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 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, 2, 7, 11, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putkinen et al. US 2012/0217098 A1 in a view of Naik et al. US 11,563,398 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Putkinen et al. disclose
An elevator drive (fig. 3a, items 3 and 19) configured to control power to an elevator motor (item 4) [0049], the elevator drive comprising: a plurality of first inverter switches (fig, 2b, switches 14A); a plurality of second inverter switches (items 14B) [0054]; a processor (item 19) that is configured to provide control signals (activation mode) to control operation of the inverter switches [0057];
and allow a control signal from the processor to turn on the second inverter switches to provide motor braking [0057].
Putkinen et al. do not disclose but Naik et al. disclose a first signal buffer (fig. 5, item 515, 525 and 526) between the processor (item 505) and the inverter switches (item 200 has six switches according to fig. 2. Fig. 5 shows item 515, 525 and 526 between item 505 and item 200) (column 5, lines 64-67, column 6, lines 1-12) , the first signal buffer is configured to selectively prevent any control signals from turning on any of the inverter switches when the motor should not receive power (by entering into a safe state) (column 10, lines 4-67); and a second signal buffer (item 540) between the processor and the inverter switches (fig. 5 shows item 540 between item 505 and item 200), the second signal buffer is configured to selectively bypass the first signal buffer, prevent any control signals from turning on the first inverter switches (column 10, lines 4-67. The inverter switches are turned off via item 520).
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 first signal buffer and a second signal buffer along their orientations as disclosed by Naik in Putkinen’s teachings to provide a safety mechanism with minimal additional hardware to meet requirements for an inverter (see Naik’s column 4, lines 35-39).
.
Regarding claim 12, Putkinen et al. disclose
A method of using an elevator machine to control movement of an associated elevator car [0049], the elevator machine including a motor (fig. 3a, item 4) configured to selectively move the elevator car and an elevator drive configured to control power supply to the motor, the elevator drive including a plurality of first inverter switches (fig, 2b, items 14A) and a plurality of second inverter switches (items 14B), the method comprising: providing control signals from a processor to control operation of the inverter switches and allowing a control signal from the processor to turn on the second inverter switches to provide motor braking that resists movement of the elevator car [0054, 0057];
Putkinen et al. do not disclose but Naik et al. disclose using a first signal buffer between the processor and the inverter switches for selectively preventing any control signals from turning on any of the inverter switches when the motor should not receive power; and using a second signal buffer between the processor and the inverter switches for selectively bypassing the first signal buffer, preventing any control signals from turning on the first inverter switches (See claim 1 rejection for details).
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 first signal buffer and a second signal buffer along their orientations as disclosed by Naik in Putkinen’s teachings to provide a safety mechanism with minimal additional hardware to meet requirements for an inverter (see Naik’s column 4, lines 35-39)
Regarding claim 2, Naik et al. disclose
, wherein the second signal buffer is in series with the first signal buffer between the first signal buffer and the inverter switches (see fig. 5 for details).
Regarding claim 7, Putkinen et al. disclose
wherein the first inverter switches comprise IGBTs and the second inverter switches comprise IGBTs [0054].
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Putkinen et al. disclose
, wherein the motor has three phases, the plurality of first inverter switches includes three upper inverter switches, each of the three upper inverter switches is coupled with a respective one of the three phases (fig. 2b shows all the three phases), the plurality of second inverter switches includes three lower inverter switches, and each of the three lower inverter switches is coupled with a respective one of the three phases (fig. 2b shows all the details) [0054].
Claims 8, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putkinen et al. US 2012/0217098 A1 in a view of Naik et al. US 11,563,398 B1 and further in a view of SEO et al. US 2024/0204700 A1.
Regarding claim 8, a combination of Putkinen and Naik does not disclose but SEO et al. disclose a current sensor (fig. 1, item 165) associated with each of the second inverter switches (fig. 1 shows three lower switches), the current sensors providing an indication of current flowing through the second inverter switches [0055-0057].
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 current sensor associated with the second inverter switches disclosed by SEO Naik in Putkinen’s teachings to detect phase current of the motor (SEO’s paragraph 0056)
Regarding claim 9, SEO et al. disclose, wherein the current sensors each comprise a resistor, a hall effect sensor, or a fluxgate sensor [0056].
Regarding claim 17, a combination of Putkinen and Naik does not disclose but SEO et al. disclose sensing current flowing through the second inverter switches (fig. 1 shows three lower switches) during the motor braking [0055-0057].
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 current sensing through the second inverter switches during the motor braking disclosed by SEO Naik in Putkinen’s teachings to detect phase current of the motor (SEO’s paragraph 0056)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10 and 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 3 and 13 discloses a logic module and claim 10 discloses about monitors which none of the prior art discloses during examination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WANG et al. (US 2022/0077808 A1) disclose a motor control system.
Onuma et al. (US 2013/0127380 A1) disclose a power converter device.
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