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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 1/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are still pending.
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, 12, 13, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta in a view of HARADA et al. US 9,431,923 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Ranta discloses
A motor drive system (Fig. 1, item 2) for controlling an operation of an electric machine (Item 3) on construction equipment [0051], the system comprising a frequency converter (Item 2) and a control unit (Item 8), where the frequency converter is arranged to draw electrical power from electrical mains (Item 1) over a first electrical interface (See annotated Fig. below) at a first alternating current, AC, frequency and to convert the first AC frequency into a second AC frequency for output on a second electrical interface (See annotated Fig. below) to the electric machine
PNG
media_image1.png
591
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ranta does not explicitly say but HARADA et al. disclose wherein the control unit (fig. 1, item 6) is configured to receive a selection of an adjustable input defining a maximum current and is arranged to control the frequency converter (item 4) to generate the second AC frequency (frequency of alternating current that is input to the motor (30) is reduced), based on the maximum current selected to be drawn over the first electrical interface (input to the motor) (Column 4, lines 47-51, column 6, lines 11-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive a selection of an adjustable input defining a maximum current and is arranged to control the frequency converter to generate the second AC frequency, based on the maximum current selected to be drawn over the first electrical interface as disclosed by HARADA in Ranta’s teachings to achieve easy control of the current limit value (See HARADA’s column 3, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 2, Ranta discloses
wherein the control unit is arranged to control the output on the second electrical interface based on a target electric machine axle torque and/or based on a target electric machine axle (Shaft) speed determined in dependence of the configurable maximum current to be drawn over the first electrical interface [0033, 0044, 0051] (Frequency for regulating the speed of the motor).
Regarding claim 3, Ranta discloses
wherein the control unit is arranged to obtain a measurement (350) of current drawn (Ii) over the first electrical interface and to control the output on the second electrical interface based on the measurement of current and on the configurable maximum current to be drawn over the first electrical interface [0042-0044].
Regarding claim 4, Ranta discloses
, wherein the control unit is arranged to predict a future current drawn over the first electrical interface based on a time sequence (Sample intervals) of obtained measurements of current drawn over the first electrical interface, and to control the output on the second electrical interface based on the predicted future current drawn over the first electrical interface [0042-0044].
Regarding claim 12, Ranta discloses
wherein the first electrical interface is a three-phase electrical interface. (Fig. 1 shows a three-phase electrical interface)
Regarding claim 13, Ranta discloses
wherein the frequency converter is a variable-frequency drive, VFD, device or a cycloconverter [0078].
Regarding claim 16, Ranta discloses
A construction machine comprising the motor drive system according to claim 1 [0006, 0051].
Regarding claim 17, Ranta and HARADA discloses
A method for controlling an operation of an electric machine on construction equipment by a motor drive system comprising a frequency converter and a control unit, the method comprising receiving electrical power by the frequency converter from electrical mains over a first electrical interface at a first AC frequency, converting the first AC frequency into a second AC frequency for output on a second electrical interface to the electric machine, receiving, by the control unit, a selection of an adjustable input defining a maximum current, and controlling the frequency converter by the control unit to generate the second AC frequency, based on the maximum current selected to be drawn over the first electrical interface. (See claim 1 rejection for details).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta in a view of HARADA and further in a view of YIN CN102332850A.
Regarding claim 5, Ranta and HARADA does not disclose but YIN discloses, wherein the control unit is arranged to limit an acceleration of the electric machine in dependence of the configurable maximum current (Rated current) to be drawn over the first electrical interface. [0004-0009]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control unit as disclosed by YIN in Ranta’s teachings so that the motor can be driven even in a momentary power loss.
Regarding claim 7, Ranta ans HARADA does not disclose but YIN discloses wherein the configurable maximum current to be drawn over the first electrical interface is arranged to be set in response to detection of a power loss on the first electrical interface and based on a current drawn over the first electrical interface at the time of the power loss [0004-0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the current in response to detection of a power loss as disclosed by YIN in Ranta’s teachings so that the motor can be driven even in a momentary power loss.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta in a view of HARADA and further in a view of Dubensky et al. (US 2018/0102726 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ranta and HARADA does not disclose but Dubensky discloses wherein the configurable maximum current to be drawn over the first electrical interface is arranged to be set by a user control input device [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the maximum current as disclosed by Dubensky in Ranta’s teachings to limit an operational speed to be less than the maximum structural speed.
Claims 8, 9, and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta in a view of HARADA and further in a view of Kleinecke et al. US 2021/0313910 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Ranta and HARADA does not disclose but Kleinecke discloses an electrically configurable fuse (Fig. 3, item 316) arranged in between a power input port (Item 315) to the frequency converter (Item 104) and the first electrical interface (Item 102) [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrically configurable fuse arranged in between a power input port to the frequency converter and the first electrical interface as disclosed by Kleinecke in Ranta’s teachings to interrupt current when the current reaches a limiting range.
Regarding claim 9, Kleinecke discloses, wherein the electrically configurable fuse is configured to disconnect the power input port to the frequency converter from the first electrical interface in response to a current drawn over the first electrical interface exceeding the configurable maximum current to be drawn over the first electrical interface [0031].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta in a view of Kleinecke et al. US 2021/0313910 A1 and further in a view of Tan et al. US 2022/0102966 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Ranta discloses
A motor drive system for controlling an operation of an electric machine on construction equipment, the system comprising a first electrical interface (Interface right to item 1) arranged to be connected to electrical mains and a second electrical interface arranged to be connected to the electric machine (See claim 1 rejection for details)
Ranta does not disclose but Kleinecke discloses the drive system (Fig. 3, item 200) further comprising an electrically configurable fuse (Item 316) arranged in between the first electrical interface (See annotated dwg. below) and the second electrical interface (See annotated dwg. below), wherein the electrically configurable fuse is configured to disconnect the first electrical interface from the second electrical interface in response to a current drawn over the first electrical interface exceeding a selection of an adjustable input defining a maximum current received by the control
unit to be drawn over the first electrical interface [0023, 0031,0032].
PNG
media_image2.png
865
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrically configurable fuse arranged in between the first electrical interface and the second electrical interface as disclosed by Kleinecke in Ranta’s teachings to interrupt current when the current reaches a limiting range.
a combination of Ranta, HARADA and Kleinecke does not disclose but Tan et al. disclose, wherein the electrically configurable fuse is arranged to be controlled from a user control input device (Fig. 1B, item 118) [0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the electrically configurable fuse as disclosed by Tan in Kleinecke’s and Ranta’s teachings to protect against overcurrent event (See Tan’s [0056]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta in a view of HARADA further in a view of Kleinecke et al. US 2021/0313910 A1 and further in a view of Tan et al. US 2022/0102966 A1.
Regarding claim 10, a combination of Ranta, HARADA and Kleinecke does not disclose but Tan et al. disclose, wherein the electrically configurable fuse is arranged to be controlled from a user control input device (Fig. 1B, item 118) [0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the electrically configurable fuse as disclosed by Tan in Kleinecke’s and Ranta’s teachings to protect against overcurrent event (See Tan’s [0056]).
Claims 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta in a view of HARADA and further in a view of ANDREAS WO 03/044939 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Ranta and HARADA does not disclose but ANDREAS discloses an electrical energy storage device (Fig. 1, item 13) connected to a direct current (DC), bus of the frequency converter via a switch (Item 11) (Not in dwg), wherein the control unit (Item 6) is arranged to control the switch in dependence of a current drawn over the first electrical interface and the configurable maximum current (Ilim) to be drawn over the first electrical interface. (See page 14, lines 15-31, page 25, lines 5-30, page 26, lines 1-8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrical storage device along with a switch as taught by ANDREAS in Ranta’s teachings to control the speed of the motor within a power range up to the limited maximum output power by controlling the current (See page 4, lines 30-32, page 5, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 14, Ranta and HARADA does not disclose but ANDREAS discloses wherein the frequency converter (Item 2) is furthermore arranged to control an amplitude of currents (Irec) output on the second electrical interface (Interface where Irec flows) to the electric machine, wherein the control unit is arranged to control the frequency converter to generate the amplitude in dependence of the configurable maximum current (Ilimit) to be drawn over the first electrical interface (Interface where IIN flows). (Page 15, lines 7-31)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the frequency converter as taught by ANDREAS in Ranta’s teachings to control the speed of the motor within a power range up to the limited maximum output power by controlling the current (See page 4, lines 30-32, page 5, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 15, Ranta and HARADA does not disclose but ANDREAS discloses where the frequency converter comprises a power factor correction circuit (see page 14, lines 25-27, page 15, lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a power factor correction circuit as taught by ANDREAS in Ranta’s teachings to achieve the power factor very close to 1.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta in a view of NAOKI JP2008101860A.
Regarding claim 19, Ranta discloses,
A motor drive system for controlling an operation of an electric machine on construction equipment, wherein the motor drive system is arranged to draw an electric current from electrical mains over a first electrical interface (See claim 1 rejection for detail),
Ranta does not disclose but NAOKI discloses the system comprising a control unit (Fig. 1, items 4 and 10) arranged to measure a magnitude of an electric current (Current Ii) drawn over the first electrical interface (Interface after supply 1), where the control unit is arranged to monitor the magnitude of the electric current, and to detect a power loss at the first electrical interface, where the control unit is arranged to, in response to detecting power loss at the first electrical interface, store a magnitude value of the electrical current drawn over the first electrical interface prior to detecting the power loss in a memory device.
PNG
media_image3.png
972
889
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure a magnitude of an electric current and store a magnitude value current in a memory device as disclosed by NAOKI in Ranta’s teachings to detect a phase loss and also possible to suppress the deterioration components.
Regarding claim 20, NAOKI discloses wherein the control unit is arranged to trigger display of the stored magnitude value on a display for communicating information to an operator.
PNG
media_image4.png
197
880
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, NAOKI discloses, wherein the control unit is arranged to configure a maximum current (Io related to output power) that can be drawn over the first electrical interface based on the stored magnitude value of the electrical current.
PNG
media_image5.png
194
895
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot over new prior art.
It should be noted that applicant did not argue Kleinecke’s teachings in claim 18. Therefore, arguments are moot.
Applicant argues on pages 11 and 12 with regards to claim 19 that Naoki fails to disclose that the control unit is arranged to, in response to detecting power loss at the first electrical interface, store a magnitude value of the electrical current drawn over the first electrical interface prior to detecting the power loss in a memory device.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because NAOKI clearly discloses a data storage means (9) to store data to determine the phase lost (power lost at one of the phases) which is done in advance (prior to detecting the power loss). Therefore, arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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 2896