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The rejection of claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 23, 2026 is withdrawn in view of applicant's amendments. Specifically:
• The term "travel state of an own vehicle" has been removed from claim 1, mooting the indefiniteness issue regarding that phrase.
• The relative terms "large" and "small" have been removed from claims 2 and 3, which now recite "based on required drive power" and "based on a required braking force," respectively.
• Claim 4 has been amended to recite "a travel state of the vehicle," removing the indefinite "own vehicle" phrasing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Nagayama (US6008616) in view of Mitchell (US2003/0098627) have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims, set forth below.
Examiner notes for the record that applicant's characterization of Nagayama as merely "using a mechanical switch that changes the number of poles when a certain speed is exceeded" understates Nagayama's disclosure. Nagayama at Col. 16:20–30 and Col. 48:30–40 expressly discloses control circuitry that determines operating conditions including load and torque demand for selecting pole number, contrasts high-torque versus high-speed operating regions, and selectively reduces or increases the number of poles based on such conditions. Nagayama is therefore not limited to one-dimensional speed-based control. However, examiner agrees that Nagayama does not explicitly disclose selecting the number of poles based on a voltage of a power supply, and the new ground of rejection below addresses this newly recited limitation by introducing Ono(US7117968) as a third reference.
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) 1–10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGAYAMA(US6008616A) in view of MITCHELL(US20030098627A1) and further in view of ONO(US7117968B2).
Regarding claim 1, Nagayama teaches a vehicle drive system (Field of the Invention and Summary describe the apparatus as a driving source of an electric vehicle with no power transmission, thereby expressly disclosing a vehicle drive system),
a motor configured to drive a vehicle drive wheel by rotation of a rotor (Summary and embodiments describe an induction motor used as the driving source of an electric vehicle, wherein rotation of the motor provides propulsion to the vehicle),
circuitry configured to control the motor (Summary of the Invention and embodiments disclose inverter means, inverter control units, and control circuitry for controlling operation of a pole-change induction motor, including embodiments shown in FIGS. 6 and 29–37),
the motor configured to change a number of poles of a stator (Summary of the Invention and Best Mode describe a pole-change induction motor capable of switching between n-pole and 2n-pole operation; see FIGS. 4 and 6),
changing a current direction flowing through primary conductors (Best Mode describes supplying inverted-phase voltage, including 180° phase inversion, to stator winding groups to effect pole switching; see the description associated with FIG. 6),
increasing or reducing a number of primary conductor groups in which the current flows in the same direction (Best Mode describes dividing stator windings into multiple winding groups and selectively driving the groups in-phase or with inverted phase depending on the selected pole configuration; see discussion associated with FIGS. 6–11),
wherein the primary conductors are continuously aligned circumferentially (pole changing is achieved electrically through phase and connection control without changing the physical arrangement of the stator windings, such that the circumferential alignment of the conductors remains unchanged during pole switching).
Nagayama is silent the physical motor geometry recited in Claim 1, including a cylindrical stator, a cylindrical rotor disposed within the stator, the rotor being coaxially rotatable about a center axis of the stator, or the specific structural arrangement of primary and secondary conductors, including primary conductors extending axially and being circumferentially aligned, and secondary conductors located in a radially outer portion of the rotor, extending axially and being circumferentially aligned.
However, Mitchell teaches the physical motor geometry recited in Claim 1, including a cylindrical stator(4), a cylindrical rotor(12) disposed within the stator, the rotor being coaxially rotatable about a center axis(10) of the stator, or the specific structural arrangement of primary and secondary conductors, including primary conductors(stator 4 having teeth 6 about which primary windings are supplied with alternating current) extending axially and being circumferentially aligned, and secondary conductors(30) located in a radially outer portion of the rotor, extending axially and being circumferentially aligned(Figs. 1-5).
Mitchell is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Nagayama because they are in the same field of electric machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the known cylindrical induction-motor structure taught by Mitchell into the pole-change vehicle drive system of Nagayama, because Nagayama already teaches a vehicle traction system employing a pole-change induction motor to improve operating efficiency across different speed ranges, and Mitchell teaches a conventional and well-known induction motor geometry suitable for such applications. Combining Mitchell's induction-motor structure with Nagayama's pole-changing control scheme would have been a predictable design choice yielding expected results, without changing the principle of operation of either reference.
Nagayama in view of Mitchell is silent regarding the circuitry being configured to select the number of the poles of the stator based on a requested torque and a voltage of a power supply to optimize a torque output of the motor.
However, Ono teaches the circuitry is configured to select the number of the poles of the stator based on a requested torque and a voltage of a power supply to optimize a torque output of the motor (Abstract and claim 1 disclose that, when a voltage of the power source is a predetermined value or greater, an electric motor control unit controls the electric motor such that the rotational speed-torque characteristics that the electric motor has when the voltage of the power source is at the predetermined value are maintained; the control unit is provided with a map of the voltage of the power source, a rotational speed, and a torque component current of the electric motor, and a map of the voltage of the power source and a magnetic flux component current, and controls the motor by referring to the map; claim 2 further teaches sampling rotational speed-torque current command value maps and rotational speed-field current command value maps for each of a plurality of voltages of a DC power source, thereby providing torque-output-optimized control maps indexed by both requested torque and power source voltage).
Ono is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention of Nagayama and Mitchell because all three are in the same field of motor control for electrically driven vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the voltage-and-torque-indexed control map of Ono into the pole-change vehicle drive system of Nagayama-Mitchell, because Nagayama already establishes that pole configuration is selected to optimize the torque-speed envelope of the motor across different operating conditions (Col. 48:30–40), the DC power supply voltage in an electric vehicle inherently varies with battery state of charge and load, and Ono expressly teaches that maintaining the rotational-speed-torque characteristic across power supply voltage variations is achieved by indexing the motor control map by the voltage of the power source. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to extend the voltage-aware control map of Ono to the pole-selection decision of Nagayama-Mitchell to maintain optimized torque output across the operating range of the battery, yielding the predictable result of voltage-aware pole selection without changing the principle of operation of any reference.
Regarding claim 2/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches the driving operation by the driver includes an accelerator operation(Col.6 Lines 55-65, Nagayama controls motor operation based on driver demand for driving force/torque; in an electric vehicle, such driver demand is inherently provided via an accelerator operation),
and the circuitry is configured to increase the number of the poles of the stator based on required drive power (Col. 48, lines 30-40, Nagayama discloses increasing the number of poles in low-speed, high-torque operating regions, which correspond to conditions where required drive power is large).
Regarding claim 3/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches the driving operation by the driver includes a brake operation (Col. 9 Lines 30-40, Nagayama controls motor operation based on vehicle operating conditions and required torque, which inherently includes driver braking operations in an electric vehicle),
and the circuitry is configured to increase the number of the poles of the stator based on a required braking force (Col. 48 Lines 20-40, Nagayama increases the number of poles in low-speed, high-torque operating regions, which correspond to conditions requiring large braking force in the regenerative mode).
Regarding claim 4/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches wherein the travel state of the vehicle includes surrounding travel environment of the vehicle (Col. 9 Lines 30-40, Nagayama controls motor operation based on vehicle operating conditions and required torque, which inherently includes surrounding travel environment),
and the circuitry is configured to increase the number of the poles of the stator during travel on an uphill road or during travel on a downhill road to be larger than that during travel on a flat road (Col. 48 Lines 20-40, uphill travel increases vehicle load, resulting in low speed and high torque operation requiring an increased number of poles, whereas during downhill travel regenerative or controlled torque conditions are applied and the pole switching control maintains appropriate torque by changing pole number).
Regarding claim 5/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches a driving operation by a driver includes an accelerator operation (Col. 6 Lines 55-65, driver demand for driving force/torque is inherently provided via an accelerator operation in an electric vehicle).
Regarding claim 6/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches a driving operation by a driver includes a brake operation (Col. 9 Lines 30-40, Nagayama controls motor operation based on vehicle operating conditions and required torque, which inherently includes driver braking operations).
Regarding claim 7/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches the travel state of the vehicle includes surrounding travel environment of the vehicle (Col. 9 Lines 30-40, Nagayama controls motor operation based on vehicle operating conditions, which inherently includes surrounding travel environment).
Regarding claim 8/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches the travel state of the vehicle includes surrounding travel environment of the vehicle (Col. 9 Lines 30-40),
and the circuitry is configured to increase the number of the poles of the stator during travel on an uphill road to be larger than that during travel on a flat road (Col. 48 Lines 20-40, uphill travel increases vehicle load, resulting in low speed and high torque operation requiring an increased number of poles).
Regarding claim 9/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches the travel state of the vehicle includes surrounding travel environment of the vehicle (Col. 9 Lines 30-40),
and the circuitry is configured to increase the number of the poles of the stator during travel on a downhill road to be larger than that during travel on a flat road (Col. 48 Lines 20-40, during downhill travel regenerative torque conditions are applied and the pole switching control increases the number of poles to maintain appropriate regenerative torque).
Regarding claim 10/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Ono further teaches the power supply is a DC power supply (Ono claim 2 expressly recites "a voltage of a DC power source connected to an electric motor for driving a motor driven vehicle"; Nagayama discloses an inverter-driven traction motor for an electric vehicle, which is universally fed by a DC battery power supply; further, Mitchell discloses an induction motor receiving alternating current from an inverter that is in turn supplied by a DC source, as is conventional in electric vehicle traction systems).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office
action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the
extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from
the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date
of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory
action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing
date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX
MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights