more detail.
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.
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 1, 2, 4, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 12,214,684).
Re claim 1:
Zhu teaches (column 5, lines 35+) with emboldening for emphasis by examiner:
“The onboard traction-charging system according to the present teaching takes full advantage of two pre-existing components in the electric vehicles: an electric motor with stator windings, and a multiphase inverter with switch power devices. A switching mechanism, called a configurator herein, changes connections of the motor windings and of the power switch devices included in the inventor to allow switching between the two operating modes. When the onboard traction-charging system is working under the traction mode, the power switch devices constitute an inverter which converts the DC power outputted from the battery to corresponding AC voltage so as to drives the motor to provide a torque (positive or negative) to drive the vehicle. This torque can either transfer energy from the battery or recover energy in a dynamic braking mode. When the onboard traction-charging system is working under the charging mode, the configurator reconfigures the connection of the inverter and of the motor windings to form one or more front end (with or without a rectification function, a boost function, and/or a power factor correction (PFC) function), and one or more fully isolated DC/DC converter rear end, so as to achieve a fully isolated onboard charger.”
“3. The reconfigurable traction-charging system of claim 2, wherein at least one stator winding on one or more stator teeth of the motor constitutes at least one Boost inductor of the Boost converter.”
In these excerpts of Zhu et al. highlighted by the examiner, the central inventive concept is shown and the claim is either taught or in the alternative, rendered obvious.
Re claim 2: The rechargeable source of stored energy comprises a battery, as nearly every figure in Zhu shows.
Re claim 4: Zhu uses a conventional, 2-level inverter.
Re claim 9: See discussion re claim 1, above.
Re claim 10: The rechargeable source of stored energy comprises a battery, as nearly every figure in Zhu shows.
Re claim 12: Zhu uses a conventional, 2-level inverter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-8, 11 and 13-16 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.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest all of the limitations of these claims, in the context of the claims upon which they depend.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest (claim 17) a motor vehicle comprising:
an AC (alternating current) electric motor having a stator with a plurality of stator windings, the plurality of stator windings comprising a first set of WYE-connected three- phase stator windings having a first neutral point and a second set of WYE-connected three-phase stator windings having a second neutral point, the AC electric motor further comprising a switchable contact interposed between the first neutral point and the second neutral point;
a rechargeable source of stored electrical energy;
an inverter coupled to the rechargeable source of stored electrical energy and to the AC electric motor; and
one or more controllers collectively programmed with the following instructions:
cause the switchable contact to be open and switch the inverter to provide alternating current propulsive energy from the rechargeable source of stored electrical energy to the plurality of stator windings; and
cause the switchable contact to be closed and, using at least one of the stator windings as a boost inductor, switch the inverter to step up a DC (direct current) voltage at a charging input coupled to the inverter to charge the rechargeable source of stored electrical energy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas K. Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights