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
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 5/10/24 and 10/30/24 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkle et al. (US 8,288,908 B2) in view of Taki et al. (US 2019/0283800 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Finkle teaches a vehicle drive system comprising:
a motor (30a, fig 3) that has a cylindrical stator (fig 2) and a cylindrical rotor (12) rotatably provided in the stator to be coaxial with a center axis of the stator,
the rotor (12) having: secondary conductors (32) that extend in an axial direction and aligned in a circumferential direction in a radially outer portion; and permanent magnets (16) that extend in the axial direction and aligned in the circumferential direction in a portion on a radially inner side of the secondary conductors (32),
circuitry (86, fig 27) configured to switch a drive mode of the motor (30a) between a synchronous operation mode in which the rotor (30a) is rotated by using a magnetic force of the permanent magnets (16, col 2 ln 15-22); and an asynchronous operation mode in which the rotor (30a) is rotated by using an induced current generated in the secondary conductors (32, col 2 ln 10-15), wherein
the circuitry (86) is configured to switch the drive mode of the motor (30a) from the synchronous operation mode to the asynchronous operation mode on a basis of required output for the motor (col 2 ln 10-22). However, Finkle does not teach the motor drives a drive wheel of a vehicle by rotation of the rotor.
Taki teaches a motor control apparatus for controlling driving of a motor, and drives a drive wheel of a vehicle by rotation of the rotor (para [0019]).
Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Finkle’s system with the motor drives a drive wheel of a vehicle by rotation of the rotor as taught by Taki. Doing so would provide a system for controlling driving of a motor in driving a drive wheel of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Finkle in view of Taki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claim 2, Finkle further teaches in the asynchronous operation mode, the circuitry (86) is configured to superimpose a current, which generates torque in an opposite phase from a phase of torque pulsation by the permanent magnet (16), on a drive current generated by the motor (30a) and supply the current to a stator coil (14) of the stator.
Regarding claims 3-4, Finkle in view of Taki teaches the claimed invention as set forth in claims 1-2, Finkle further teaches the circuitry (86) is configured to allow torque pulsation in a travel state that requires relatively high drive torque in the asynchronous operation mode (col 13 ln 41-46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto et al. (US 2018/0294761 A1) teaches first pulse width modulation control is a control of generating a first pulse width modulation signal for a plurality of switching elements by comparison of modulated waves of voltage commands in phases based on a torque command for a motor with a carrier voltage, and performing switching of the plurality of switching elements. Second pulse width modulation control is a control of generating a second pulse width modulation signal for the plurality of switching elements based on a modulation factor of a voltage and a voltage phase based on the torque command and the number of pulses per unit period of an electrical angle of the motor, and performing switching of the plurality of switching elements. An electronic control unit is configured to switch the plurality of switching elements between the first pulse width modulation control and the second pulse width modulation control at irregular time intervals.
Saha et al. (US 2018/0083565 A1) teaches a rotating electrical machine control device with an electronic control unit that is programmed to: switch a modulation method between asynchronous modulation in which switching of the inverter is controlled by modulated pulses generated based on a carrier having a first carrier frequency which is not synchronous with rotation of the rotating electrical machine and synchronous modulation in which switching of the inverter is controlled by modulated pulses generated in synchronization with rotation of the rotating electrical machine, the switching of the modulation method between the asynchronous modulation and the synchronous modulation being performed according to an operating condition of the rotating electrical machine which includes at least a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEDA T PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5806. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
/LEDA T PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834