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 3 and 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a transmission system and an inverter” in line 7 in claim 3 should be re-written as “the transmission system and the inverter” if these are same transmission system and inverter disclosed in line 4 in claim 3. Similarly, the phrase “An electric vehicle” in line 1 in claim 9 should be re-written as ‘the electric vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6-8, 10-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillespey et al. US 10,137,799 B2 in a view of Dlala et al. US 9,789,871 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Gillespey et al. disclose
A motive power system (fig. 1) for an electric vehicle (item 100), comprising a permanent magnet synchronous motor (item 164) and an electrically excited synchronous motor, one of the permanent magnet synchronous motor and electrically excited synchronous motor (item 160) being a front drive electric machine for driving front wheels of the electric vehicle, and the other of the permanent magnet synchronous motor and electrically excited synchronous motor being a rear drive electric machine for driving rear wheels of the electric vehicle (column 3, lines 38-67), and wherein the powers outputted by the permanent magnet synchronous motor and the electrically excited synchronous motor are dynamically adjusted according to real-time operating conditions of the electric vehicle, such that a power loss sustained by the motive power system reaches a predetermined minimum value (column 7, lines 20-49, column 8, lines 5-51).
Gillespey does not explicitly say “one of the permanent magnet synchronous motor and electrically excited synchronous motor” but discloses multiple electrical machines. Gillespey also silent about “wherein a peak power and a peak torque of the permanent magnet synchronous motor are less than a peak power and a peak torque of the electrically excited synchronous motor. However, Dlala et al. disclose wherein a peak power and a peak torque of the permanent magnet synchronous motor are less than a peak power and a peak torque of the electrically excited synchronous motor and also disclose both synchronous and asynchronous electric motor (column 5, lines 5-45) but does not explicitly say “electrically excited synchronous motor”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two different motors as disclosed by Dlala in Gillespey’s teachings to optimize power and efficiency. It would have also been obvious to replace Dlala’s asynchronous motor with electrically excited synchronous motor because EESM offers better torque control and also provides better thermal management than asynchronous motor and use of known technique to improve similar devices would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Gillespey et al. disclose
, wherein the permanent magnet synchronous motor outputs a first power P1, and the electrically excited synchronous motor outputs a second power P2, wherein the first power P1, the second power P2, and a required power P required by real-time operating conditions of the electric vehicle, satisfy P1 + P2 = P, the motive power system sustains a first power loss PL1 associated with the permanent magnet synchronous motor when the permanent magnet synchronous motor outputs the first power P1, and the motive power system sustains a second power loss PL2 associated with the electrically excited synchronous motor when the electrically excited synchronous motor outputs the second power P2,wherein the ratio R (equation 6 represents ratio) of the first power P1 to the required power P is dynamically adjusted according to real-time operating conditions of the electric vehicle, such that the sum of the first power loss PL1 and second power loss PL2 reaches a predetermined minimum value (column 8, lines 6-51).
Regarding claim 3, Gillespey et al. disclose
, wherein the first power loss PL1 comprises a drag power loss arising in the permanent magnet synchronous motor, and a power loss associated with the permanent magnet synchronous motor and arising in a transmission system and an inverter (the drive unit power loss comprises a transmission system and an inverter) of the electric vehicle, and the second power loss PL2 comprises a drag power loss arising in the electrically excited synchronous motor, and a power loss associated with the electrically excited synchronous motor and arising in a transmission system and an inverter of the electric vehicle (column 7, lines 20-49).
Regarding claim 4, Dlala discloses, wherein the permanent magnet synchronous motor is used as the front drive electric machine, and the electrically excited synchronous motor (Dlala’s asynchronous motor would have been replaced for reason mentioned in claim 1) is used as the rear drive electric machine (column 5, lines 22-35).
Regarding claim 6, Gillespey et al. disclose
, wherein when the electric vehicle accelerates sharply or is cruising at high speed, the required power P required by real-time operating conditions of the electric vehicle is outputted by the permanent magnet synchronous motor and electrically excited synchronous motor together, such that the first power P1, the second power P2 and the required power P satisfy the following relations: 0 < P1 < P, 0<P2< P, and P1 + P2 = P (column 8, lines 6-35).
Regarding claim 7, a combination of Gillespey and Dlala does not explicitly say
, wherein the peak power of the permanent magnet synchronous motor is from 60 kW to 150 kW, and the peak power of the electrically excited synchronous motor is from 150 kW to 300 kW. However, it is just a design choice to make the electrically excited synchronous motor to have more power (150 kW to 300 kW) than the permanent magnet synchronous motor power (60 kW to 150 kW) because electrical excitation produces more power.
Regarding claims 8, 10-12, 14 and 15, a combination of Gillespey and Dlala discloses a control system (Gillespey’s fig. 1, item 148) (column 5, lines 40-46) and the motive power system according to Claim 1/2/3/4/6/7, wherein the control system acquires real-time operating conditions of the electric vehicle, and dynamically adjusts the powers outputted by the permanent magnet synchronous motor and the electrically excited synchronous motor (see claim 1 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 9, Gillespey et al. disclose
An electric vehicle according to Claim 8, wherein the control system comprises a memory, for storing a predetermined mapping or model between real- time operating conditions of the electric vehicle and the ratio R (column 10, lines 1-10), and the control system dynamically adjusts the ratio R by querying the predetermined mapping or model (column 8, lines 6-51).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillespey et al. US 10,137,799 B2 in a view of Dlala et al. US 9,789,871 B1 and further in a view of Bramson US 2015/0298574 A1.
Regarding claim 5, a combination of Gillespey and Dlala does not disclose but Bramson discloses , wherein when the electric vehicle is operating under NEDC operating conditions, CLTC operating conditions and/or WLTP operating conditions, the required power P required by real-time operating conditions of the electric vehicle is outputted by the permanent magnet synchronous motor alone, such that the first power P1 = P and the second power P2 = 0 [0034] (It should be noted that only one motor operates. Power and torque are interrelated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the electric vehicle using the permanent magnet motor as disclosed by Bramson in Gillespey’s teachings to achieve overall efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, a combination of Gillespey, Dlala and Bramson discloses a control system (Gillespey’s fig. 1, item 148) (column 5, lines 40-46) and the motive power system according to Claim 5, wherein the control system acquires real-time operating conditions of the electric vehicle, and dynamically adjusts the powers outputted by the permanent magnet synchronous motor and the electrically excited synchronous motor (see claim 1 rejection for detail).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujita et al. (US 5,365,153) disclose an AC variable speed driving apparatus.
Tang (US 2010/0222953 A1) discloses a dual motor drive and control system for an electric vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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 on 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights