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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
The term “travel state of an own vehicle” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It lacks clear boundaries as to what conditions constitute the “travel state”. Claims 2-3 rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
The terms “large and small” in claims 2 and 3 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. Claims do not provide objective criteria, thresholds, or reference values for determining when the required drive power or braking force are considered large or small.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over NAGAYAMA(US6008616A) in view of MITCHELL(US2003098627A1).
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),
the circuitry configured to change the number of poles based on a driving operation by a driver (Background and Summary explain that pole switching is performed to accommodate different torque and speed requirements corresponding to vehicle driving demands),
and the circuitry configured to change the number of poles based on a travel state of a vehicle (Best Mode describes switching pole number based on motor rotational speed ranges corresponding to low-speed and high-speed operating conditions of the vehicle).
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.
Regarding claim 2/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell 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 estimate required drive power (Col. 16 Lines 20-30, Nagayama discloses control circuitry that determines operating conditions such as load and torque demand in order to control pole switching, which necessarily requires estimating required drive power),
and the required drive power being estimated on the basis of the accelerator operation(Claim 14, driver demand for torque or driving force, which in an electric vehicle is derived from accelerator operation, is used by the control circuitry to determine operating conditions for pole switching),
and the circuitry being configured to increase the number of poles of the stator when the required drive power is large (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),
and in comparison with a case where the required drive power is small (Col. 48, lines 30-40, Nagayama contrasts high-torque operation with high-speed, lower-torque operation, and selectively reduces the number of poles under conditions corresponding to smaller required drive power).
Regarding claim 3/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell 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 estimate a required braking force (Col. 16 Lines 20-30, Nagayama determines torque instructions and operating conditions of the motor based on detected speed and control inputs, which during deceleration correspond to braking torque),
and the required braking force being estimated on the basis of the brake operation (Claim 14, The operating condition used by the control circuitry reflects driver-initiated deceleration, which in a vehicle system is initiated by brake operation),
and the circuitry being configured to increase the number of poles of the stator when the required braking force is large(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),
and in comparison with a case where the required braking force is small(Col. 48 Lines 20-40, Nagayama reduces the number of poles in high-speed, lower-torque operating regions, corresponding to smaller braking force).
Regarding claim 4/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches wherein the travel state of the own vehicle includes surrounding travel environment of the own 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).
Conclusion
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