DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Application filed on April 23,2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for Examination. Claims 1 and 14 are independent.
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 § 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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 1 and 14 recites the limitations of "...and the dual-winding electric motor operates according to PWM interleaving..." renders the claim vague and indefinite. Because the claim is directed to an apparatus ("A dual-winding electric motor"). However, "operates according to" describes an action or a method step, not the structure of the motor itself. While a controller can be configured to perform a task, stating that the motor operates in a certain way is a method limitation (Mixing Statutory Classes (MPEP 2173.05(p)): a single claim should generally not mix an apparatus (the motor) with a method of using it (the operation). This should likely be tied to the control module's configuration: "...wherein the control module is configured to operate the dual-winding electric motor according to PWM interleaving.".
Also in Claim 1, Ambiguous phrasing in the limitations of "...wherein the first PWM signal has a different phase than the second PWM signal..." has issue: "Different phase" is broad. In the context of PWM interleaving, this usually implies a carrier phase shift (e.g., 180 degrees or 90 degrees). However, in the context of AC motors, "phase" can also refer to the fundamental electrical frequency (e.g., Phase A vs. Phase B). It is unclear if the claim refers to the carrier signal phase shift or the fundamental signal phase shift. Please clarify if this refers to a "carrier phase shift."
And in the limitation: "...spatially separated from the second portion..." has Issue: In a stator, almost all teeth are "spatially separated" from one another by slots. This term does not clearly distinguish a specific architecture (such as sector winding vs. distributed winding). If the intent is that the windings are in non-overlapping sectors (as suggested by Claim 4), Claim 1 may be too broad or vague to distinguish over standard distributed windings where phases are technically "separated" by adjacent slots.
In claims 6 and 18, recited limitations : "...wherein first PWM signal and the second PWM signal..." where the claim is missing the definite article "the" before "first PWM signal” lack of antecedent issues.
In claims 8 and 20, recited limitations in the preamble (incorporated from Claims 1 and 14) recites a "dual-winding electric motor." However, claims 8 and 20 add a "third set of stator windings.". So, the issue: A "dual-winding" motor implies exactly two sets of windings. Adding a third set contradicts the preamble's definition of the device. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the motor has two windings (as defined by the motor type) or three (as defined by the added element).
Suggested correction: The preamble of the independent claim or the dependent claim should reflect a "multi-winding" motor (Inconsistency and Repugnancy; see (MPEP 2173.05(p)))
Since the independent claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) and hence the dependent claims of 1 and 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerber et al (US 20230024531).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gerber et al disclose that a dual-winding electric motor for an electric vehicle ([0013]; Fig.11), the dual-winding electric motor comprising:
a stator core including multiple teeth extending radially inward from an inner diameter of the stator core, wherein multiple slots are defined between the multiple teeth (Fig.5);
a first set of stator windings (Fig.11:1) wound in a first portion of the multiple slots about a first portion of the multiple teeth;
a second set of stator windings (Fig.11:2) wound in a second portion of the multiple slots about a second portion of the multiple teeth; and
a control module (Fig.11:ECU) is configured to supply a first pulse-width-modulation (PWM) signal to the first set of stator windings and a second PWM signal to the second set of stator windings,
wherein the first PWM signal (Fig.12: PWM1) has a different phase than the second PWM signal (Fig.12: PWM2) and the dual-winding electric motor operates according to PWM interleaving, and
wherein the first portion of the multiple teeth having the first set of stator windings is spatially separated from the second portion of the multiple teeth having the second set of stator windings ([0066]).
Regarding claim 2, Gerber et al disclose that wherein the first set of stator windings is arranged in a different pole pair of the dual-winding electric motor than the second set of stator windings (Fig.5:A1,B1).
Regarding claim 3, Gerber et al disclose that wherein:
the first set of stator windings is arranged in a first pole pair and a third pole pair of the dual-winding electric motor; and
the second set of stator windings is arranged in a second pole pair and a fourth pole pair of the dual-winding electric motor (Fig.5 and [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Gerber et al disclose that wherein:
the multiple teeth are spatially arranged in four quadrants which do not overlap one another;
the first set of stator windings is located in a first quadrant of the four quadrants and a third quadrant of the four quadrants; and
the second set of stator windings is located in a second quadrant of the four quadrants and a fourth quadrant of the four quadrants (Fig.6 and [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Gerber et al disclose that wherein:
the second quadrant is located between the first quadrant and the third quadrant along a circumference of the stator core; and
the third quadrant is located between the second quadrant and the fourth quadrant along the circumference of the stator core (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 6, Gerber et al disclose that wherein first PWM signal and the second PWM signal are each three-phase PWM signals (Fig.12: PWM1, PWM2 create three phase drive signals).
Regarding claim 7, Gerber et al disclose that wherein the first set of stator windings is electromagnetically isolated from the second set of stator windings to inhibit circulating current and current harmonics due to the PWM interleaving (Fig.20B).
Regarding claim 8, Gerber et al disclose that further comprising a third set of stator windings wound in a third portion of the multiple slots about a third portion of the multiple teeth, wherein the third portion of the multiple teeth having the third set of stator windings is spatially separated from the first portion of the multiple teeth having the first set of and the second portion of the multiple teeth having the second set of windings (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 9, Gerber et al disclose that wherein:
the first set of stator windings is arranged in a first pole pair of the dual-winding electric motor;
the second set of stator windings is arranged in a second pole pair of the dual-winding electric motor; and
the third set of stator windings is arranged in a third pole pair of the dual-winding electric motor (Fig.5:A,B,C).
Regarding claim 10, Gerber et al disclose that wherein a frequency of the first PWM signal and the second PWM signal is at least five kilohertz (Fig.20B:10kHz).
Regarding claim 11, Gerber et al disclose that
wherein the frequency of the first PWM signal and the second PWM signal is less than or equal to twenty kilohertz (Fig.20B:10kHz).
Regarding claim 12, Gerber et al disclose that
wherein the frequency of the first
PWM signal and the second PWM signal is ten kilohertz(Fig.20B:10kHz).
Regarding claim 13, Gerber et al disclose that
wherein the control module includes at least one inverter (Fig.11: 14) configured to supply the first PWM signal to the first set of stator windings and the second PWM signal to the second set of stator windings (Fig.12).
Regarding independent claim 14, Gerber et al disclose that a dual-winding electric motor for an electric vehicle ([0013]; Fig.11), the dual-winding electric motor comprising:
a stator core including multiple teeth extending radially inward from an inner diameter of the stator core, wherein multiple slots are defined between the multiple teeth(Fig.5);
a first set of stator windings(Fig.11:1) wound in a first portion of the multiple slots about a first portion of the multiple teeth;
a second set of stator windings(Fig.11:2) wound in a second portion of the multiple slots about a second portion of the multiple teeth; and
a control module (Fig.11:ECU) is configured to supply a first pulse-width-modulation (PWM) signal to the first set of stator windings and a second PWM signal to the second set of stator windings,
wherein the first PWM signal (Fig.12: PWM1) has a different phase than the second PWM signal (Fig.12: PWM2) and the dual-winding electric motor operates according to PWM interleaving, and
wherein the first set of stator windings is arranged in a different pole pair of the dual-winding electric motor than the second set of stator windings([0066]).
Regarding claim 15, Gerber et al disclose that
wherein:
the first set of stator windings is arranged in a first pole pair and a third pole pair of the dual-winding electric motor; and
the second set of stator windings is arranged in a second pole pair and a fourth pole pair of the dual-winding electric motor(Fig.5 and [0059]).
Regarding claim 16, Gerber et al disclose that
wherein:
the multiple teeth are spatially arranged in four quadrants which do not overlap one another;
the first set of stator windings is located in a first quadrant of the four quadrants and a third quadrant of the four quadrants; and
the second set of stator windings is located in a second quadrant of the four quadrants and a fourth quadrant of the four quadrants(Fig.6 and [0059]).
Regarding claim 17, Gerber et al disclose that
wherein:
the second quadrant is located between the first quadrant and the third quadrant along a circumference of the stator core; and
the third quadrant is located between the second quadrant and the fourth quadrant along the circumference of the stator core(Fig.6).
Regarding claim 18, Gerber et al disclose that
wherein first PWM signal and the second PWM signal are each three-phase PWM signals (Fig.12: PWM1, PWM2, create three phase drive signals).
Regarding claim 19, Gerber et al disclose that
wherein the first set of stator windings is electromagnetically isolated from the second set of stator windings to inhibit circulating current and current harmonics due to the PWM interleaving(Fig.20B).
Regarding claim 20, Gerber et al disclose that
further comprising a third set of stator windings wound in a third portion of the multiple slots about a third portion of the multiple teeth, wherein the third portion of the multiple teeth having the third set of stator windings is spatially separated from the first portion of the multiple teeth having the first set of and the second portion of the multiple teeth having the second set of windings(Fig.6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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 on 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846