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 § 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.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR 20180090430 A, the machine translation of which has been provided) in view of Hirotani et al. (US 2018/0115202 A1).
RE claim 1, Son teaches a motor system (Figs.1, 2) comprising: a plurality of drives 210, 230 configured to drive a plurality of stator windings (a, b, c, v, v, w); a stator assembly 110 comprising the plurality of stator windings arranged along a circumference of a stator core 111, wherein each of the plurality of drives is evenly connected to one of the plurality of stator windings (u, v and w) over the circumference of the stator core 111; and a rotor assembly 130 configured to be rotatable relative to the stator assembly 110 (Fig.1).
different drives among the plurality of drives are connected to stator windings (e.g.: w1, b1, see Fig. 7a) positioned adjacent to each other among the plurality of stator windings (Figs.7)
Son does not teach said adjacent stator windings have a phase shift between each other.
Hirotani teaches adjacent stator windings (U, U2) have a phase shift between each other (¶ 199) such that electrical angular sixth-order torque pulsation is canceled (¶ 199).
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 Son by having currents of the adjacently positioned stator windings not connected to the same driver, as taught by Hirotani, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 2/1, Son in view of Hirotani has been discussed above. Son further teaches each of the plurality of drives comprises an inverter 210, 230 (see translation page 3, 2nd ¶).
RE claim 3/1, Son in view of Hirotani has been discussed above. Son further teaches each of the plurality of drives 210 is connected to at least one of stator windings (e.g.: U, see Fig.1) located at one half side of the stator core 110 among the plurality of stator windings and each of the plurality of motor drives 230 is connected to at least one of stator windings located at another half side of the stator core among the plurality of stator windings (Fig.1).
RE claim 5/1, Son in view of Hirotani has been discussed above. Son further teaches the stator assembly includes a stator core having a plurality of stator slots 113, and one of the stator windings (e.g.: a) at least partially disposed in one of the stator slots 113 is connected to one of the plurality of drives 210, and the other one of the stator windings (u, v) at least partially disposed in two of the plurality of stator slots 113 adjacent to the one of the stator slots 113 are connected to at least another one of the plurality of drives (Figs.1, 7).
RE claim 6/1, Son in view of Hirotani has been discussed above. Son further teaches the plurality of stator windings (a, b, c, v, v, w) are configured to multi-phases (a, b, c, v, v, w), and stator windings configured for a same phase (u1 vs. u2 or a1 vs. a2) (see Fig.1) among the plurality of stator winding are evenly spaced apart from each other (Fig.1).
RE claim 7/1, Son in view of Hirotani has been discussed above. Son further teaches the plurality of drives 210, 230 comprise first and second drives 210, 230, the plurality of stator windings comprise first stator windings (u, v, w) connected to the first drive and 210 second stator windings (a, b, c) connected to the second drive 230, and the first stator windings (u, v, w) connected to the first drive 210 and the second stator windings (a, b, c) connected to the second drive are alternatively disposed (Figs.1, 2).
RE claim 8/1, Son in view of Hirotani has been discussed above. Son further teaches the plurality of drives 210, 230 comprise first and second motor drives 210, 230, the plurality of stator windings (u, v, w, a, b, c) are configured for three phases including first (u, a), second (v, b), and third phases (w, c), and a first winding (u) connected to the first drive 210 and configured for the first phase (u), a second winding (a) connected to the second drive 230 and configured for the first phase (a), a third winding (v) connected to the first drive 210 and configured for the second phase (v), a fourth winding (b) connected to the second drive 230 and configured for the second phase (b), a fifth winding (w) connected to the first drive 210 and configured for the third phase (w), and a sixth winding (c) connected to the second drive 230 and configured for the third phase (c) are arranged in turn repeatedly in a stator core of the stator assembly 110 (Figs.1, 2).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Hirotani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chowdhury et al. (US 2022/0109339 A1).
RE claim 9/1, Son in view of Hirotani has been discussed above. Son does not teach the rotor assembly comprises a plurality of reluctance rotor segments including a first reluctance rotor segment and a second reluctance rotor segment which are axially stacked relative to each other.
Chowdhury teaches a plurality of reluctance rotor segments 300 (Fig.4A) including a first reluctance rotor segment 310 and a second reluctance rotor segment 350 which are axially stacked relative to each other (Fig.4A) which provide cogging of substantially equal magnitude but in an opposite phase. Accordingly, the arrangement of combining or stacking different rotor segments may improve cogging torque, and ripple in shaft torque (¶ 33).
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 Son by having the rotor assembly comprises a plurality of reluctance rotor segments including a first reluctance rotor segment and a second reluctance rotor segment which are axially stacked relative to each other, as taught by Chowdhury, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 10/9, as discussed above, Chowdhury teaches one or more flux barriers 320, 110 included in the first reluctance rotor segment 310 (Fig.2) have different shapes from one or more flux barriers 360, 361 included in the second reluctance rotor segment 350 (see Figs.2 and 3 and ¶ 41).
RE claim 11/9, as discussed above, Chowdhury teaches the first reluctance rotor segment includes one or more permanent magnets 120 in one or more flux barriers 110 included in the first reluctance rotor segment 310 (Fig.2), and the second reluctance rotor segment 350 does not include the one or more permanent magnets 120 in one or more flux barriers included in the second reluctance rotor segment (Figs.2, 3).
RE claim 12/9, as discussed above, Chowdhury teaches material different from a rotor core of the second reluctance rotor segment 350 is disposed in one or more flux barriers included in the second reluctance rotor segment 350 (see ¶ 41 and claim 3).
RE claim 13/9, as discussed above, Chowdhury teaches the second reluctance rotor 350 includes one or more flux barriers formed with an air gap 362 (Fig.3D).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pramod (US 2021/0167703 A1) in view of Son (KR 20180090430 A) and Hirotani et al. (US 2018/0115202 A1).
RE claim 17, Pramod teaches a vehicle 10 (Fig.1) comprising: one or more road wheels (Fig.1 and ¶ 20) configured to cause the vehicle to move (¶ 20); a steering wheel (¶ 27) configured to generate an input for controlling the one or more road wheels (¶ 23); a brake assembly configured to operate a vehicle brake associated with the one or more road wheels (¶ 23); and one or more motors (¶ 22) operatively connected to one or more of the one or more road wheels, the steering wheel (¶ 24, 27) and the brake assembly,
Pramod does not teach at least one of the motors comprising: a plurality of drives configured to drive a plurality of stator windings; a stator assembly comprising the plurality of stator windings arranged along a circumference of a stator core, wherein each of the plurality of drives is evenly connected to one of the plurality of stator windings over the circumference of the stator core; and different drives among the plurality of drives are connected to stator windings positioned adjacent to each other among the plurality of stator windings, such that currents having a phase shift therebetween are provided to the plurality of stator windings; a rotor assembly configured to be rotatable relative to the stator assembly.
Son teaches at least one of the motors (Figs.1, 2) comprising: a plurality of drives 210, 230 configured to drive a plurality of stator windings (a, b, c, u, v, w); a stator assembly 110 comprising the plurality of stator windings arranged along a circumference of a stator core 111, wherein each of the plurality of drives is evenly connected to one of the plurality of stator windings (a, b, c, u, v, w) over the circumference of the stator core 111; and different drives among the plurality of drives are connected to stator windings (e.g.: w1, b1, see Fig. 7a) positioned adjacent to each other among the plurality of stator windings (Figs.7) a rotor assembly 130 configured to be rotatable relative to the stator assembly 110 (Fig.1).
Son suggests that such motors is capable to be used continuously even if an abnormality occurs in a motor part provide. Therefore, such motor is capable to be widely applied not only to the electric vehicle system but also to home appliances such as an air conditioner and a refrigerator (see translation page 1 last ¶ and page 2, 2nd ¶).
Hirotani teaches adjacent stator windings (U, U2) have a phase shift between each other (¶ 199) such that electrical angular sixth-order torque pulsation is canceled (¶ 199).
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 Pramod by having at least one of the motors comprising: a plurality of drives configured to drive a plurality of stator windings; a stator assembly comprising the plurality of stator windings arranged along a circumference of a stator core, wherein each of the plurality of drives is evenly connected to one of the plurality of stator windings over the circumference of the stator core; and a rotor assembly configured to be rotatable relative to the stator assembly, as taught by Son and Hirotani, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6 and 7 of the Remark, Applicant argued that Son fails to disclose the amended limitation of “different drives among the plurality of drives are connected to stator windings positioned adjacent to each other among the plurality of stator windings, such that currents having a phase shift therebetween are provided to the plurality of stator windings”
In response: Applicant’s argument was not found persuasive, the amended limitation appeared to be an incorporation of dependent claims 15 and 16 as previously presented.
As previously discussed, Son teaches different drives among the plurality of drives are connected to stator windings (e.g.: w1, b1, see Fig. 7a) positioned adjacent to each other among the plurality of stator windings (Figs.7). Further, Hirotani teaches adjacent stator windings (U, U2) have a phase shift between each other (¶ 199) such that electrical angular sixth-order torque pulsation is canceled (¶ 199).
Applicant failed to address and provided argument that how such amendment would overcome the limitation as noted by Son’s Figure 7 and Hirotani as previously presented.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights