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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankaran (US20140111126A1) in view of James (US20140346989A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sankaran discloses;
A control system for controlling an operation of a power converter (disclosed as a vehicle control system, element 150) which performs power conversion between a motor for driving a vehicle and a power supply (taught as a power electronics converter, element 121), comprising:
a data acquisition circuitry for acquiring data from equipment provided inside a vehicle (disclosed as sensors associated with various vehicle systems, paragraph 0026); and
a control circuitry for reducing a drive frequency of a switching element included in the power converter (disclosed as a noise reduction mode which reduces PWM switching noise, paragraph 0029) when it is determined, on the basis of the data acquired by the data acquisition circuitry, that it is a state where a driver can allow a noise (disclosed as determining, based on vehicle state information, whether to enact a noise-reduction mode or a default mode, paragraph 0041).
wherein the control circuitry determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a vehicle speed of the vehicle (disclosed as determining, based on vehicle state information, whether to enact a noise-reduction mode or a default mode, paragraph 0041).
However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach;
wherein the control circuitry determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a predicted temperature of the switching element and a vehicle speed of the vehicle.
James teaches; wherein the control circuitry determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a predicted temperature of the switching element (taught as determining the temperature ripple for an inverter, paragraph 0042, which is analyzed to control the switching frequency to control the inverter to maintain the ripple temperature below a desired temperature ripple value, paragraph 0045; such behavior is due to higher switching frequency to limit acoustic noise, but prioritizing lower frequencies during unusual loads, paragraph 0041).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inverter behavior as taught by James in the system taught by Sankaran in order to improve performance and lifetime of components. As suggested in James, reducing switching frequency minimizes power loss and reduces the likelihood of reaching a fail temperature (paragraph 0004), and thus increases the lifetime of the inverters at the cost of acoustic noise (paragraph 0041). Thus, when unusual loads occur, switching the priority from lower noise to inverter lifetime can help prevent the component from failing. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to predict the temperature of an inverter and use such information to adjust a switching frequency [noise level] to protect the component, as suggested by James.
Regarding claim 2, Sankaran teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), further comprising:
a storage for storing therein data obtained by associating a predetermined traveling pattern [interpreted to be, for example, a vehicle mode or condition] of the vehicle with a result obtained by determining in advance whether or not a driver can allow a sound generated from the power converter in the traveling pattern (disclosed as combining factors to associate whether to enact a noise reduction mode or a default mode, paragraph 0040), for each traveling pattern (disclosed as associating vehicle states with a PWM strategy, paragraph 0040, which corresponds to noise reduction or default modes of operation, paragraph 0041); and
a determination circuitry for determining whether or not a current traveling state of the vehicle coincides with the traveling pattern, on the basis of the data acquired by the data acquisition circuitry (disclosed as using inputs of sensory data to determine the PWM parameter to adjust frequency and strategy, paragraph 0040).
Regarding claims 19-21, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claims 19-21 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Sankaran teaches;
An electric vehicle (shown in Fig 1, element 100m paragraph 0021), comprising:
a power supply (disclosed as a battery, element 122, and an engine, element 116);
a motor for driving a vehicle (disclosed as an electric driver system [EDS], paragraph 0021-0022);
a power converter for performing power conversion between the power supply and the motor (disclosed as a power transfer unit, element 130, paragraph 0021); and
a control device for acquiring data from equipment provided inside the vehicle and reducing a drive frequency of a switching element included in the power converter when it is determined, on the basis of the acquired data, that it is a state where a driver can allow a noise (disclosed as associating vehicle states with a PWM strategy, paragraph 0040, which corresponds to noise reduction or default modes of operation, paragraph 0041, which uses inputs of sensory data to determine the PWM parameter to adjust frequency and strategy, paragraph 0040),
wherein the control device determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a vehicle speed of the vehicle (disclosed as determining, based on vehicle state information, whether to enact a noise-reduction mode or a default mode, paragraph 0041).
However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach;
wherein the control device determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a predicted temperature of the switching element and a vehicle speed of the vehicle.
James teaches; wherein the control device determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a predicted temperature of the switching element (taught as determining the temperature ripple for an inverter, paragraph 0042, which is analyzed to control the switching frequency to control the inverter to maintain the ripple temperature below a desired temperature ripple value, paragraph 0045; such behavior is due to higher switching frequency to limit acoustic noise, but prioritizing lower frequencies during unusual loads, paragraph 0041).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inverter behavior as taught by James in the system taught by Sankaran in order to improve performance and lifetime of components. As suggested in James, reducing switching frequency minimizes power loss and reduces the likelihood of reaching a fail temperature (paragraph 0004), and thus increases the lifetime of the inverters at the cost of acoustic noise (paragraph 0041). Thus, when unusual loads occur, switching the priority from lower noise to inverter lifetime can help prevent the component from failing. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to predict the temperature of an inverter and use such information to adjust a switching frequency [noise level] to protect the component, as suggested by James.
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankaran (US20140111126A1) as modified by James (US20140346989A1) and further in view of Haputhanthri (US202000062424A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sankaran as modified by James teaches;
The control system according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the storage stores therein a prediction model used for predicting a future load of the motor or the power converter on the basis of the data acquired from the equipment and a relational expression used for obtaining a temperature of the switching element on the basis of the load of the motor or the power converter and characteristics of the switching element, and
the determination circuitry predicts the predicted temperature of the switching element on the basis of the prediction model and the relational expression, and
when the predicted temperature of the switching element exceeds a predetermined value, the determination circuitry performs determination on whether or not the current traveling state of the vehicle coincides with the traveling pattern.
Haputhanthri teaches; wherein the storage stores therein a prediction model (taught as an EDS protection algorithm, element 200) used for predicting a future load of the motor or the power converter on the basis of the data acquired from the equipment and a relational expression used for obtaining a temperature of the switching element on the basis of the load of the motor or the power converter and characteristics of the switching element (taught as predicting the rate of temperature rise to determine an appropriate time window to analyze/apply mitigation actions, paragraph 0040), and
the determination circuitry predicts the predicted temperature of the switching element on the basis of the prediction model and the relational expression (taught as predicting the rate of temperature rise to determine an appropriate time window and mitigation action, paragraph 0040), and
when the predicted temperature of the switching element exceeds a predetermined value (taught as detecting an over temperature condition, paragraph 0047), the determination circuitry performs determination on whether or not the current traveling state of the vehicle coincides with the traveling pattern (taught as detecting where conditions of the component relating to the temperature, paragraph 0073, and determining which mitigation action to take based on the predicted temperature over time windows, paragraph 0111).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate temperature considerations as taught by Haputhanthri in the system taught by Sankaran in order to improve component safety. As taught by Haputhanthri, overloading/overheating can result in permanent damage to components (paragraph 0002), and thus need to prioritize efficiency and component health over more comfort related modes, such as to avoid reducing the fuel economy as much as possible (paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 5, Sankaran as modified by James and Haputhanthri teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Sankaran further teaches; wherein the equipment includes an accelerator position sensor for detecting an accelerator opening of the vehicle (taught as an engine status input, paragraph 0034) and a vehicle speed sensor for detecting a vehicle speed of the vehicle (taught as a vehicle motion input to characterize the speed of the vehicle, paragraph 0033),
the data acquisition circuitry acquires data of the accelerator opening of the vehicle from the accelerator position sensor and data of the vehicle speed of the vehicle from the vehicle speed sensor (taught as using the various sensor inputs to determine a PWM parameter, paragraph 0040), and
the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when the amount of variation in the accelerator opening of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined value and the vehicle speed of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined value (taught as determining a PWM parameter based on speed and engine inputs, paragraph 0040, to operate in noise reduction or default modes, paragraph 0041, including determining speed thresholds and load thresholds, paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 15, Sankaran as modified by James and Haputhanthri teaches;
The control system according to claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the control circuitry determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of the temperature and the amount of variation in the temperature of the switching element.
Haputhanthri teaches; wherein the control circuitry determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise on the basis of the temperature and the amount of variation in the temperature of the switching element (taught as predicting the rate of temperature rise to determine an appropriate time window to analyze/apply mitigation actions, paragraph 0040 and determining which mitigation action to take based on the predicted temperature over time windows, paragraph 0111).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate temperature considerations as taught by Haputhanthri in the system taught by Sankaran in order to improve component safety. As taught by Haputhanthri, overloading/overheating can result in permanent damage to components (paragraph 0002), and thus need to prioritize efficiency and component health over more comfort related modes, such as to avoid reducing the fuel economy as much as possible (paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 16, Sankaran as modified by James teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Sankaran further teaches; wherein the equipment is a temperature sensor for detecting the temperature of the switching element (taught as a temperature sensor, paragraph 0039),
the data acquisition circuitry acquires data of the temperature of the switching element from the temperature sensor (taught as acquiring the inputs to determine a PWM parameter, paragraph 0040), and
the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when the temperature of the switching element exceeds a predetermined value (taught as using the inputs to determine a PWM parameter, paragraph 0040, including temperature levels, paragraph 0053). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; and the amount of variation in the temperature of the switching element exceeds a predetermined value.
Haputhanthri teaches; and the amount of variation in the temperature of the switching element exceeds a predetermined value (taught as predicting the rate of temperature rise to determine an appropriate time window to analyze/apply mitigation actions, paragraph 0040).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate temperature considerations as taught by Haputhanthri in the system taught by Sankaran in order to improve component safety. As taught by Haputhanthri, overloading/overheating can result in permanent damage to components (paragraph 0002), and thus need to prioritize efficiency and component health over more comfort related modes, such as to avoid reducing the fuel economy as much as possible (paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 17, Sankaran as modified by James teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the equipment is a current sensor for detecting a current value of the switching element, the data acquisition circuitry acquires data of the current value of the switching element from the current sensor, and the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when the current value of the switching element exceeds a predetermined value and the amount of variation in the current value of the switching element exceeds a predetermined value.
Haputhanthri teaches; wherein the equipment is a current sensor for detecting a current value of the switching element (taught as detecting, by a current sensor, a current of a component, paragraph 0034),
the data acquisition circuitry acquires data of the current value of the switching element from the current sensor (taught as detecting, a current of a component and transmitting the signal as input to the EDS protection algorithm, paragraph 0034), and
the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when the current value of the switching element exceeds a predetermined value and the amount of variation in the current value of the switching element exceeds a predetermined value (taught as detecting overcurrent conditions, paragraph 0041, and modifying/implementing mitigation actions based on the current over a time window, paragraph 0110).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate temperature considerations as taught by Haputhanthri in the system taught by Sankaran in order to improve component safety. As taught by Haputhanthri, overloading/overheating can result in permanent damage to components (paragraph 0002), and thus need to prioritize efficiency and component health over more comfort related modes, such as to avoid reducing the fuel economy as much as possible (paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 18, Sankaran as modified by James and Haputhanthri teaches;
The control system according to claim 15 (see claim 15 rejection). Sankaran further teaches; wherein the power converter divides [examiner notes that, since no modifier/value is attached to divides, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes dividing by 1, or by a fraction, effectively allowing for any frequency to exist] a frequency of a drive signal used for driving the switching element when the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element (taught as performing PWM on the carrier frequency, such that the carrier frequency falls within a specified range based on the driving mode, paragraph 0045; while not explicitly dividing, the act of PWM will effectively modify the carrier frequency to increase or decrease the frequency based on the driving mode).
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankaran (US20140111126A1) as modified by James (US20140346989A1) and Haputhanthri (US202000062424A1) and further in view of Park (US20190016329A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sankaran as modified by James and Haputhanthri teaches;
The control system according to claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). Sankaran further teaches; wherein the equipment includes a vehicle speed sensor for detecting a vehicle speed of the vehicle, the data acquisition circuitry acquires data of the vehicle speed of the vehicle from the vehicle speed sensor, and the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when it is predicted the vehicle speed of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined value (taught as determining a PWM parameter based on speed inputs, paragraph 0040, to operate in noise reduction or default modes, paragraph 0041, including determining speed thresholds, paragraph 0053).
However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the equipment includes a navigation device having position information of the vehicle, the data acquisition circuitry acquires data on a scheduled travel route of the vehicle from the navigation device, and the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when it is predicted from the data on the scheduled travel route of the vehicle that a load of the vehicle should increase.
Park teaches; wherein the equipment includes a navigation device having position information of the vehicle (taught as a GPS to determine position data, paragraph 0032), the data acquisition circuitry acquires data on a scheduled travel route of the vehicle from the navigation device (taught as acquiring offboard data, including position data, paragraph 0032), and the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element
when it is predicted from the data on the scheduled travel route of the vehicle that a load of the vehicle should increase (taught as determining a predicted electrical range of the vehicle, paragraph 0039, and adjusting mode optimizations to increase electrical range, paragraph 0056).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify vehicle behavior and allowed modes based on required/desired performance, such as taught by Park, in the system taught by Sankaran in order to ensure safe driving. In general, critical system performance is prioritized over comfort systems to ensure the safety of the occupants and surroundings. As suggested in Park, using predictions of range of the vehicle can improve operating life and performance efficiency of the vehicle (paragraph 0025). Furthermore, such teachings directly tie into Sankaran’s desire to adjust carrier frequency based on required load/power requirements (paragraph 0039) and fuel economy (paragraph 0041), where the required/estimated range obviously factors into predicted power requirements and fuel economy needed to reach a destination.
Regarding claim 7, Sankaran as modified by James and Haputhanthri teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Sankaran further teaches; wherein the equipment includes an acceleration sensor for detecting an acceleration of the vehicle (taught as an engine status input, paragraph 0034),
the data acquisition circuitry acquires data on data of the acceleration of the vehicle from the acceleration sensor (taught as an engine status input, paragraph 0034, and using the various sensor inputs to determine a PWM parameter, paragraph 004), and
the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when the acceleration of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined value (taught as determining a PWM parameter based on speed and engine inputs, paragraph 0040, to operate in noise reduction or default modes, paragraph 0041, including determining acceleration parameters, paragraph 0052, and load thresholds, paragraph 0053).
Park teaches; wherein the equipment includes a navigation device having position information of the vehicle (taught as a GPS to determine position data, paragraph 0032), the data acquisition circuitry acquires data on a scheduled travel route of the vehicle from the navigation device (taught as acquiring offboard data, including position data, paragraph 0032), and the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element
when it is predicted from the data on the scheduled travel route of the vehicle that a load of the vehicle should increase (taught as determining a predicted electrical range of the vehicle, paragraph 0039, and adjusting mode optimizations to increase electrical range, paragraph 0056).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify vehicle behavior and allowed modes based on required/desired performance, such as taught by Park, in the system taught by Sankaran in order to ensure safe driving. In general, critical system performance is prioritized over comfort systems to ensure the safety of the occupants and surroundings. As suggested in Park, using predictions of range of the vehicle can improve operating life and performance efficiency of the vehicle (paragraph 0025). Furthermore, such teachings directly tie into Sankaran’s desire to adjust carrier frequency based on required load/power requirements (paragraph 0039) and fuel economy (paragraph 0041), where the required/estimated range obviously factors into predicted power requirements and fuel economy needed to reach a destination.
Regarding claim 8, Sankaran as modified by James, Haputhanthri, and Park teaches;
The control system according to claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the control circuitry predicts whether or not the load of the vehicle should increase, on the basis of the data on the scheduled travel route of the vehicle including information on a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle travels.
Park teaches; wherein the control circuitry predicts whether or not the load of the vehicle should increase, on the basis of the data on the scheduled travel route of the vehicle including information on a gradient of a road surface on which the vehicle travels (indicated in determining current energy predictions based on forward looking strategy, such as the amount of energy required to climb or descend terrain in a given route, paragraph 0039).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify vehicle behavior and allowed modes based on required/desired performance, such as taught by Park, in the system taught by Sankaran in order to ensure safe driving. In general, critical system performance is prioritized over comfort systems to ensure the safety of the occupants and surroundings. As suggested in Park, using predictions of range of the vehicle can improve operating life and performance efficiency of the vehicle (paragraph 0025). Furthermore, such teachings directly tie into Sankaran’s desire to adjust carrier frequency based on required load/power requirements (paragraph 0039) and fuel economy (paragraph 0041), where the required/estimated range obviously factors into predicted power requirements and fuel economy needed to reach a destination.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankaran (US20140111126A1) as modified by James (US20140346989A1) and Haputhanthri (US202000062424A1) and further in view of Kishi (US20190128408A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sankaran as modified by James and Haputhanthri teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the equipment is a driver assistance device for assisting driving of the vehicle, the data acquisition circuitry acquires data on a driving state of the vehicle from the driver assistance device, and the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when the driver assistance device makes overtaking.
Kishi teaches; wherein the equipment is a driver assistance device for assisting driving of the vehicle (taught as a controller, element 40, with a driving control unit, element 46 for controlling self-drive mode, paragraph 0048),
the data acquisition circuitry acquires data on a driving state of the vehicle from the driver assistance device (aught as internal sensors to detect an accelerator pedal operation, paragraph 0033), and the control circuitry reduces [[a drive frequency of the switching element]] when the driver assistance device makes overtaking (taught as upshifting the vehicle into a sport mode for acceleration for overtaking a vehicle, paragraph 0095, which prioritizes power performance, paragraph 0051).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider/address overtaking [or other high power requirement maneuvers] as taught by Kishi in the system taught by Sankaran in order to ensure vehicle performance. As taught in Sankaran, higher switching frequencies, which lowers noise, induces power losses and reduces fuel economy (paragraph 0007). Kishi further teaches a sport mode, which prioritizes power performance over a fuel economy (paragraph 0051), and is used for higher driving force requirements including vehicle overtaking, hill climbing etc. (paragraph 0070). To reiterate, one would recognize, by the teachings of Kishi, that overtaking requires more power, and thus, in the implementation of Sankaran, would adjust the PWM parameter accordingly to prioritize power over noise reduction.
Regarding claim 10, Sankaran as modified by James and Haputhanthri teaches;
The control system according to claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). Sankaran further teaches; wherein the equipment includes
a driver assistance device for assisting driving of the vehicle,
an accelerator position sensor for detecting an accelerator opening of the vehicle, and
a direction indicator displaying a traveling direction of the vehicle,
the data acquisition circuitry acquires data on a driving state of the vehicle from the driver assistance device, data of the accelerator opening of the vehicle from the accelerator position sensor, and data on the traveling direction of the vehicle from the direction indicator, and
the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when it is a state where the driver assistance device performs driver assistance and it is determined, on the basis of the data of the accelerator opening of the vehicle and the data on the traveling direction of the vehicle, that a driver should make overtaking.
Kishi teaches; wherein the equipment includes a driver assistance device for assisting driving of the vehicle (taught as a controller, element 40, with a driving control unit, element 46 for controlling self-drive mode, paragraph 0048), an accelerator position sensor for detecting an accelerator opening of the vehicle (taught as internal sensors to detect an accelerator pedal operation, paragraph 0033), and a direction indicator displaying a traveling direction of the vehicle [all vehicles in the US are required to have turn signals to be street legal],
the data acquisition circuitry acquires data on a driving state of the vehicle from the driver assistance device (taught as detecting the subject [host] vehicle driving state, paragraph 0033), data of the accelerator opening of the vehicle from the accelerator position sensor (taught as detecting accelerator pedal operations and forward-rearward direction acceleration, paragraph 0033), and data on the traveling direction of the vehicle from the direction indicator, and
the control circuitry [[reduces a drive frequency of the switching element]] when it is a state where the driver assistance device performs driver assistance and it is determined, on the basis of the data of the accelerator opening of the vehicle and the data on the traveling direction of the vehicle, that a driver should make overtaking (taught as upshifting the vehicle into a sport mode for acceleration for overtaking a vehicle, paragraph 0095, which prioritizes power performance, paragraph 0051).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider/address overtaking [or other high power requirement maneuvers] as taught by Kishi in the system taught by Sankaran in order to ensure vehicle performance. As taught in Sankaran, higher switching frequencies, which lowers noise, induces power losses and reduces fuel economy (paragraph 0007). Kishi further teaches a sport mode, which prioritizes power performance over a fuel economy (paragraph 0051), and is used for higher driving force requirements including vehicle overtaking, hill climbing etc. (paragraph 0070). To reiterate, one would recognize, by the teachings of Kishi, that overtaking requires more power, and thus, in the implementation of Sankaran, would adjust the PWM parameter accordingly to prioritize power over noise reduction.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankaran (US20140111126A1) as modified by James (US20140346989A1) and Haputhanthri (US202000062424A1) and Kishi (US20190128408A1), and further in view of Chen (US20200369284A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sankaran as modified by James, Haputhanthri, and Kishi teaches;
The control system according to claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the driver assistance device automatically performs a driving operation for causing the vehicle to travel at a predetermined vehicle speed while keeping an inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle and another vehicle constant.
Chen teaches; wherein the driver assistance device automatically performs a driving operation for causing the vehicle to travel at a predetermined vehicle speed while keeping an inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle and another vehicle constant (taught as an adaptive cruise control system that varies vehicle speed to maintain a predetermined following distance, paragraph 0066).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adaptive cruise control as taught by Chen in the system taught by Sankaran in order to improve user comfort. Further automation in cruise control allows a driver to relax and not have to worry about constantly adjusting speed due to traffic.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankaran (US20140111126A1) as modified by James (US20140346989A1) and further in view of Park (US20190016329A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sankaran as modified by James teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the control circuitry determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a cruising range where the vehicle can travel in the future.
Park teaches; wherein the control circuitry determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a [[noise]], on the basis of a cruising range where the vehicle can travel in the future (taught as determining whether operating in power zones [modes] will provide the required energy to reach the destination, paragraph 0051).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify vehicle behavior and allowed modes based on required/desired performance, such as taught by Park, in the system taught by Sankaran in order to ensure safe driving. In general, critical system performance is prioritized over comfort systems to ensure the safety of the occupants and surroundings. As suggested in Park, using predictions of range of the vehicle can improve operating life and performance efficiency of the vehicle (paragraph 0025). Furthermore, such teachings directly tie into Sankaran’s desire to adjust carrier frequency based on required load/power requirements (paragraph 0039) and fuel economy (paragraphs 0009, 0041), where the required/estimated range obviously factors into predicted power requirements and fuel economy needed to reach a destination. To reiterate, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to include range considerations, such as taught by Park, in the adjusting driving modes to consider power/load requirements taught by Sankaran, as range considerations obviously factor into power requirements to get to a destination.
Regarding claim 13, Sankaran as modified by James teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the equipment is a fuel indicator for detecting the remaining amount of fuel of the vehicle, the data acquisition circuitry acquires data of the remaining amount of fuel of the vehicle from the fuel indicator, and the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when the remaining amount of fuel of the vehicle falls below a predetermined value.
Park teaches; wherein the equipment is a fuel indicator [interpreted to include battery energy for electric vehicles] for detecting the remaining amount of fuel of the vehicle, the data acquisition circuitry acquires data of the remaining amount of fuel of the vehicle from the fuel indicator (taught as determining a prediction of true remaining range of the vehicle, paragraph 0025), and the control circuitry [[reduces a drive frequency of the switching element]] when the remaining amount of fuel of the vehicle falls below a predetermined value (taught as determining whether operating in power zones [modes] will provide the required energy to reach the destination, paragraph 0051).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify vehicle behavior and allowed modes based on required/desired performance, such as taught by Park, in the system taught by Sankaran in order to ensure safe driving. In general, critical system performance is prioritized over comfort systems to ensure the safety of the occupants and surroundings. As suggested in Park, using predictions of range of the vehicle can improve operating life and performance efficiency of the vehicle (paragraph 0025). Furthermore, such teachings directly tie into Sankaran’s desire to adjust carrier frequency based on required load/power requirements (paragraph 0039) and fuel economy (paragraphs 0009, 0041), where the required/estimated range obviously factors into predicted power requirements and fuel economy needed to reach a destination.
Regarding claim 14, Sankaran as modified by James teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach; wherein the equipment is a battery capacity meter for detecting a battery remaining capacity of the vehicle, the data acquisition circuitry acquires data of the battery remaining capacity of the vehicle from the battery capacity meter, and the control circuitry reduces a drive frequency of the switching element when the battery remaining capacity of the vehicle falls below a predetermined value.
Park teaches; wherein the equipment is a battery capacity meter for detecting a battery remaining capacity of the vehicle, the data acquisition circuitry acquires data of the battery remaining capacity of the vehicle from the battery capacity meter (taught as determining a prediction of true remaining range of the vehicle, paragraph 0025), and the control circuitry [[reduces a drive frequency of the switching element]] when the battery remaining capacity of the vehicle falls below a predetermined value (taught as determining whether operating in power zones [modes] will provide the required energy to reach the destination, paragraph 0051).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify vehicle behavior and allowed modes based on required/desired performance, such as taught by Park, in the system taught by Sankaran in order to ensure safe driving. In general, critical system performance is prioritized over comfort systems to ensure the safety of the occupants and surroundings. As suggested in Park, using predictions of range of the vehicle can improve operating life and performance efficiency of the vehicle (paragraph 0025). Furthermore, such teachings directly tie into Sankaran’s desire to adjust carrier frequency based on required load/power requirements (paragraph 0039) and fuel economy (paragraphs 0009, 0041), where the required/estimated range obviously factors into predicted power requirements and fuel economy needed to reach a destination.
Regarding claim 23, Sankaran teaches;
a learning data acquisition circuitry for acquiring [[learning]] data including data acquired from equipment provided inside a vehicle in a predetermined traveling pattern of the vehicle and a result obtained by determining in advance whether or not a driver can allow a noise in the traveling pattern (taught as outputting a predetermined PWM strategy in response to mode selection, paragraph 0047, and entering noise reduction modes under predetermined conditions, paragraph 0055);
and a result obtained by determining whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a vehicle speed of the vehicle (disclosed as determining, based on vehicle state information, whether to enact a noise-reduction mode or a default mode, paragraph 0041).
a model generation circuitry for generating a learned model to be used for inferring, from the data acquired from the equipment provided inside the vehicle (taught as taking input data to determine a PWM parameter, paragraph 0040), whether or not it is a state where the driver can allow a noise, by using the learning data (taught as outputting a predetermined PWM strategy in response to mode selection, paragraph 0047, and entering noise reduction modes under predetermined conditions, paragraph 0055).
However, Sankaran does not explicitly teach;
A learning device, acquiring learning data, and a learned model. [In other words, Sankaran does not explicitly teach using machine learning, artificial intelligence, neural networks or the like to generate a model],
wherein the control device determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a predicted temperature of the switching element and a vehicle speed of the vehicle.
James teaches; wherein the control device determines whether or not it is a state where a driver can allow a noise, on the basis of a predicted temperature of the switching element (taught as determining the temperature ripple for an inverter, paragraph 0042, which is analyzed to control the switching frequency to control the inverter to maintain the ripple temperature below a desired temperature ripple value, paragraph 0045; such behavior is due to higher switching frequency to limit acoustic noise, but prioritizing lower frequencies during unusual loads, paragraph 0041).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inverter behavior as taught by James in the system taught by Sankaran in order to improve performance and lifetime of components. As suggested in James, reducing switching frequency minimizes power loss and reduces the likelihood of reaching a fail temperature (paragraph 0004), and thus increases the lifetime of the inverters at the cost of acoustic noise (paragraph 0041). Thus, when unusual loads occur, switching the priority from lower noise to inverter lifetime can help prevent the component from failing. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to predict the temperature of an inverter and use such information to adjust a switching frequency [noise level] to protect the component, as suggested by James.
However, James does not explicitly teach; A learning device, acquiring learning data, and a learned model.
Park teaches; A learning device (taught as a controller, element 50, which receives input data through a prediction logic block, paragraph 0034, and modified by an adaptive correction logic block, paragraph 0035), acquiring learning data (taught as learning logic that uses learned vehicle performance, paragraph 0003 and driver behavior, paragraph 0041), and a learned model (taught as learning logic that uses learned vehicle performance, paragraph 0003, for energy/power prediction, paragraph 0018, and further indicated that a model is adjusted by ‘learning’ by factoring in demonstrated driving behavior, paragraph 0041).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify vehicle behavior and allowed modes based on required/desired performance and based on learned behavior, such as taught by Park, in the system taught by Sankaran in order to ensure safe and effective driving. In general, critical system performance is prioritized over comfort systems to ensure the safety of the occupants and surroundings. As suggested in Park, using predictions of range of the vehicle can improve operating life and performance efficiency of the vehicle (paragraph 0025), and using learned driver performance/behavior improves the predictive accuracy on the load on the vehicle (paragraph 0041). Furthermore, such teachings directly tie into Sankaran’s desire to adjust carrier frequency based on required load/power requirements (paragraph 0039) and fuel economy (paragraphs 0009, 0041), where the required/estimated range obviously factors into predicted power requirements and fuel economy needed to reach a destination.
Regarding claims 24 and 27, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those addressed in claim 23. Therefore, claims 24 and 27 are rejected under the same rejection as claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, Sankaran as modified by James and Park teaches;
The control device according to claim 24 (see claim 24 rejection). Sankaran further teaches; wherein the vehicle has a power converter for performing power conversion between a power supply and a motor (taught as a power electronics converter, element 121), and the frequency switching determination circuitry outputs a determination result indicating that it is not a state where the driver can allow a noise when data are inputted, indicating that it is unnecessary to switch a drive frequency of a switching element included in the power converter (taught as determining, based on vehicle state information, whether to enact a noise-reduction mode [retaining the noise reduction PWM] or a default mode [change to a default PWM], paragraph 0041, so should no exception that requires additional power/performance from the vehicle occurs, a noise reduction mode can be maintained, whereas when further power/performance is needed, a default mode is activated that prioritizes power, efficiency etc.).
Regarding claim 26, Sankaran as modified by James and Park teaches;
The control device according to claim 25 (see claim 25 rejection). Sankaran further teaches; wherein the frequency switching determination circuitry outputs the determination result indicating that it is not a state where the driver can allow a noise when data are inputted, indicating that a time period for the transition from a state where it is determined to be necessary to switch a drive frequency of the switching element to another state where it is determined to be unnecessary to switch the drive frequency of the switching element is very short (taught as determining, based on vehicle state information, whether to enact a noise-reduction mode [retaining the noise reduction PWM] or a default mode [change to a default PWM], paragraph 0041, so should no exception that requires additional power/performance from the vehicle occurs, a noise reduction mode can be maintained, whereas when further power/performance is needed, a default mode is activated that prioritizes power, efficiency etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 2-3 of the remarks that James does not indicate that adjusting the switching frequency is based on a predicted temperature of the switching element.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. James does discuss that the oscillation in the inverter switching frequencies would increase the acoustic noise of the inverter (e.g. paragraphs 0041 and 0052). Additionally, the inverter oscillation is changed in order to maintain a ripple temperature below a desired value (paragraph 0045). Thus, the oscillation would switch/change based on if/when the [predicted] temperature condition is exceeded.
Thus, James teaches that the oscillation frequency is adjusted based on the temperature of the inverted, and thus teaches the claim language that adjusting the switching frequency is based on a predicted temperature of the switching element.
Applicant argues on page 2 of the remarks that James is silent as to determining whether or not it is a state where a driver will allow the noise.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. James does discuss that the oscillation in the inverter switching frequencies would increase the acoustic noise of the inverter (e.g. paragraph 0052). However, such considerations are overcome to keep the ripple temperature below a desired temperature value (paragraph 0045). In other words, the driver can allow the noise so long as the temperature condition is met; as long as the temperature is an acceptable value, power output would not be compromised.
Applicant argues on pages 2-3 of the remarks James is not analogous art, and thus there is no motivation to combine James with Sankaran.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sankaran is directed to operations of an electric drive system, and James is directed to controlling an inverter. As taught by James, inverters are well known devices for providing AC power to a load, such as a motor, from a DC source (paragraph 0002). IN an electric car, a DC source (battery, fuel cell) would be connected to motors (for driving the wheels, for example). At the very least, electric vehicles have an inverter to function as a vehicle, and thus the teachings regarding controlling an inverter, as taught by James, are obviously relevant and applicable to electric vehicles, such as the one taught in Sankaran.
Thus, the rejections of the claims by Sankaran in view of James are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further electric vehicle carrier frequency modification and consideration; US20180254730A1, US8927604B2
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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights