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
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/or 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over TAMURA(US20210384794A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tamura teaches a motor(10) comprising: a rotor(40); and a stator(50) including a stator core(52), and at least one coil(51) module that is wound on said stator core(52), each of said at least one coil(51) module including a plurality of first winding sets(Para[0010], each phase winding constitutes a plurality of partial windings) that are wound on said stator core(52), each of said first winding sets including a first end and a second end(Para[0026], each partial winding has first and second bridging portions on coil ends), wherein, for each of said at least one coil module(51), said first ends respectively of said first winding sets are electrically connected to each other, and said second ends respectively of said first winding sets are electrically connected to each other, such that said first winding sets are connected in parallel(Fig. 86, Para[0132], figure shows interconnection of partial windings within each phase which corresponds to first ends tied together and second ends tied together. Parallel configuration is inherent where multiple partial windings share common first node and share common second node).
Regarding claim 2/1, Tamura teaches the motor as claimed in claim 1.
Tamura further teaches wherein said at least one coil(51) module of said stator(50) includes three coil modules(Para[0010]), partial windings) that correspond to three phases respectively(Para[02040], 3-phase coil U, W V).
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over TAMURA(US20210384794A1).
Regarding claim 3/2, Tamura teaches the motor as claimed in claim 2.
Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein said first winding sets correspond to an identical power output.
However, it would have been obvious to configure the plurality of partial windings of each phase to be identical in number of turns and configurations such that they correspond to identical power output, since symmetrical winding design is a well-known motor design practice to ensure balanced torque production and minimize vibration.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over TAMURA(US20210384794A1) in view of TAKIZAWA(US20140300236A1).
Regarding claim 4/2, Tamura teaches the motor as claimed in claim 2.
Tamura teaches wherein each of said coil modules(51) further includes: a first coil group including said first winding sets(Para[0010]), partial windings).
Tamara is silent wherein and a second coil group including a plurality of second winding sets that are wound on said stator core, each of said second winding sets includes a third end and a fourth end, wherein said third ends respectively of said second winding sets are electrically connected to each other, and said fourth end respectively of said second winding sets are electrically connected to each other, such that said second winding sets are connected in parallel.
However, Takizawa teaches a stator 10 including second coil group(12 segmented coils) including a plurality of second winding sets(12) that are wound on said stator core(11), each of said second winding sets includes a third end(E1) and a fourth end(E2), wherein said third ends respectively of said second winding sets are electrically connected to each other, and said fourth end respectively of said second winding sets are electrically connected to each other, such that said second winding sets are connected in parallel(Fig. 5).
Takizawa is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Tamura because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tamura wherein a second coil group including a plurality of second winding sets that are wound on said stator core, each of said second winding sets includes a third end and a fourth end, wherein said third ends respectively of said second winding sets are electrically connected to each other, and said fourth end respectively of said second winding sets are electrically connected to each other, such that said second winding sets are connected in parallel, as taught by Takizawa. Doing so would increase current capacity, reduce winding resistance, and improve thermal distribution.
Regarding claim 5/4, Tamura in view of Takizawa teaches the motor as claimed in claim 4.
The combination teaches a second coil group including a plurality of winding sets connected in parallel.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the second winding sets correspond to identical power output.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the parallel-connected winding sets to have identical electrical characteristics such that they produce identical power output. Designing parallel windings with matched characteristics to ensure balanced current distribution and uniform torque production is a well-known motor design practice. Providing identical output among parallel winding sets represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 6/4, Tamura in view of Takizawa teaches the motor as claimed in claim 4.
The combination teaches first and second coil groups including plural winding sets.
The combination does not explicitly teach the number of winding sets in the first coil group is greater than the number in the second coil group.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the number of winding sets between coil groups to achieve desired electrical characteristics such as impedance, current capacity, torque output, and thermal distribution. The number of windings and parallel branches in a stator phase is a recognized result-effective variable in motor design. Selecting a greater number of winding sets in one group than another represents routine optimization yielding predictable performance variations, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7/4, Tamura in view of Takizawa teaches the motor as claimed in claim 4.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein a value of power output corresponding to said first winding sets is smaller than a value of power output corresponding to said second winding sets.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary winding parameters (e.g., number of winding sets, number of turns, parallel branches, conductor geometry) between coil groups to achieve different power outputs. Adjusting winding configuration to control torque and power contribution is a well-known motor design practice and represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Providing differing power outputs between winding groups would have yielded predictable performance characteristics, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8/4, Tamura in view of Takizawa teaches the motor as claimed in claim 4.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein a number of turns of each of said first winding sets is smaller than a number of turns of each of said second winding sets.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary winding parameters (e.g., number of winding sets, number of turns, parallel branches, conductor geometry) between coil groups to achieve different power outputs. Adjusting winding configuration to control torque and power contribution is a well-known motor design practice and represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Providing differing power outputs between winding groups would have yielded predictable performance characteristics, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the number of turns between winding groups to achieve desired electrical and performance characteristics. The number of turns in a motor winding is a recognized result-effective variable directly affecting voltage, current, torque, and power output. Adjusting the number of turns between winding groups to obtain different performance characteristics represents routine optimization yielding predictable results, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over TAMURA(US20210384794A1) in view of YAMASAKI(US20210129683A1).
Regarding claim 16/1, Tamura teaches the motor as claimed in claim 1.
Tamura is silent wherein a control system for an electric vehicle, comprising: a power supply device configured to provide electric power; a driving device electrically connected to said power supply device; said stator electrically connected to said driving device and said power supply device; a detection device electrically connected to said power supply device, and configured to make detection on one of terrain where the electric vehicle is located and operation of said motor, and to output a detection signal related to a result of the detection; and a control device electrically connected to said power supply device, said driving device and said detection device, and configured to output a control signal to said driving device based on the detection signal, wherein said driving device is configured to output a driving signal to said motor based on the control signal received from said control device, and said motor is configured to operate based on the driving signal from said driving device and to provide electricity to said power supply device.
However, Yamasaki teaches a control system for an electric vehicle, comprising: a power supply device(10, 11) configured to provide electric power; a driving device(5, 6, 10) electrically connected to said power supply device(10,11); a detection device(32,33) electrically connected to said power supply device, and configured to make detection on one of terrain where the electric vehicle is located and operation of said motor(5), and to output a detection signal related to a result of the detection; and a control device(20) electrically connected to said power supply device, said driving device and said detection device, and configured to output a control signal to said driving device(EV) based on the detection signal, wherein said driving device is configured to output a driving signal(output limit in inverter 6) to said motor(5) based on the control signal received from said control device, and said motor(5) is configured to operate based on the driving signal from said driving device and to provide electricity to said power supply device(Para[0020-0027]).
Yamasaki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Tamura because they are in the same field of electric machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tamura wherein a control system for an electric vehicle, comprising: a power supply device configured to provide electric power; a driving device electrically connected to said power supply device; said stator electrically connected to said driving device and said power supply device; a detection device electrically connected to said power supply device, and configured to make detection on one of terrain where the electric vehicle is located and operation of said motor, and to output a detection signal related to a result of the detection; and a control device electrically connected to said power supply device, said driving device and said detection device, and configured to output a control signal to said driving device based on the detection signal, wherein said driving device is configured to output a driving signal to said motor based on the control signal received from said control device, and said motor is configured to operate based on the driving signal from said driving device and to provide electricity to said power supply device, as taught by Yamasaki. One would be motivated to do this in order to enable propulsion control in an electric vehicle and adjust motor output based on terrain to increase overall efficiency.
Regarding claim 17/16, Tamura in view of Yamasaki teaches the control system as claimed in claim 16.
Yamasaki further teaches comprising a switch(RY1) electrically connected to said power supply device(10,11), said stator(part of motor 5) and said control device(20), and configured to be controlled by said control device(20) to switch between a connecting state where said switch electrically connects said stator to said power supply device and a disconnecting state where said switch disconnects said stator from said power supply device(Para[0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 18/17, Tamura in view of Yamasaki teaches the control system as claimed in claim 17.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein when the detection signal indicates that an inclination of the terrain is greater than 10 degrees, said control device controls said switch to switch to the disconnecting state.
However, selecting a particular inclination threshold to trigger a disconnect state represents routine optimization of a known control parameter. The specific value of 10 degrees constitutes a predictable design choice based on safety or performance considerations, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19/17, Tamura in view of Yamasaki teaches the control system as claimed in claim 17.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein when the detection signal indicates one of a first condition where an inclination of the terrain is smaller than 10 degrees and a second condition where a rotation speed of said motor corresponds to a speed of the electric vehicle greater than 50 km/h, said control device controls said power switch device to switch to the connecting state.
However, selecting particular threshold values for inclination and speed represents routine optimization of known control parameters. Furthermore, applying multiple conditional criteria (e.g., inclination and speed) to determine switching state is a predictable control strategy commonly employed in electric vehicle systems. The claimed configuration therefore constitutes the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 9: The closest prior art of TAMURA(US20210384794A1), TAKIZAWA(US20140300236A1), ATAR(US20150084446A1), SCHWAMBERGER(US20210376669A1), and HONG(CN101964553A) teaches every limitation except “…a first wiring board and a second wiring board that are disposed on said stator core and that are opposite to each other along the axial direction… wherein said first wiring board includes a plurality of first connection ports, said second wiring board includes a plurality of second connection ports electrically connected to said first connection ports respectively, and said coil modules are electrically connected to said first connection ports”. The limitation in the combination as claimed is not anticipated nor obvious over any other prior art of record.
Claims 10-15 are allowed for being dependent on claim 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
ATAR(US20150084446A1) is an application that teaches a stacked multi stator structure.
SCHWAMBERGER(US20210376669A1) is an application that teaches electrically contacting stator winding wire end sections to a pcb.
HONG(CN101964553A) is an application that teaches a stator using a substrate with multiple wiring layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834