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 11/04/2024 is 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “calculating an error between an output voltage associated with an output of the DC-AC inverter and a reference voltage; calculating a voltage frequency modulation index using the error between the reference voltage and the output voltage associated with the output of the DC-AC inverter; calculating a harmonic modulation index using the output voltage associated with the output of the DC-AC inverter; calculating a frequency modulation index, in which a harmonic component of the output voltage associated with the output of the DC-AC inverter is controlled, by using a difference between the harmonic modulation index and the voltage frequency modulation index,” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to combination of mathematical concept and human evaluation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim additionally recites “a method for driving of a system including a DC-DC converter configured to convert a DC current received from a vehicle battery into another DC current, a DC-AC inverter configured to convert the converted another DC current into an AC current, and a controller configured to control the DC-AC inverter, the method comprising: generating a control signal for controlling the DC-AC inverter using the frequency modulation index,” a controller is merely directed to generate a control signal for controlling the DC-AC inverter using the frequency modulation index is so broad as to be considered just “applying it” and the preamble structure, such as “DC-DC converter”, “DC-AC inverter”, “vehicle battery” as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim does not improve the functioning of any machines or sensors. Further, the claim does not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim additionally recites “a method for driving of a system including a DC-DC converter configured to convert a DC current received from a vehicle battery into another DC current, a DC-AC inverter configured to convert the converted another DC current into an AC current, and a controller configured to control the DC-AC inverter, and the method comprising: generating a control signal for controlling the DC-AC inverter using the frequency modulation index”. The claimed “controller” is directed to data collection activity and usage of general-purpose computer associated with a generic vehicle that are well-understood, routine and conventional. Further, the claimed “DC-DC converter”, “DC-AC inverter”, “vehicle battery” are well-understood, routine, and conventional components in power electronic systems. The claim merely uses these conventional elements as tools to implement the mathematical concept. As such, the additional elements do not provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims are rejected for the reasons as the independent claim from which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tapadia et al. US Pub 2018/0251036 (hereinafter Tapadia).
Regarding claim 1, Tapadia teaches a system for controlling electric power of a vehicle battery (¶ 0032 and abstract; a vehicle propulsion system 10 includes an energy storage device—in the form of a battery), the system comprising:
a DC-DC converter (fig. 2, element 14; DC-DC converter) configured to convert a DC current received from the vehicle battery (¶ 0032) into another DC current;
PNG
media_image1.png
784
1442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a DC-AC inverter (fig. 2, element 16) configured to convert the another DC current, converted by the DC- DC converter, into an AC current (¶ 0032; DC-AC conversion);
a controller (fig. 2, element 26) configured to generate a control signal for controlling the DC-AC inverter by calculating a frequency modulation index in which a harmonic component of an output voltage associated with an output of the DC-AC inverter is controlled (¶¶ 0037, 0042, 0065; operational parameters that are provided to the control system 26 are in the form of a modulation index of the DC-AC inverter 16 as well as a fundamental frequency,
f
f
u
n
d
, from which switching angles,
a
n
, and a first harmonic,
f
h
1
, for the DC-AC inverter 16 can be determined); and
a DC link unit connected between the DC-DC converter and the DC-AC inverter and including a capacitor (¶¶ 0006, 0007, 0028, 0032 and fig. 2, element 48; DC link capacitor).
Regarding claim 2, Tapadia teaches wherein the controller is configured to calculate the frequency modulation index (claim 3; the control system is configured to control the carrier signal phase of the DC-AC inverter based on an interval of a fundamental current cycle of the one or more AC electrical ports) based on a difference between a harmonic modulation index and a voltage frequency modulation index (claim 3; sixty-degree sectors defined by a difference between a voltage angle (index) and a modulator phase angle (index)).
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.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapadia in view of Kanth et al. (Study of PR Controller to the voltage source inverter).
Regarding claim 7, Tapadia fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to calculate a gain PR of a proportional resonance controller, included in the controller for calculating the harmonic modulation index, using Equation 1 below,
(Equation 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
84
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Kp is a proportional constant for an error between the output voltage and a reference voltage,
Ki is a gain at a resonant frequency,
s is a frequency,
wc is a cutoff frequency, and
wz is the resonant frequency.
However, Kanth et al. discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate a gain
G
A
C
(
s
)
of a proportional resonance controller (On page1085; PR controller), included in the controller for calculating the harmonic modulation index, using Equation below,
PNG
media_image3.png
29
148
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where Kp is a proportional constant for an error between the output voltage and a reference voltage, Ki is a gain at a resonant frequency, s is a frequency, wc is a cutoff frequency, and wz is the resonant frequency (see page 1085 and equation (9)).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tapadia to incorporate with the teaching of Kanth et al. by including a proportional resonant controller in the system, because it would be advantageous to have zero or near-zero steady state error without excessive computational cost.
Regarding claim 8, Tapadia in combination of Kanth et al. teaches wherein the resonant frequency wz is calculated by Equation 2 below, (Equation 2) wz=2πfz, where fz is a frequency of the harmonic component of the output voltage to be controlled (if resonant frequency wz is known, the parameter, fz, is obtainable requires only routine skill).
Regarding claim 9, Tapadia in combination of Kanth et al. discloses a grouping of a proportional Kp in equation 9 (Kanth et al., Page 1085). The prior art does not teach wherein the proportional constant Kp, is calculated by Equation 3 below, (Equation 3) 20log(Kp)< -x where x is a gain of a vehicle plant model. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a proportional constant Kp by using equation 3 (20log(Kp)< -x), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Tapadia in combination of Kanth et al. teaches Ki is a constant that is carefully selected to shift the controller’s magnitude response vertically (Kanth et al., Page 1085). The prior art does not teach wherein the gain Ki at the resonant frequency is calculated using Equation 4 below. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a proportional constant Ki b using equation 4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Tapadia in combination of Kanth et al. teaches the controller’s bandwidth can be widened by setting wc (Kanth et al., Page 1085). The prior art does not teach wherein the cutoff frequency wc is calculated using Equation 5. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the cutoff frequency wc is calculated using Equation 5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Tapadia teaches wherein the controller is configured to calculate the frequency modulation index in which a third harmonic component of the output voltage associated with the output of the DC-AC inverter is controlled (¶ 0057).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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 13-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Tapadia teaches wherein the controller is configured to: calculate an error between the output voltage, associated with the output of the DC-AC inverter, and a reference voltage, but it fails to teach or suggest further inclusion of wherein the controller is configured to: calculate the voltage frequency modulation index by using the error between the output voltage and the reference voltage; calculate the harmonic modulation index by using the output voltage; and calculate the frequency modulation index based on the difference between the harmonic modulation index and the voltage frequency modulation index.
Claims 4-6 are objected for the reasons as claim 3 from which they depend.
Regarding claim 13, Tapadia teaches a method for driving of a system including a DC-DC converter (fig. 2, element 14; DC-DC converter) configured to convert a DC current received from a vehicle battery (¶ 0032) into another DC current, a DC-AC inverter (fig. 2, element 16) configured to convert the converted another DC current into an AC current (¶ 0032; DC-AC conversion), it fails to teach or suggest further inclusion of wherein the controller is configured to: a controller configured to control the DC-AC inverter, the method comprising: calculating an error between an output voltage associated with an output of the DC-AC inverter and a reference voltage; calculating a voltage frequency modulation index using the error between the reference voltage and the output voltage associated with the output of the DC-AC inverter; calculating a frequency modulation index, in which a harmonic component of the output voltage associated with the output of the DC-AC inverter is controlled, by using a difference between the harmonic modulation index and the voltage frequency modulation index.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIXUAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-6739. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/ZIXUAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 03/05/2026