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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 2, the reference numbers are illegible (i.e., black boxes cover the numbering and lines).
Fig. 4, applicant references color (i.e., “red windings”), however the image is in black and white in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84.
Fig. 4, shows modified forms of construction that must be shown in separate views (e.g., Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B, Fig. 4C,) in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(5).
Fig. 5, shows modified forms of construction that must be shown in separate views (e.g., Fig 5A, Fig. 5B) in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(5).
Fig. 6, applicant references color, however the image is in black and white in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84.
Fig. 6, shows modified forms of construction that must be shown in separate views (e.g., Fig 6A, Fig. 6B) in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(5).
Fig. 9, applicant references color, however the image is in black and white in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84.
Fig. 9, shows modified forms of construction that must be shown in separate views (e.g., Fig 9A, Fig. 9B) in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(5).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Specification para. 55, line 2, Fig. 4 does not show the right drawing.
Specification para. 63, line 5, there are not a figure labeled with A, B and C.
Specification para. 65, line 6, there are not a figure labeled with A, B and C.
Specification para. 66, line 2, worm wheel 30 not shown in figure 1.
Specification para. 66, line 4, an alternative arrangement is not shown in figure 7, figure 7 shows the graph of damping torque signal.
Specification para. 79, line 1, Figure 3 does not show two motors being out of phase.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 213 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 54, line 3: “line5” should be –axis 5--.
Para. 55, line 4: “the motors 10” should be –the motors 10 and 11--.
Para. 67, line 4: “offset This” is missing period, should be –offset. This--.
Para. 70, line 2: “Figure 6 Notably” is missing period and comma, should be –Figure 6. Notably,--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 11, “output of the motor a second short” contains a grammatical or typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 32 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 9, “means for detecting when a single-phase short circuit has occurred in one of the two motors and to force a short circuit of at least one phase of the unfaulted motor.” The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed detecting and forcing a single-phase short circuit is a controller (Figure 3). Therefore, the interpretation of the “means for detecting… And to force…” is a controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In accordance with MPEP 2163, “when a means-plus-function claim limitation is found to be indefinite based on failure of the specification to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation necessarily lacks an adequate written description. Thus, when a claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph because there is no corresponding structure, materials, or acts, or an inadequate disclosure of corresponding structure, materials, or acts, for a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation, then the claim must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description.” (emphasis added)
In the instant case, the “means” of Claims 9 is not properly described in the application as filed because no structure or material is described which is capable of performing the recited functions of the means-plus-function claim limitations. For instance, the figures do not show the corresponding “means” which describes the structure of detecting and forcing, and are otherwise devoid of detail regarding the structure. The Abstract and Specification are similarly devoid of structure, and only disclose repeating details regarding function, e.g. “means for detecting when a single-phase short circuit has occurred in one of the two motors and to force a short circuit of at least one phase” (Specification, Paragraph 27). Therefore, the claim limitation regarding the “means” lacks an adequate written description.
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.
Claim 1-7 and 9-12 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 1 recites "the motor" in line 8, and it is unclear if the phrasing refers to the first motor, the second motor, the "permanent magnet motor" of the first motor, the "permanent magnet motor" of the second motor, or a new element "motor." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends adopting a consistent nomenclature to refer to the motors (for example, "first motor", "second motor", “the second motor", "other of the first motor or the second motor", etc.) throughout the claim to increase clarity. Similarly, line 10 recites “both motors,” and it is unclear if “both motors” refers to the “first” and “second motors,” to the first/second “permanent magnet motors”, or some combination therein.
Claim 1 recites “each motor comprises a permanent magnet motor that has the same number of poles and stators” in line 6, which is unclear in light of the specification, for instance figure 5. Figure 5 shows a rotor with 6 poles, and 9 stator teeth. Therefore, it is unclear what the phrasing is intended to mean.
Claim 1 recites “the phases” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the driver” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the wheel” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the effect of mechanical offset” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the effect of torque ripple” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites "each motor comprises a permanent magnet motor that has the same number of poles and stators," which is unclear in light of the specification, for instance figure 5. Figure 5 shows a rotor with 6 poles, and 9 stator teeth. Therefore, it is unclear what the phrasing is intended to mean.
Claim 1 recites "the mechanical offset of the two motors relative to the output shaft", which is unclear in light of the specification, e.g. figure 2. Figure 2 shows the motors 11, 12 offset by a distance that is a function of the radius of gear 4. However, it is unclear how this provides the claimed effect of ripple torque.
Claim 2 recites "the two motors" in line 2, which is similarly unclear as above. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends adopting a consistent nomenclature to refer to the motors (for example, “first motor”, “second motor”, “first permanent magnet motor of the first motor”, etc) throughout the claims to increase clarity.
Claim 2 recites "the motor," in line 4, which is a double-inclusion that is unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(o). It is indeterminant if "the motor" of Claim 2 references the "first motor" of claim 1, the "second motor" of claim 1, the permanent magnet motor of the first motor of claim 1, the permanent magnet motor of the second motor of claim 1, or introduces a new element "motor". Examiner recommends adopting a consistent nomenclature to refer to the motors (for example, “first motor”, “second motor”, “the second motor”, “other of the first motor or the second motor”, etc.) throughout the claim to increase clarity.
Claim 3 recites “the motors” in line 3, which is similarly a double-inclusion as identified above.
Claim 4 recites phrasing “the parts…. the bridge drive stage for each motor”, which contains multiple elements that respectively lack antecedence basis in claim.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “to accomplish this” in line 3, and it is unclear to what “this” refers. Therefore, it is unclear what the phrasing is intended to mean.
Claim 5 recites “the terminal connections” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the motor drive bridge” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the phrasing "one of the switches," which is a double-inclusion that is unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(o). It is indeterminant if "one of the switches" of Claim 5 includes the "drive switches" of claim 4, "the switches" of claim 4, or some combination therein.
Claim 5 recites "the motor," which is a double-inclusion that is unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(o). It is indeterminant if "the motor" of Claim 5 references the "first motor" of claim 1, the "second motor" of claim 1, introduces a new element "motor", or is some combination therein.
Claim 6 recites the phrase "the motor" in line 8, and it is unclear if the phrasing refers to the first motor, the second motor, the "one of the motors," or the "other motor." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends adopting a consistent nomenclature to refer to the motors (for example, "first motor", "second motor", "either of the first motor or the second motor", "other of the first motor or the second motor", etc.) throughout the claim to increase clarity.
Claim 6 recites “each motor comprises a permanent magnet motor that has the same number of poles and stators” in line 6, which is unclear in light of the specification, for instance figure 5. Figure 5 shows a rotor with 6 poles, and 9 stator teeth. Therefore, it is unclear what the phrasing is intended to mean.
Claim 7 recites “the controller” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitation “means for detecting when a single-phase short circuit has occurred in one of the two motors and to force a short circuit of at least one phase of the unfaulted motor.” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 10 recites “deliberately induced in both motors through control of the switches of the motor drive circuit to introduce a single FET short, or a Line-line short or a three-phase short”, which does not include an Oxford comma and therefore is ambiguous. It is unclear if the claim recites “single FET short, Line-line short, or three-phase short”, or if the claim recites “the fault condition… to introduce a single FET short, or a Line-line short, or a three-phase short.” For the purpose of examination, the phrase “single FET short, line-line short, or three-phase short” will be used.
Claim 11 recites the phrase “that they” in line 2, and it is unclear if the phrasing refers to the two motors, shaft, or other combination. Therefore, it is unclear what the phrasing is intended to mean.
Claim 11 recites “the same speed and direction” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the faults” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the rotors” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0070879), in view of Daikoku et al. (EP 1220426), as evidenced by Bouchet (CN 111867919).
As noted in the 35 USC 112 clarity rejections elsewhere above, a great deal of confusion and uncertainty exists as to the proper interpretation of numerous claim limitations. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner has applied the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 in as best as the claims can be understood. However, in accordance with MPEP §2173, the Office is not held to any undue speculation on the scope of the claims. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a housing (125), a shaft (190) rotatably mounted with respect to the housing and being configured for attachment of a steering wheel at one end, a first gear (163) connected to and configured to rotate with the shaft, and first and second motors (first motor 111, and second motor 113), each motor having an output driving a respective output gear (161, 162), the output gears being engaged with the first gear.
Kim does not disclose each motor comprises a permanent magnet motor that has the same number of poles and stators such that each motor produces the same pattern of cogging torque over a complete mechanical revolution of the motor, and wherein the system is arranged so that in an unpowered condition where both motors are undriven at least one part of one of the phases of each motor is short circuited such that both motors provided a braking torque as the driver turns the wheel, and in which the phases to include the short are selected according to the mechanical offset of the two motors relative to the output shaft whereby the effect of torque ripple applied to the output shaft in the braking torque by the first motor is at least partially cancelled by the effect of torque ripple applied to the shaft in the braking torque by the second motor.
Daikoku teaches each motor comprises a permanent magnet motor that has the same number of poles and stators such that each motor produces the same pattern of cogging torque over a complete mechanical revolution of the motor (Para. 29), and in which the phases are selected according to the mechanical offset of the two motors relative to the output shaft whereby the effect of torque ripple applied to the output shaft in the braking torque by the first motor is at least partially cancelled by the effect of torque ripple applied to the shaft in the braking torque by the second motor. (Figs. 2A and 2B, para. 37-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the motor structure taught by Daikoku into the motor assembly of Kim for the advantage of easier manual steering.
Further, as best understood, as evidenced by Bouchet, the system of Kim and Daikoku is inherently arranged so that in an unpowered condition where both motors are undriven at least one part of one of the phases of each motor is short circuited such that both motors provide a braking torque as the driver turns the wheel (see discussion of Bouchet, paras. 9-11).
The combination as mapped above suggests the remaining claimed limitation as follows (mapping to Kim unless otherwise noted):
2. An assembly according to claim 1 which the selection of the phases of the two motors (111 and 113) in which the short is introduced (as inherent by Bouchet: para. 9-11) is performed so as to cancel at least one known harmonic in the braking torque ripple (Daikoku: Para. 41), the harmonic comprising a periodic waveform that is produced as the motor rotates.
11. An assembly according to claim 1, in which of the two motors (111 and 113) are connected to the shaft (190) such that they each rotate at the same speed and direction as the shaft rotates by using similar gearing (161, 162, and 163) between the motors and the shaft (Fig. 3, para. 49 and 66).
12. An assembly according to claim 11 in which an offset between the faults in the two motors is achieved by aligning the stators offset relative to each other by a non-zero number of degrees mechanical with the rotors in alignment (Daikoku: Col. 7, lines 10-23), or having the stators in identical alignments but having the rotors offset from each other by a non-zero number of degrees, or both the rotor and the stators are offset from each other by a non-zero number of degrees.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, and Daikoku, as evidenced by Bouchet (CN 111867919), in view of Hamamoto et al. (US 20220250674).
Regarding claims 3-5, Kim does not disclose (Claim 3) a controller which forces the short circuit in at least one part of one phase of each motor to be present when the motors are unpowered; (Claim 4) the parts that are shorted comprise drive switched of a motor drive stage and the controller sets the position of the switched of the bridge drive stage for each motor to accomplish this; (Claim5) the controller in use applies a short circuit current path between the terminal connections of the motor by closing one of the switches of the motor drive bridge, or applies a line-line fault to each motor or applies a three phase short circuit to each of the two motors.
Hamamoto teaches a controller (50) which forces the short circuit in at least one part of one phase (Fig.2 para. 41). Hamamoto also teaches the parts that are shorted comprise drive switches (lower arm devices which includes switching device 88u, 88v, and 88w, col. 4, lines 37-49) of a motor drives stage and the controller (50) sets the position of the switches of the bridge drive stage (Para. 34-36) for each motor to accomplish this. Hamamoto also teaches the controller (50) is use applies a short circuit current path between the terminal connections of the motor by closing one of the switches of the motor drive bridge, or applies a line-line fault to each motor, or applies a three-phase short circuit to each of the two motors (Fig. 3, para. 63)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the structure and/or functionality of the controller as taught by Hamamoto into the motor assembly of Kim, for the advantage of protecting the motor from damage.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0070879), in view of Daikoku (EP 1220426), in view of Kezobo et al. (EP 2009782).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a housing (125), a shaft (190) rotatably mounted with respect to the housing and being configured for attachment of a steering wheel at one end, a first gear (163) connected to and configured to rotate with the shaft, and first and second motors (first motor 111, and second motor 113), each motor having an output driving a respective output gear (161, 162), the output gears being engaged with the first gear.
Kim does not disclose each motor comprises a permanent magnet motor that has the same number of poles and stators such that each motor produces the same pattern of cogging torque over a complete mechanical revolution of the motor.
Daikoku teaches each motor comprises a permanent magnet motor that has the same number of poles and stators such that each motor produces the same pattern of cogging torque over a complete mechanical revolution of the motor (Para. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the structure of a permanent magnet motor as taught by Daikoku into the motor assembly of Kim for the benefit of simpler design and reduced production cost.
Kim does not disclose the system includes a control circuit that is arranged so that in the event of a short circuit fault on at least one phase of one of the motors that causes a torque ripple to be present in the output of the motor a second short circuit fault is deliberately introduced into at least one phase of the other motor to cause that motor to generate a torque ripple that at least partially cancels the torque ripple from the first motor as seen at the shaft.
Kezobo teaches the system includes a control circuit that is arranged so that in the event of a short circuit fault on at least one phase of one of the motors that causes a torque ripple to be present in the output of the motor a second short circuit fault is deliberately introduced into at least one phase of the other motor to cause that motor to generate a torque ripple that at least partially cancels the torque ripple from the first motor as seen at the shaft (Para. 16, using torque pulsation as the same meaning of torque ripple).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure of a control circuit as taught by Kezobo into the motor assembly of Kim, for the advantage of facilitating easier movement.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Daikoku, and Kezobo, in view of Tsuji et al. (CN 101667808).
Regarding claim 7, Kim does not disclose which the controller is configured to introduce a single phase short circuit of the second motor when there is a single phase short circuit fault at the first motor.
Tsuji teaches the controller (122) is configures to introduce a single phase short circuit of the second motor when there is a single phase short circuit fault at the first motor (Para. 99)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functionality of the controller as taught by Tsuji into the motor system of Kim, for the benefit of protecting the system from the damage occurring.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Daikoku, and Kezobo, in view of Kamaga (US 8698346).
Regarding claim 8, Kim does not disclose the controller is configured to introduce a line-line short circuit of the second motor when a line-line short circuit of the first motor has occurred.
Kamaga teaches the controller (ECU 170) is configured to introduce a line-line short circuit of the second motor when a line-line short circuit of the first motor has occurred (Fig. 14, col. 19, lines 57-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the functionality of the controller as taught by Kamaga into the motor assembly of Kim, for the benefit of protecting the system from the damage.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Daikoku, and Kezobo, in view of Kezobo et al. (US 2014/0246999), hereinafter Kezobo’99.
Regarding claim 9, Kim does not disclose means for detecting when a single-phase short circuit has occurred in one of the two motors and to force a short circuit of at least one phase of the unfaulted motor.
Kezobo’99 teaches means for detecting (33) when a single-phase short circuit has occurred in one of the two motors and to force a short circuit of at least one phase of the unfaulted motor (Para. 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure and/or function of fault detection as taught by Kezobo’99 into the motor assembly of Kim, for the advantage of providing a more robust system against fault or failure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Daikoku, and Kezobo, in view of Ichikawa et al. (US 2021/0006134).
Regarding claim 10, Kim does not disclose each motor is driven by an inverter bridge having a plurality of switches and the fault condition is deliberately induced in both motors through control of the switches of the motor drive circuit to introduce a single FET short, or a Line-line short or a three-phase short.
Ichikawa teaches each motor is driven by an inverter bridge having a plurality of switches (switching elements 34U, upper and lower arms 31U, and 32U) and the fault condition is deliberately induced in both motors (motor 2) through control of the switches of the motor drive circuit to introduce a single FET short, or a Line-line short or a three-phase short (Para. 6, lines 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the time of effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the structure of switches as taught by Ichikawa into the motor assembly of Kim, for the advantage of allowing the system to rapidly respond to fault conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUHYUNG SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3030. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/DUHYUNG SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights