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
Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Katsumata et al. [US 2019/0170807 A1].
As per claim 1, an arithmetic method by a computer [0181-0188], comprising:
model generating of generating a model including a circuit model and a motor model driven by the circuit model, the circuit model being configured by a plurality of element models each having information on electrical characteristics of a switching element and connected to each other [0084, 0126, 0129];
execution processing of computing a motor current of the motor model generated in each of first calculating steps by switching of the element models over time with respect to first input values arranged along a time in a measurement period by using the information on the electrical characteristics of each of the element models [0089-0098]; and
electromagnetic interference noise generating of generating electromagnetic interference noise in accordance with a frequency at a predetermined measurement point in the model in each of predetermined time segments in the measurement period, and generating an electromagnetic interference noise level at each frequency in the measurement period based on the electromagnetic interference noise level in accordance with the frequency in each of the time segments [0091-0098, 0101-0102, 0132, 0134].
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic interference noise generating generates, among electromagnetic interference noise levels generated to correspond to respective frequencies in each of the time segments, a maximum electromagnetic interference noise level at each frequency as the electromagnetic interference noise level at each frequency in the measurement period [0123, 0154, 0158, FIG. 14A].
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic interference noise generating generates the electromagnetic interference noise level in each of the time segments in accordance with the motor current in each of the time segments [0091-0098].
10. An arithmetic device [0181-0188] comprising:
a model generator configured to generate a model including a circuit model and a motor model driven by the circuit model, the circuit model being configured by a plurality of element models each having information on electrical characteristics of a switching element and connected to each other [0084, 0126, 0129];
an execution processor configured to compute a motor current of the motor model generated in each of first calculating steps by switching of the element models over time with respect to first input values arranged along a time in a measurement period by using the information on the electrical characteristics of each of the element models [0089-0098]; and
a noise measurement processor configured to generate electromagnetic noise in accordance with a frequency at a predetermined measurement point in the model in each of predetermined time segments in the measurement period and generate an electromagnetic interference noise level at each frequency in the measurement period based on the electromagnetic interference noise level in accordance with a frequency in each of the time segments [0091-0098, 0101-0102, 0132, 0134].
11. The device of Claim 10, wherein the noise measurement processor generates, among electromagnetic interference noise levels generated to correspond to respective frequencies in each of the time segments, a maximum electromagnetic interference noise level at each frequency as the electromagnetic interference noise level at each frequency in the measurement period [0123, 0154, 0158, FIG. 14A].
12. The device of Claim 11, wherein the noise measurement processor generates the electromagnetic interference noise level in each of the time segments in accordance with a motor current in each of the time segments [0091-0098].
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.
Claims 4, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata et al. [US 2019/0170807 A1] in view of Petter [US 2023/0003777 A1].
Taking claim 4 as exemplary of claims 4 and 13, Katsumata et al. teach the features from which the claim depends. However, Katsumata et al. do not teach a table. Petter teaches emi noise monitoring including tables [0027]. Thus, combining the processing to operate buffers and tables with the teaching of Katsumata et al. results in wherein the electromagnetic interference noise generating generates the electromagnetic interference noise level in each of the time segments based on a table in which the electromagnetic interference noise level at each frequency is recorded and which corresponds to a motor current. Therefore, 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 because noise will be reduced.
16. The device of Claim 13, further comprising a noise model generator configured to generate a plurality of the tables respectively corresponding to a plurality of the different motor currents, wherein the noise measurement processor performs interpolation between the electromagnetic interference noise levels at each of the frequencies respectively recorded in the tables to generate the electromagnetic interference noise level in each of the time segments [although neither reference teaches interpolation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform interpolation either to generate a more accurate emi noise level than that recorded or to obtain an emi noise level that is not recorded, thus improving the storage and use of data in each time segment].
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata et al. [US 2019/0170807 A1] in view of Petter [US 2023/0003777 A1] as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Balamurali et al. [US 2022/0231624 A1].
Taking claim 5 as exemplary of claims 5 and 14, further comprising temperature value generating of generating temperature values arranged along the time in the measurement period based on a thermal table corresponding to the motor current [0019, 0021, 0036-0037, 0051].
Thus, 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 because efficiency is optimized throughout a variety of operating conditions [0002].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 15 and 17-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious, taking claim 6 as exemplary, the method of Claim 5, further comprising: preliminary processing of computing a voltage value at a measurement point generated in each of second calculating steps shorter than the first calculating steps by switching of the element models and the motor current over time with respect to predetermined second input values arranged along the time by using the information on the electrical characteristics of each of the element models; and table generating of performing frequency analysis for voltage values arranged along the time in a predetermined period at a predetermined value of the motor current to generate the table in which the electromagnetic interference noise level at each frequency is recorded and which corresponds to the predetermined value of the motor current;
As per claim 15, the device of Claim 13, wherein the execution processor computes a voltage value at the measurement point generated in each of second calculating steps shorter than the first calculating steps by switching of the element models and the motor current over time with respect to predetermined second input values arranged along the time by using the information on the electrical characteristics of each of the element models, and the device further comprises a noise model generator configured to perform frequency analysis for voltage values arranged along the time within a period at a predetermined value of the motor current to generate the table in which an electromagnetic interference noise level at each frequency is recorded and which corresponds to the predetermined motor current.
And, as per claim 17, the device of Claim 16, wherein the model generator generates a second model including a simple circuit model, a motor model driven by the simple circuit model, and a mechanical model having a mechanical structure driven by the motor model, the simple circuit model being configured by a plurality of simple models that each represent the electrical characteristics of the switching element in the element model by resistive characteristics and are connected to each other, the execution processor computes an operation of the mechanical model in accordance with mechanical-model command values arranged along a time in each of third calculating steps longer than the first calculating steps, and each of the first input values arranged along the time is a torque instruction value instructing a torque output of the motor model output from the mechanical model and a motor torque of the motor model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shimazaki et al. [US 6,959,250 B1] (entire document, particularly Second Embodiment and FIG. 8D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEIGH M GARBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
/LEIGH M GARBOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851