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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/24, 11/26/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2, and 5-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, line, 20, “in order from”, from the previous set of claim 3 that has been amended into claim 1, does not make sense in the
Claim 1, line 24: “obtains, by using each of the application voltage references…to another one of the half bridge output voltage references” seems redundant.
Claim 1, line 25, contains the phrase “in order from one of the half-bridge output voltage reference to another one of the half-bridge voltage references” is indefinite as it is confusing as to which half bridge the claim is disclosing.
Regarding claim 1, line, 20, “in order from”, from the previous set of claim 3 that has been amended into claim 1, does not make sense in the
Claim 8, line 9, contains the phrase “the coils are each connected to an output point of a different one of the half-bridges,” is indefinite as it is confusing as to which half bridge the claim is disclosing.
Claim 16, line 9, contains the phrase “the coils are each connected to an output point of a different one of the half-bridges,” is indefinite as it is confusing as to which half bridge the claim is disclosing.
Claims 2, 5-7, 9-15, and 17-18 are rejected as they depend upon claims 1, 8, and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sengodan (US 2022/0368261).
Regarding claim 16,
Sengodan discloses (Fig. 2):
A linear motor comprising: a linear motor drive device (Fig. 2), comprising: a stator (Fig. 2, 200) on which a plurality of coils (M1, M2, M3, M4) are disposed to be arrayed (arrayed in series, ¶0036); half-bridges (S1a1-S4b2) each formed by a series unit of a plurality of switches (S1a1 and s1a2, for example), the number of the half-bridges being larger, by one (5 half bridges, and four coils), than the number of the coils (4 coils); and a switching controller (control logic) including a half-bridge output voltage calculator (¶0048), wherein the plurality of coils (M1-M4) are electrically connected in series (through switches S12, S23, S34), both ends of a series unit of the coils connected in series and connection points between the coils are each connected to an output point of a different one of the half-bridges (each connected to one half bridge, S1a1-S4b2, ¶0041), both ends of each of the half-bridges are connected to a DC source (V+, V-), AC voltages are applied to the respective coils (¶0047),
the half-bridge output voltage calculator obtains, through calculation, output voltage references for the respective half-bridges on the basis of application voltage references for voltages to be applied to the plurality of respective coils (¶0048), the switching controller obtains switching signals for controlling the switches of the half-bridges by using the half-bridge output voltage references for the respective half- bridges obtained by the half bridge output voltage calculator and controls drive of the switches of all the half-bridges (¶0048), and a movable element movably provided, with a gap between the stator and the movable element, wherein a magnetic-pole pitch of the movable element is equal to or shorter than 2.5 times a distance between adjacent ones of the coils of the stator (¶0023).
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) 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengodan (US 2022/0368261) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0010468).
Regarding claim 8,
Sengodan discloses (Fig. 2):
A linear motor drive device (Fig. 2), comprising: a stator (Fig. 2, 200) on which a plurality of coils (M1, M2, M3, M4) are disposed to be arrayed (arrayed in series, ¶0036); half-bridges (S1a1-S4b2) each formed by a series unit of a plurality of switches (S1a1 and s1a2, for example), the number of the half-bridges being larger, by one (5 half bridges, and four coils), than the number of the coils (4 coils); and a switching controller (control logic) including a half-bridge output voltage calculator (¶0048), wherein the plurality of coils (M1-M4) are electrically connected in series (through switches S12, S23, S34), both ends of a series unit of the coils connected in series and connection points between the coils are each connected to an output point of a different one of the half-bridges (each connected to one half bridge, S1a1-S4b2, ¶0041), both ends of each of the half-bridges are connected to a DC source (V+, V-), AC voltages are applied to the respective coils (¶0047),
the half-bridge output voltage calculator obtains, through calculation, output voltage references for the respective half-bridges on the basis of application voltage references for voltages to be applied to the plurality of respective coils (¶0048), the switching controller obtains switching signals for controlling the switches of the half-bridges by using the half-bridge output voltage references for the respective half- bridges obtained by the half bridge output voltage calculator and controls drive of the switches of all the half-bridges, and wherein each of the application voltage references is created on the basis of a measurement value of a current flowing through the corresponding coil and a current reference for the coil (¶0048),
Sengodan does not disclose:
and wherein, for each of the plurality of coils, the corresponding application voltage reference is created by a current controller having a corresponding integral calculator that receives a deviation between the measurement value of the current flowing through the coil and the current reference for the coil, and, when a modulation factor for a half-bridge among the plurality of half-bridges has an absolute value larger than 1, the current controller stops integral calculation being performed by the integral calculator for a coil connected to the half-bridge among the coils or updates, to a different value, a value resulting from integration previously performed by the integral calculator.
However, Kim teaches (Fig. 1):
and wherein, for each of the plurality of coils, the corresponding application voltage reference is created by a current controller having a corresponding integral calculator that receives a deviation between the measurement value of the current flowing through the coil and the current reference for the coil, and, when a modulation factor for a half-bridge among the plurality of half-bridges has an absolute value larger than 1, the current controller stops integral calculation being performed by the integral calculator for a coil connected to the half-bridge among the coils or updates, to a different value, a value resulting from integration previously performed by the integral calculator (¶0067).
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the linear motor from Sengodan that uses half bridges to control a linear motor (¶0047-¶0048) and use PWM voltage and current control to control a linear motor compressor as taught by Kim (¶0067). This PWM control would improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 8,
Sengodan discloses (Fig. 2):
wherein the number of the coils of the stator is 4 or more (4 coils).
Regarding claim 13,
Sengodan discloses (Fig. 2):
A linear motor comprising: the linear motor drive device according to claim 8; and a movable element movably provided, with a gap between the stator and the movable element, wherein a magnetic-pole pitch of the movable element is equal to or shorter than 2.5 times a distance between adjacent ones of the coils of the stator (¶0023).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 5-7, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not disclose alone or in combination specifically:
and wherein the half-bridge output voltage calculator obtains, by using each of the application voltage references, the respective half- bridge output voltage references in order from the half-bridge output voltage reference for the half-bridge to which one of the ends of the series unit of the coils is connected, sets, as a reference voltage, the half-bridge output voltage reference for the half- bridge to which the one of the ends of the series unit of the coils is connected, and obtains, by using each of the application voltage references, the respective half- bridge output voltage references in order from one of the half-bridge output voltage references to another one of the half-bridge output voltage references, the one half-bridge output voltage reference being for the half-bridge connected to another end of the coil connected to the half- bridge to which the one of the ends of the series unit of the coils is connected, the other half- bridge output voltage reference being for the half-bridge connected to another one of the ends of the series unit of the coils.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2021/0010468) – reciprocating compressor
Sengodan (US 2022/0368261) – liner motor
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7244. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/C.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2837 /KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights