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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16,18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, line 2, “the plurality of motors is installed” should be “the plurality of motors are installed”.
In claim 18 line 2, “the plurality of motors is installed” should be “the plurality of motors are installed”’ line 4, “the plurality of antennas is disposed” should be “the plurality of antennas are disposed”
In claim 20, line 2, “the plurality of motors is installed” should be “the plurality of motors are installed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1,4-6,12-14 and 21are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al (Pat# 9,797,955) .
As to claim 1, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device for motors as shown in figure 1 having an antenna (8) to receive an electromagnetic wave in a microwave frequency band emitted due to partial discharge occurring in an insulating member included in a motor (2), and generate a reception signal; and a-degradation determining circuitry (6) to determine whether any degradation occurs in the insulating member and identify the type of the degradation in the insulating member including at least one of a cause of the degradation in the insulating member or a position of the degraded insulating member. It is noted that Okada et al do not explicitly mention about comparing a phase characteristic of a signal intensity of the reception signal with a phase characteristic pattern associated with a type of degradation in the insulating member. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that a phase characteristic of a signal intensity of the reception signal from the antenna (8) is compared with a phase characteristic pattern associated with a type of degradation in the insulating member for the purpose of determining and identifying the type of the degradation in the insulating member including at least one of a cause of the degradation in the insulating member.
As to claim 4, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device as mentioned in claim 1, but Okada et al do not mention about a plurality of the antennas being planar antennas each oriented such that a surface of the antenna provided with antenna elements faces a corresponding motor of a plurality of the motors. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide more than one antennas for a plurality of motors for the purpose of determining the type of degradations in the insulating members of the motors. It is noted that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
As to claim 5, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device for motors as shown in figure 1 having an antenna (8) to receive an electromagnetic wave in a microwave frequency band emitted due to partial discharge occurring in an insulating member included in a motor (2), and generate a reception signal; and a-degradation determining circuitry (6) to determine whether any degradation occurs in the insulating member and identify the type of the degradation in the insulating member including at least one of a cause of the degradation in the insulating member or a position of the degraded insulating member. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that the plurality of motors being configured to be fed with electric power from a common power conversion apparatus. It is noted that Okada et al do not disclose a plurality of antennas to receive electromagnetic waves in a microwave frequency band emitted due to partial discharge occurring in insulating members included in a plurality of motors, and generate reception signals, the plurality of antennas being planar antennas each disposed adjacent to a corresponding motor of the plurality of motors and oriented such that a surface of the antenna provided with antenna elements faces the corresponding motor, the plurality of motors being configured to be fed with electric power from a common power conversion apparatus, and degradation determining circuitry to determine, based on a difference among signal values of the reception signals generated by the plurality of antennas, whether any degradation occurs in the insulating member. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide more than one antennas ,more than one motors and degradation determining circuitry for determining any degradation occurs in the insulating member in each of the motors, based on a difference among signal values of the reception signals generated by the plurality of antennas. Furthermore, it is noted that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
As to claim 6, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device as mentioned in claim 1, but Okada et al do not mention about wherein the antenna is mounted on an outer surface of a frame of the motor. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the antenna on an outer surface of a frame of the motor for the purpose of picking up signals from the motor faster and accurately.
As to claim 12, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device for motors as mentioned in claim5 but do not explicitly mention about , wherein each of the plurality of antennas is mounted on an outer surface of a frame of the corresponding motor. However, it would been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the antenna on an outer surface of a frame of the motor for the purpose of picking up signals from the motor faster and accurately.
AS to claim 13, O kada et al disclose an insulation inspection device for motors as mentioned in claim 1 but Okada et al do not explicitly mention about the antenna is mounted on an outer surface of a stator core of the motor. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the antenna on an outer surface of a stator core of the motor for the purpose of picking up signals from the motor faster and accurately.
As to claim 14, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device for motors as mentioned in claim 5 but Okada et al do not explicitly mention about each of the plurality of antennas is mounted on an outer surface of a stator core of the corresponding motor for the purpose of picking up signals from the motor faster and accurately.
As to claim 21, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device for motors as shown in figure 1 having an antenna (8) to receive an electromagnetic wave in a microwave frequency band emitted due to partial discharge occurring in an insulating member included in a motor (2), and generate a reception signal; and a-degradation determining circuitry (6) to determine whether any degradation occurs in the insulating member and identify the type of the degradation in the insulating member including at least one of a cause of the degradation in the insulating member or a position of the degraded insulating member. It is noted that Okada et al do not explicitly mention about comparing a phase characteristic of a signal intensity of the reception signal with a phase characteristic pattern associated with a type of degradation in the insulating member. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that a phase characteristic of a signal intensity of the reception signal from the antenna (8) is compared with a phase characteristic pattern associated with a type of degradation in the insulating member for the purpose of determining and identifying the type of the degradation in the insulating member including at least one of a cause of the degradation in the insulating member. The apparatus of Okada et al performs the method steps as recited in claim 21.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al as applied to claim 1,5 and 21 above, and further in view of Daus (Pat# 1,214,141).
AS to claim 15, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device as mentioned in claim 1, but Okada et al do not mention about wherein the motor is installed under a floor of a railway vehicle and generates a propulsion of the railway vehicle, and the antenna is disposed adjacent to the motor under the floor of the railway vehicle.
Daus teaches that it would have been well known in the art to test a motor disposed on the railway (see column lines 62-68).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art install the motor and the insulation inspection device and each of the antenna of Okada et al to adjacent to the corresponding motor under the floor of the railway vehicle as taught by Daus so that the insulation of the motor under the floor of the railway vehicle is inspected for the safety of the railway vehicle,
As to claim 16, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device as mentioned in claim 5, but Okada et al do not mention about the plurality of motors is installed under a floor of a railway vehicle and generates a propulsion of the railway vehicle, and each of the plurality of antennas is disposed adjacent to the corresponding motor under the floor of the railway vehicle.
Daus teaches that it would have been well known in the art to test railway motor (see column lines 62-68).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art install the plurality of motors and the insulation inspection device and each of the antenna of Okada et al to adjacent to the corresponding motor, under the floor of the railway vehicle as taught by Daus so that the insulations of the motors under the floor of the railway vehicle is inspected for the safety of the railway vehicle,
As to claim 17, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device as mentioned in claim 1, but Okada et al do not mention about wherein the motor is installed in a railway vehicle and generates a propulsion of the railway vehicle, and the antenna is disposed adjacent to rails on which the railway vehicle runs.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art install the motor of Okada et al in a railway vehicle as taught by Daus for the purpose of inspecting the insulation defects of the motor in the railway vehicle.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to disposed the antenna in the device of Okada et al in view of Daus for the purpose of sending detected signals of the insulation of the motor to the inspection device of Okada et al in view of Daus.
As to claim 18, Okada et al disclose an insulation inspection device as mentioned in claim 5, but Okada et al do not mention about wherein the plurality of motors are installed in a railway vehicle and generates a propulsion of the railway vehicle, and the plurality of antennas is disposed adjacent to rails on which the railway vehicle runs.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art install the plurality of motors of Okada et al in a railway vehicle as taught by Daus for the purpose of inspecting the insulation defects of the motor in the railway vehicle.
Furthermore, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art install the plurality of antennas of Okada et al adjacent to rails on which the railway vehicle runs so that the antennas adjacent to the rails for the purpose of sending detected signals of the insulation of the motor to the inspection device of Okada et al in view of Daus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose the motor is installed in a railway vehicle, and the degradation determining circuitry determines, based on the reception signal and a history of an operation condition of the motor, whether any degradation occurs in the insulating member, the operation condition including at least one of a running period of a power conversion apparatus that feeds electric power to the motor, a switching frequency of the power conversion apparatus, a rotational speed of the motor, a temperature of the motor, or an occupancy rate of a vehicle body provided with the motor in the railway vehicle as recited in claim 19.
The prior art does not disclose the plurality of motors are installed in a railway vehicle, and the degradation determining circuitry determines, based on the difference among signal values of the reception signals and a history of an operation condition of the plurality of motors, whether any degradation occurs in the insulating member, the operation condition including at least one of a running period of a power conversion apparatus that feeds electric power to the motor, a switching frequency of the power conversion apparatus, a rotational speed of the motor, a temperature of the motor, or an occupancy rate of a vehicle body provided with the motor in the railway vehicle as recited in claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nippes (Pat# 6,460,013) discloses Shaft Voltage Current Monitoring System For Early Warning And Problem Detection.
Horie et al (Pat# 5,583,385) disclose Power Converting Device For Reducing An Induction Problem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINH P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1964. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Phan Huy can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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.
/VINH P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858