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 “cause the motor to generator pulsation” 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 constitutes “pulsation”. Claims 2-4 rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
The term “surrounding travel environment of an own vehicle” in claim 3 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 constitutes “surrounding travel environment of an own vehicle”.
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) and further in view of MIZUNO(US5682073A).
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 generate a rotating magnetic field by supplying current to a stator (Third embodiment discloses inverter-controlled current supply to stator windings to generate a rotating magnetic field for motor operation embodiments shown in FIGS. 6 and 29–37),
and set a drive mode to an asynchronous operation mode in which the rotor is rotated by using an induced current generated in the secondary conductor (Third Embodiment describes induction motor operation in which rotor current is induced by the rotating magnetic field),
and changing a number of poles of the stator (Best Mode describes switching between different pole numbers during operation, which inherently produces torque fluctuation during the transition).
Nagayama is silent 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, and permanent magnets that extend in the axial direction and are aligned in the circumferential direction in a portion on a radially inner side of the secondary conductors, wherein the circuitry is configured to cause the motor to generate pulsation by making a number of poles of the stator different from a number of poles of the permanent magnets in the asynchronous operation mode.
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).
Nagayama in view of Mitchell is still silent and permanent magnets that extend in the axial direction and are aligned in the circumferential direction in a portion on a radially inner side of the secondary conductors, wherein the circuitry is configured to cause the motor to generate pulsation by making a number of poles of the stator different from a number of poles of the permanent magnets in the asynchronous operation mode.
However, Mizuno teaches permanent magnets(13) that extend in the axial direction and are aligned in the circumferential direction in a portion on a radially inner side(Figs. 2 and 24),
Accordingly, Nagayama teaches changing the number of stator poles while Mizuno teaches a rotor having fixed permanent magnet pole number, such that the combination teaches “the number of poles of the stator being different from the number of poles of the permanent magnets”. The resulting stator/PM pole mismatch would predictably produce pulsation due to magnetic field interaction differences across operating states.
Mitchell and Mizuno are 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 modify the pole-change induction motor vehicle drive system of Nagayama using the conventional induction motor geometry and conductor placement taught by Mitchell, because Mitchell teaches well-known structural features (stator/rotor geometry and squirrel-cage secondary conductor placement) suitable for induction motors used in traction applications. It would have been further obvious to incorporate the permanent magnet rotor arrangement taught by Mizuno into the combined Nagayama-Mitchell system to improve motor torque characteristics and operating flexibility (e.g., torque density and performance across operating regions), which is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The combination would have yielded a vehicle drive motor having pole-change control (Nagayama), induction motor structure with secondary conductors (Mitchell), and permanent magnets on the rotor (Mizuno), with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Mizuno teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to change the number of the poles of the stator by changing a direction of a current flowing through each of the primary conductors and increasing/reducing a number of primary conductor groups in each of which the current flows in a same direction(Col. 3, Nagayama disclosed changing the number of stator poles by controlling current direction and phase relationships of stator windings, including grouping of stator conductors supplied with current in the same direction during pole switching),
and the primary conductors are continuously aligned in the circumferential direction(Col. 3, Nagayama employs stator windings arranged circumferentially around the stator, and pole switching is performed electrically without changing the physical alignment of the stator conductors),
based on a driving operation by a driver(Driving condition is inherently determined based on a driving operation by the driver),
such that the pulsation of the motor is changed according to the driving operation (Col. 48, Nagayama discloses switching the number of stator poles during operation, which inherently causes pulsation in accordance to driving condition).
Regarding claim 3/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Mizuno teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to change the number of the poles of the stator by changing a direction of a current flowing through each of the primary conductors and increasing/reducing a number of primary conductor groups in each of which the current flows in a same direction(Col. 3, Nagayama disclosed changing the number of stator poles by controlling current direction and phase relationships of stator windings, including grouping of stator conductors supplied with current in the same direction during pole switching),
and the primary conductors are continuously aligned in the circumferential direction(Col. 3, Nagayama employs stator windings arranged circumferentially around the stator, and pole switching is performed electrically without changing the physical alignment of the stator conductors),
based on a surrounding travel environment of an own vehicle(Col. 9 Lines 30-40 Operating condition reflects surrounding travel environment factors such as load, road, and vehicle state),
such that the pulsation of the motor is changed according to the driving operation (Col. 48, Nagayama discloses switching the number of stator poles during operation, which inherently causes pulsation in accordance to driving condition).
Regarding claim 4/1, Nagayama in view of Mitchell and Mizuno teaches the vehicle drive system according to claim 1.
Nagayama further teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to change the number of the poles of the stator by changing a direction of a current flowing through each of the primary conductors (Col. 3 and 7, number of poles is changed by controlling current supplied to the stator windings by the inverters, windings correspond to the primary conductors).
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