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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement is provided; thus, international search report in the record have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because a period is used in line 3. Only one period can be used in a claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “wherein the offset between the consecutive rotor poles of the plurality of slices are 360/(n*p); and wherein the n is number of slices and p is the number of poles, wherein the offset between the consecutive rotos poles is determined based on the application demands or motor topology” and “the torque is delivered at all instants in time by one or more of the slices of the plurality of slices to reduce torque ripple by increasing the number of the plurality of slices” render the claim indefinite.
First, it is unclear whether the offset is determined by “360/(n*p)” or based on “application demands or motor topology”. For examination purpose, the offset is broadly interpreted as determined by “360/(n*p)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Second, the scope of “application demands or motor topology” is unclear.
Third, the meaning of “the torque is delivered at all instants in time by one or more of the slices of the plurality of slices to reduce torque ripple by increasing the number of the plurality of slices” is unclear. The claim does not state a process or manufacturing of the SRM. How can the claimed system increase number of slices of the SRM? For examination purpose, the limitation is broadly interpreted as “Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “the rotor positions are offset symmetrically” and “wherein, there is no starting problem at any given rotor position for SRMs, with three or more slices” render the claim indefinite.
First, the meaning of “rotor positions are offset symmetrically” is unclear. It is unclear whether it refers to poles of a rotor of a slice are symmetrical, or poles of rotors of all the slices together cover all the position rotor positions for the SRM so that “at least one slice in torque producing region for any given rotor position”. For examination purpose, the limitation is broadly interpreted as rotor poles of each slice being symmetrical. Appropriate correction is required.
Second, the limitation “wherein, there is no starting problem at any given rotor position for SRMs, with three or more slices” appears to be a comment rather than structurally or functionally further limiting the claim. It is unclear whether “no starting problem…with three or more slices” is the result of having offset being determined by “360/(n*p)”, or just by having “three or more slices”. For examination purpose, the limitation is broadly interpreted in light of the plain meaning of the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the aligned/unaligned positions of the rotors of the one or more slices experiences starting problem and produces zero torque” renders the claim indefinite because it appears to a conclusion or comment rather than limitation with definite scope to clearly state and limit a claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, the claims are indefinite since they are either directly or indirectly depend on claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “application demands or motor topology” renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a second set of poles with auxiliary windings alternatively” renders the claim indefinite.
First, it is unclear whether the “auxiliary windings” refers to the auxiliary windings recited in claim 3.
Second, the meaning having “a second set of poles” and “alternatively” is unclear in combination with other limitations recited in the claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “an asymmetric number of poles alternatively in each of the one or more slices to eliminate the starting problem” renders the claim indefinite because the number of poles of the slices are defined as “equal” in claim 3. For examination purpose, the limitation is rejected along with limitation recited in claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the recited limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is referred as “step (a)” and/or “step (b)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is indefinite since it is dependent on claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma (CN 108288901 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a system (e.g. Fig .1) for achieving uniform torque with complete material utilization (inherent result of the system), and correspondingly resolve torque ripple with reduction in noise (inherent result of the system) in a SRM (e.g. Abstract & p. 1-2 & Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of slices (e.g. Fig. 1: A-H) arranged in a tandem fashion centered along an axis of rotation; and
wherein the plurality of slices is single phase (e.g. Abstract: each slice corresponds to one phase) concentric switched reluctance motor (SRM) with equal number of rotor and stator poles (e.g. Figs. 4-1, 4-2), and
wherein the stator poles of the plurality of slices arranged consecutively is aligned and wherein the rotor poles of the plurality of slices arranged consecutively is in off-set (e.g. Fig. 9);
wherein the plurality of slices comprises wiring in series or in parallel, and wherein the wiring the plurality of slices in series involves wiring the stator poles of the plurality of slices in series with alternating stator poles having opposite polarity, and wherein wiring the plurality of slices in parallel involves wiring the adjacent stator poles of the plurality of slices in parallel to form one pole pair (e.g. Abstract: each slice corresponds to one phase and connected in parallel);
wherein the offset between the consecutive rotor poles of the plurality of slices are 360/(n*p); and wherein the n is number of slices and p is the number of poles, and wherein the offset between the consecutive rotos poles is determined based on the application demands or motor topology (e.g. Fig. 9: n=6, p=8; thus, offset=360/(6*8)=7.5 degree); and
wherein the torque is delivered at all instants in time by one or more of the slices of the plurality of slices (e.g. Fig. 9: rotor poles of the slices commutate with stator poles at all instants) to reduce torque ripple (inherent results of the claimed structure of the SRM) by increasing the number of the plurality of slices (e.g. Fig. 9: plurality of slices).
Regarding claim 2, Ma discloses the rotor positions are offset symmetrically to ensure that there is at least one slice in torque producing region for any given rotor position (e.g. Fig. 9: rotor poles of the slices commutate with stator poles at all instants), thereby avoiding the starting problem for most positions in a two slice SRM (inherent results of rotor positions are offset), and wherein, there is no starting problem at any given rotor position for SRMs (Ma discloses the claimed SRM, and no starting problem is the inherent result of the claimed SRM), with three or more slices (e.g. Fig. 9: plurality of slices).
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.
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(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 108288901 A) in view of JP (JP 2006521780 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided machine translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Ma discloses a system (e.g. Fig. 1) for resolving starting problem (inherent result of the system) in a SRM (e.g. Abstract & p. 1-2 & Fig. 1) comprising:
a one or more slices arranged in a tandem fashion centered along an axis of rotation (e.g. Fig. 1: A-H), and
wherein the one or more slices are single phase (e.g. Abstract: each slice corresponds to one phase) concentric switched reluctance motor (SRM) with equal number of rotor and stator poles (e.g. Figs. 4-1, 4-2), and
wherein the stator poles of the one or more slices arranged consecutively are aligned (e.g. Fig. 1) and wherein the rotor poles of the one or more slices arranged consecutively are off set (e.g. Fig. 9);
Ma fails to disclose, but JP teaches an auxiliary winding (e.g. Fig. 1 & p. 9: auxiliary winding, i.e. phase B), to move the rotors of the one or more slices away from the aligned/unaligned position (e.g. p. 10: self-starting provided by auxiliary winding), and wherein the aligned/unaligned positions of the rotors of the one or more slices experiences starting problem and produces zero torque (e.g. p. 10: self-starting provided by auxiliary winding), and wherein the auxiliary winding is excited momentarily, while starting the system from rest (e.g. p. 10: self-starting provided by auxiliary winding) and not during normal operation (e.g. p. 9: SRM functions as a single-phase SRM, and auxiliary winding does not generate power).
The additional of the auxiliary winding provide self-starting feature in the invention of Ma
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ma with the teachings of JP to provide auxiliary winding to self-starting SRM of Ma so as to improve the reliability and control accuracy of the SRM. The modification would have yielded only predictable result to one skilled in the art.
In addition, Ma discloses it is known in the art to utilize plurality of single-phase windings in a plurality of slices in a SRM, and JP teaches it is known to utilize main winding and auxiliary winding as individual phases in an SRM. Therefore, it is known to have plurality of phases in different rotors (i.e. slices) and it is also known to have plurality of phases in a common rotor. And, since the auxiliary winding would have to be adjacent to a respective main rotor winding to perform self-starting, the auxiliary slices would be in between main rotor winding slices when there are plurality of main rotor winding slices and auxiliary winding slices.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the auxiliary winding as one of the slices as taught by Ma in the SRM. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since all the elements are known in the art, and combining the features together to achieve the claimed invention (i.e. having main winding and auxiliary windings as slices) involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Ma discloses the one or more slices includes two-slice SRM, and wherein the off-set between the rotor poles of the two-slice SRM is 22.50, and wherein the off-set of the auxiliary slice between the two-slice SRM is 11.250 (e.g. slice of SRM and auxiliary slice are broadly interpreted as slices of the SRM, and Fig. 9: n=2 main slices + 2 auxiliary slices=4, p=8; thus, offset=360/(4*8)=11.5 degree).
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses the auxiliary slice is positioned at a different offset between the slices, based on the application demands or motor topology (e.g. Fig. 4-1 & 9: different offset).
Regarding claim 6, JP teaches the auxiliary winding is excited momentarily by means of a circuit, and wherein the circuit comprises a semiconductor or electromechanical switch, auxiliary winding, and a fly-back diode, and wherein the semiconductor or electromechanical switch is MOSFET, IGBT, Relay or other switching device (e.g. Figs. 3-10: circuit, switching unit, windings and diodes).
Regarding claim 7, Ma and JP in combination discloses a second set of poles with auxiliary windings alternatively, and wherein the second set of poles with auxiliary windings helps to move the rotor to a suitable position while starting from the rest to resolve the starting problem (Ma discloses plurality of single-phase rotor slices and JP teaches auxiliary winding assist main winding to self-start an SRM; thus, it would be obvious to implement the auxiliary windings as a rotor slice as taught by Ma so as to assist main winding in self-starting process).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP (JP 2006521780 A) in view of Ma (CN 108288901 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, JP discloses a method for resolving starting problem in a single phase SRM comprising the steps of:
evaluating zero torque position of a rotor, and wherein the zero-torque position of the rotor is either rotor fully aligned or rotor fully unaligned with the stator poles (e.g. p. 10, 15 & 29: when the motor is stopped and stationary; i.e. fully aligned or fully unaligned);
exciting auxiliary winding momentarily by means of a circuit, if the rotor position of step (a) is at zero torque position (e.g. p. 10, 15 & 29: excite auxiliary winding to self-start) or exciting windings of the slice to continue with motor operation, if the rotor position of step (a) is away from the zero-torque position (i.e. normal operation if motor is not stopped/stationary), and
wherein the circuit for exciting auxiliary winding comprises a semiconductor or electromagnetic switch, auxiliary winding and a fly-back diode, and wherein the semiconductor or electromagnetic switch is MOSFET, IGBT, Relay or other switching device (e.g. Figs. 3-10: circuit, switching unit, windings and diodes);
moving the rotor either in the direction of intended rotation or in reverse direction by exciting auxiliary winding of step (b); reversing the rotor direction to the direction of intended rotation by means of position detection mechanism; and exciting windings of the slice to continue with the motor operation (e.g. p. 29).
JP fails to disclose, but Ma teaches the slice is a single phase (e.g. Abstract: each slice corresponds to one phase) Switched Reluctance Motor (SRM) (e.g. Fig. 1: A-H) with equal number of rotor and stator poles (e.g. Figs. 4-1, 4-2).
In addition, Ma teaches it is known in the art to utilize plurality of single-phase windings in a plurality of slices in a SRM, and JP discloses it is known to utilize main winding and auxiliary winding as individual phases in an SRM. Therefore, it is known to have plurality of phases in different rotors (i.e. slices) and it is also known to have plurality of phases in a common rotor.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the auxiliary winding as one of the slices as taught by Ma in the SRM. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since all the elements are known in the art, and combining the features together to achieve the claimed invention (i.e. having main winding and auxiliary windings as slices) involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, JP teaches the excitation of auxiliary winding momentarily comprises the steps of: turning ON the semiconductor switch, to energize the auxiliary winding; turning OFF the semiconductor switch, to de-energize the auxiliary winding; and wherein the de-energizing the auxiliary winding involves the current in the auxiliary winding is recirculated through the fly-back diode and turning OFF the circuit (e.g. Figs. 3-10 & p. 9: auxiliary winding does not generate power & p. 10: self-starting by auxiliary winding).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846