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.
Claim 2-15 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.
Claims 2-15 recite “A motor drive system” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the examiner whether it refers to the motor drive system from claim 1 or another motor drive system.
Claim 14, line 3 recite “a sensor sub assembly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to the same sensor sub assembly from line 1 or another one.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andonian et al. US publication no.: US 2004/0144592 A1 in view of Matsouka et al. US publication no.: US 2004/0113575 A1
Regarding claim 1, Andonian et al. teach, A motor drive system, comprising: at least two electric motor subassemblies (motors 30 and 32, figure 1), each sub-assembly comprising a rotor and a stator (inherently disclosed in motors), the rotors being connected to a mechanical load (input shaft 16, figure 1) such that there is a fixed positional relationship between the two rotors, the system further comprising: a first position sensing assembly that provides a first rotor position signal indicative of a position of the rotor of a first one of the electric motor subassemblies (see sensors assembly, paragraph 19, where it is explained that a sensor is attached to transit wheel angles); a second position sensing arrangement that provides a second rotor position signal indicative of the position of the rotor of a second one of the electric motor sub-assemblies, each rotor position sensing assembly producing a position signal indicative of the position of the associated rotor relative to its associated stator (see sensors assembly, paragraph 19, where it is explained that a sensor is attached to transit wheel angles), the signal including a periodic pattern of errors in an indicated position of the rotor of the associated electric motor subassembly (see paragraph 19, where the normal and fault modes are disclosed, wherein the errors corresponds to the fault modes); and a motor controller (microcontroller 23, figure 1) which controls currents applied to each electric motor subassembly as a function of the position signal from the associated rotor position sensing assembly, the currents in turn causing the rotor of each electric motor sub assembly to apply a torque or force to the mechanical load which includes a torque or force ripple due to the periodic errors in position signals (see paragraph 18 and 24, where it is explained that the motor applies torque to the shaft which causes it to rotate).
Andonian et al. is silent on specifically teaching: wherein: an orientation of the first rotor position sensing assembly relative to the first electric motor subassembly and the orientation of the second rotor position sensing assembly relative to the second electric motor sub assembly are fixed such that the periodic ripple in the torques or forces applied by the two motors are seen by the mechanical load at least partially cancel out.
However, Matsuoka et al. wherein: an orientation of the first rotor position sensing assembly relative to the first electric motor subassembly and the orientation of the second rotor position sensing assembly relative to the second electric motor sub assembly are fixed such that the periodic ripple in the torques or forces applied by the two motors are seen by the mechanical load at least partially cancel out ripple (see paragraphs 15, 26, and 30, where it is explained that the phase positioning between the spiral wires positioned around on the stator teeth 16 is out of phase and is controlled to reduce the phase difference and reduce torque ripple).
The teaching of Matsouka et al. of reducing torque ripple utilizing a position sensor as seen above would be applied to the redundant system of Andonian et al. including two motors.
In view of Matsouka et al.’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Andonian et al. to include; wherein: an orientation of the first rotor position sensing assembly relative to the first electric motor subassembly and the orientation of the second rotor position sensing assembly relative to the second electric motor sub assembly are fixed such that the periodic ripple in the torques or forces applied by the two motors are seen by the mechanical load at least partially cancel out, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Andonian et al. teach, A motor drive system according to claim 1, in which each of the rotors in use rotates to generate a torque that acts on the mechanical load (see paragraph 18, where the torque is applied to rotate the shaft).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Andonian et al. is silent on specifically teaching, A motor drive system according to claim 1, wherein the torque producing elements are sets of stator teeth on the same electric motor, producing torque upon the same rotor, wherein the currents energizing each set of teeth are controlled separately.
However, Matsouka et al. teach: wherein the torque producing elements are sets of stator teeth on the same electric motor, producing torque upon the same rotor (see figure 1 and paragraphs 22-23, where the stator is equipped with stator teeth), wherein the currents energizing each set of teeth are controlled separately.
In view of Matsouka et al.’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Andonian et al. to include; wherein the torque producing elements are sets of stator teeth on the same electric motor, producing torque upon the same rotor, wherein the currents energizing each set of teeth are controlled separately, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Andonian et al. is silent on specifically teaching, A linear motor drive system according to claim 1, wherein the force producing elements are sets of stator teeth on the same motor, producing force upon on the same rotor, where the currents energizing each set of teeth are controlled separately.
However, Matsouka et al. teach: wherein the force producing elements are sets of stator teeth on the same motor, producing force upon on the same rotor (see figure 1 and paragraphs 22-23, where the stator is equipped with stator teeth), where the currents energizing each set of teeth are controlled separately.
In view of Matsouka et al.’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Andonian et al. to include; wherein the force producing elements are sets of stator teeth on the same motor, producing force upon on the same rotor, where the currents energizing each set of teeth are controlled separately, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 12 and 13, Andonian et al. teach, A motor drive system according to claim 1, in which the mechanical load comprises a rotatable shaft and each rotor is directly connected to the shaft through a respective gearset such that a rate of rotation of the two electric motor rotors is matched so that one full rotation of one rotor matches a full rotation of the other (see paragraph 19 and 21, where the first motor and second motor simultaneously applies torque to the shaft).
Regarding claim 8, Matsouka et al. teach, A motor drive system according to claim 1, wherein each position sensor provides a similar periodic pattern of errors in the position signal and with the position sensors assembled such that the errors are out of phase and hence the torque or force ripple from their rotors is out of phase and hence when mechanically coupled reduces the total ripple (see paragraphs 15, 26, and 30, where it is explained that the phase positioning between the spiral wires positioned around on the stator teeth 16 is out of phase and is controlled to reduce the phase difference and reduce torque ripple).
Regarding claim 9, Matsouka et al. teach, A motor drive system according to claim 8 in which the ripple is at least partially reduced by fixing components of the position sensing assemblies in a same position relative to their associated stators but with other components fixed in different positions relative to their associated rotors, or by fixing components of the position sensing assemblies in different positions relative to their associated stators but with other components fixed in the same positions relative to their associated rotors (see paragraph 26, where it is explained that the controller shifts the current phase).
Regarding claim 14, Matsouka et al. teach, A motor drive system according to claim 2, wherein each motor position sensor assembly comprises a sensor sub-assembly that is secured to the rotor of an associated torque or force producing element and a sensor sub-assembly fixed in position relative to the stator of an associated torque or force producing element, the sensor detecting the relative position of the rotor and the stator (see position sensors 27a-b, figure 3 and paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 15, Matsouka et al. teach, A motor drive system according to claim 2, wherein each position sensor provides a similar periodic pattern of errors in the position signal and with the position sensors assembled such that the errors are out of phase and hence the torque or force ripple from their rotors is out of phase and hence when mechanically coupled reduces the total ripple(see paragraph 26, where it is explained that the controller shifts the current phase and therefore reduces torque ripple).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHEB S IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4308. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-730pm.
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.
/ZOHEB S IMTIAZ/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2846