DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 06/24/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 12/24/2021 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/24/2024 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recite “…. the remainder the comprises: an integer …”, is not clear what the comprises mean.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of same informality.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 5 recites “ …. the displacements are determined from an integer multiple of the electrical …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “ …. the displacements are determined from an integer multiple of the electrical …”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Renedo (US 2024/0055967) in view of Ito (US 2023/0179054), and further in view of Baker (US 4,686,510).
Regarding claim 1, Renedo discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A vehicle comprising: a body; (Renedo, Paras. [0068]-[0069], [0146]-[0151], and Figs. 3-4, 9, teaches a vehicle/linear propulsion and levitation system where “both primary members 100 being operatively attached to a vehicle 800” (i.e., body)).
and a plurality of propulsion motors at a side of the body, (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0146]-[0151], and Figs. 3-4, 9, “FIG. 4 shows an embodiment where two primary members 100 are arranged to be next to each other”, “both primary members 100 being operatively attached to a vehicle 800” (i.e., plurality of propulsion motors at a side of the body). Teaches linear induction motor M, and the primary members contain the magnetic yoke and stator windings that generate propulsion. Therefore, two primary members (components of motor M) arranged next to each other on vehicle 800 are two propulsion units).
arranged in a line about parallel to a movement axis of the body, (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0146]-[0151], [0158], and Figs. 1-2, 7-9, reaction plate 200 extends along an axis of longitudinal extension, and vehicle moves along trackway or rail 500. Therefore, the propulsion units are arranged along the travel direction). wherein displacements between adjacent propulsion motors along the movement axis are selected according to an electrical period of poles of the plurality of propulsion motors, (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0135]-[0136], [0146]-[0151], [0158], [0181]-[0187], and Figs. 1-2, 7-9, 22A-B, shows that the synchronism and motor operation depend on: pole pitch, frequency, and poles).
Renedo does not explicitly disclose:
Pole or slot relationship,
and an offset distance, wherein the offset distance is determined by dividing the electrical period into the offset distance to determine a remainder, and wherein the electrical period divided by the remainder is about equal to a number of the plurality of propulsion motors divided by a given integer value that is less than the number of the plurality of propulsion motors, and produces a largest common divider between the given integer value and the number of the plurality of propulsion motors of 1.
However, Ito teaches:
Pole or slot relationship, (Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0096], [0203]-[0204], shows pole/slot relationship based on number of poles).
and an offset distance, (Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0096], [0203]-[0204], “… to be shifted to a position that does not completely overlap a position of the first annular winding portion ….. and the first annular winding portion, the second annular winding portion, ….”, “The six groups of coils are shifted in position from each other by 60 degrees in the circumferential direction”).
wherein the offset distance is determined by dividing the electrical period into the offset distance to determine a remainder, (Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0090]-[0097], [0203]-[0204], “Decimal Integer Part, That Is, Quotient of Value Obtained by (Number of Slots)/(Number of Poles)” or “(Decimal Integer Part, That Is, Quotient of Value Obtained by (Number of Slots)/(Number of Poles))+1”, “In, e.g., the 10-pole, 36-slot three-phase AC motor, since the value obtained by dividing the number of slots of 36 by the number of poles of 10 is 3.6”, (i.e., a remainder)).
and wherein the electrical period divided by the remainder is about equal to a number of the plurality of propulsion motors divided by a given integer value (Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0090]-[0097], [0203]-[0204], “Decimal Integer Part, That Is, Quotient of Value Obtained by (Number of Slots)/(Number of Poles)” or “(Decimal Integer Part, That Is, Quotient of Value Obtained by (Number of Slots)/(Number of Poles))+1”, “In, e.g., the 10-pole, 36-slot three-phase AC motor, since the value obtained by dividing the number of slots of 36 by the number of poles of 10 is 3.6”, (i.e., a remainder), which shows the mathematical relationship between poles, slots, quotient, remainder, and group of coils).
that is less than the number of the plurality of propulsion motors, (Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0090]-[0097], [0203]-[0204],shows that X is a positive integer for example X= 3).
and produces a largest common divider between the given integer value and the number of the plurality of propulsion motors of 1. (Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0090]-[0097], [0203]-[0204], “2X+1 and 3N are relatively prime”, “Since 2X+1 is an odd number, when condition (I) holds, 2X+1 and 6N are relatively prime. Therefore, since the least common multiple of 2X+1 and 6N is “(2X+1)×6N, ….”).
Renedo and Ito do not explicitly disclose:
A remainder, and division relationship,
However, Baker teaches:
A remainder, and division relationship, (Baker, Col. 11, ll.11-12, Col. 38, ll. 44-68, Col. 39, ll. 1-61, Col. 52, ll. 6-18, explicitly teaches modulo (remainder) concept, periodic division and modulo relationship, and P and Q integer cycle relationships).
Renedo, Ito and Baker are combinable, because all are from the same field of motor systems and periodic pole behavior. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the propulsion motor of a vehicle with the modulo/remainder techniques for analyzing periodic pole systems as taught by Baker, in order to improve force efficiency and power density.
As per claim 11, claim 11 encompass same or similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose the limitations of claim1. Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein, when the offset distance is greater than the electrical period, the remainder the comprises: an integer multiple of the electrical period distance subtracted from the offset distance. (Baker, Col. 11, ll.11-12, Col. 38, ll. 44-68, Col. 39, ll. 1-61, Col. 52, ll. 6-18, teaches periodic quantities measured over multiple cycles, reducing to equivalent values, and subtraction operations to remove whole cycle and retain remainder quantities). Please note that Renedo teaches a propulsion motor system, and Ito teaches electrical period concept.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 12, claim 12 encompass same or similar scope as claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose the limitations of claim1. Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein, when the offset distance is less than the electrical period, the remainder comprises the offset distance. (Baker, Col. 11, ll.11-12, Col. 38, ll. 44-68, Col. 39, ll. 1-61, Col. 52, ll. 6-18, teaches periodic quantities measured over multiple cycles, and remainder operation. “the resulting .PSI..sub.fine is now a modulo quantity”). Please note that Renedo teaches a propulsion motor system, and Ito teaches electrical period concept and the offset distance.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 13, claim 13 encompass same or similar scope as claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose the limitations of claim1. Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the remainder is determined from a modulo function of the offset distance and the electrical period, the modulo function multiplied by the number of the plurality of propulsion motors and divided by the given integer value, and set equal to the electrical period. (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0181]-[0187], teaches a transportation system with plural vehicles having multiple propulsion motor arranged along a travel axis, and a pole pitch defined electrical periodicity).
(Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0090]-[0097], [0203]-[0204], teaches spacing relationships from integer division and remainders involving poles and structures).
(Baker, Col. 11, ll.11-12, Col. 38, ll. 44-68, Col. 39, ll. 1-61, Col. 52, ll. 6-18, teaches modulo quantities from periodic cycle relationships).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 14, claim 14 encompass same or similar scope as claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose the limitations of claim1. Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the displacements are determined from an integer multiple of the electrical, adjusted by adding or subtracting an offset distance. (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0181]-[0187], teaches a vehicle with linear induction motor and plurality of primary members. Pole pitch determines synchronous behavior).
(Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0090]-[0097], [0203]-[0204], teaches quotient X obtained from dividing slots by poles, periodic spacing based on integer values, coil groups shifted relatively to each other, using X and X+1 slot pitches for spacing determination, and position determination from remainder).
(Baker, Col. 11, ll.11-12, Col. 38, ll. 44-68, Col. 39, ll. 1-61, Col. 52, ll. 6-18, P-cycle and Q-cycle relationships which shows periodic quantities are scaled by integer value).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 15, claim 15 encompass same or similar scope as claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose the limitations of claim1. Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose:
The vehicle of claim 5, wherein an integer selected for the integer multiple of the electrical period results in a distance that minimizes the displacements between the plurality of propulsion motors. (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0181]-[0187], teaches two primary members on a vehicle. Pole pitch determines synchronous behavior).
(Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0090]-[0097], [0203]-[0207], chooses specific integer values, and drives physical spacing from it. and shows that the selected integer controls the result of distances).
(Baker, Col. 11, ll.11-12, Col. 38, ll. 44-68, Col. 39, ll. 1-61, Col. 52, ll. 6-18, P-cycle and Q-cycle relationships which shows periodic quantities are scaled by integer value).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 16, claim 16 encompass same or similar scope as claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose the limitations of claim1. Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the displacements are greater than a length of a propulsion motor. (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0181]-[0187], teaches two primary members on a vehicle. Pole pitch determines synchronous behavior).
(Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0090]-[0097], [0203]-[0207], chooses specific integer values, and drives physical spacing from it. and shows that the selected integer controls the result of distances).
(Baker, Col. 11, ll.11-12, Col. 38, ll. 44-68, Col. 39, ll. 1-61, Col. 52, ll. 6-18, P-cycle and Q-cycle relationships which shows periodic quantities are scaled by integer value).
Please note that: when the spacing between motors has been selected, choosing a spacing greater than the motor length is a result of variable performance depending on requirements of the system, and it would have been obvious matter of design choice.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 17, claim 17 encompass same or similar scope as claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose the limitations of claim1. Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the offset distance as determined is adjusted to be within about one or more of 15%,10% and 5% of an initial calculation of the offset distance. (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0181]-[0187], teaches two primary members on a vehicle. Pole pitch determines synchronous behavior).
(Ito, Paras. [0009], [0036], [0090]-[0097], [0203]-[0207], chooses specific integer values, and drives physical spacing from it. and shows that the selected integer controls the result of distances).
(Baker, Col. 5, ll. 4-68, Col. 6, ll. 1-50, Col. 11, ll.11-12, Col. 38, ll. 44-68, Col. 39, ll. 1-61, Col. 53, ll. 3-51, “The technique of measuring the phases first and then averaging the results”, “The result of that normalization may then be increased or decreased by an appropriate constant offset”, which shows reducing errors and adjustments).
Please note that: The claimed ranges, represents a result of variable performance depending on requirements of the system, and it would have been obvious matter of design choice.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 18, claim 18 encompass same or similar scope as claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose the limitations of claim1. Renedo, Ito and disclose:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the displacements between the adjacent propulsion motors are about the same for all of the adjacent propulsion motors. (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0181]-[0187], teaches two primary members on a vehicle. Pole pitch determines synchronous behavior).
(Ito, Abstract, and Paras. [0030]-[0036], [0090]-[0097], “… the six groups of coils are shifted in position from each other by 60 degrees in the circumferential direction”, which shows same spaced groups).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 19, claim 19 encompass same or similar scope as claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose the limitations of claim1. Renedo, Ito and Baker disclose:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the displacements between the adjacent propulsion motors vary for at least a portion of the adjacent propulsion motors. (Renedo, Paras. [0064]-[0069], [0181]-[0187], teaches two primary members on a vehicle. Pole pitch determines synchronous behavior).
(Ito, Abstract, and Paras. [0008]-[0015], [0030]-[0036], [0090]-[0097], “… the number of slots of a stator corresponding to one magnetic pole does not match the period of the magnetic poles”, “… one partial coil of the adjacent partial coils is shifted from the other partial coil of the adjacent partial coils by a predetermined number of slots in a moving direction of a movable element magnetic pole, and the number of partial coils equal in number to the partial coils connected in series with each other is set to a natural number equal to or smaller than the number of slots per pole per phase,….”, “… six groups of coils formed by coils arranged in the slots by wave winding at a slot pitch of X or X+1”, which shows different spacings among coil groups).
(Baker, Col. 5, ll. 4-68, Col. 6, ll. 1-50, Col. 11, ll.11-12, Col. 38, ll. 44-68, Col. 39, ll. 1-61, Col. 53, ll. 3-51, teaches periodic arrangements where spacing relationships are based on modulo and periodic structures (but not identical)).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
As per claim 20, claim 20 encompass same or similar scope as claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected based on the reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 10.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Van Rosendale (US 10,208,431) describes a maglev rail system that levitates a vehicle with permanent-magnet levitation for vertical lift and stabilizes it with a separate magnetic interaction system.
Jedinger (US 2020/0091807) describes a moving part for a linear electric motor, especially for high-speed transportation systems, where armature windings mounted to the cold plate and occupying the gaps between cores.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Samuel Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights