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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 8, 9, and 10 include multiple drawings or views of different parts. See for example fig. 8 which illustrates three graphs: one showing an output power when a 5-step space vector PWM is used, a second one when a 7-step space vector PWM is used, and a third one when a combination 5/7-step space vector PWM is used. The drawings should be labeled Fig. 8A-8C.
Additionally, fig. 12 is objected to because its label “FIG. 12” must be oriented in the same direction as the view of the graph. Also, the x-axis label, the y-axis label, and the units of the variables in the x-axis and the y-axis must be included so that the graph provides meaningful data.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Applicant claims predicting a polarity of a phase current through a second phase winding based on the determined zero-crossing point of the phase current through the first phase winding. However, the original specification does not adequately describe a predicting model, equations, algorithm, or any signal processing method. The original documents only describe the desired result of predicting the polarity from the zero-crossing point. Knowing the specific algorithm needed to “predict” a motor parameter (polarity of a motor phase) to generate the correct timing for outputting control signals to activate/deactivate a plurality of switches in an inverter is a crucial and significant aspect of applicant’s invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is not clear what constitute “predicting” a parameter. How accurate does the prediction have to be to generate the current timing for the control signals for the inverter? How is the polarity of a current flowing through a second motor phase predicted based on only knowing the zero-crossing point of a phase current flowing through a first motor phase? Applicant has not provided any details that would help to determine whether the recited information constitute a novel technique in motor control.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible subject matter without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical algorithm. Specially the claim recites the operations of determining a zero-crossing point, predicting a polarity of a phase current, and determining a timing of a signal which can be interpreted as collection of information, evaluation of the information, and generating an output based on the evaluation. Also, the claim is directed to a machine-readable instructions on a “data carrier” which constitute instructions for implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claim includes a controller, an inverter, and a motor, these elements are generic and conventional components performing their ordinary functions. The claim does not recite any improvement to motor technology, inverter components, current sensing techniques, or any specific motor operation. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim only uses a simple computer and motor control components to implement the abstract idea of analyzing current information and determining switching timing.
Additionally, the recitation of “data carrier” is broad enough to encompass transitory propagating signals, which are not statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heynlein et al (US Patent 9479096).
Claims 1-23 have been rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) for lack of enablement and containing vague and indefinite language. Since applicant has not provided the specific algorithm for “predicting” the motor current, prior art will be applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner. The subject matter of claim 23 will be interpreted as a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a motor controller, cause the motor controller to perform the method steps recited in claim 1.
Claims 1, 20, and 23, Heynlein et al teaches a method for controlling a motor or a motor system comprising: monitoring phase current, using current sense unit 402 which determines the current through shunt resistor 401, the detected current is sent to phase current reconstruction and alignment unit 410, flowing through a first phase winding of motor 451 to determine a zero-crossing point of the current flowing through the first phase (see the description of the detecting current technique and zero crossing in col. 8 lines 39-64); predicting current polarity (direction) of motor current using information from monitoring device 405 and zero-crossing (see col. 9 lines 20-45 and col. 11 lines 55-63); and determining, using control module 407, a timing for a control signal used to activate/deactivate the plurality of switches in an inverter which comprises half-bridge drivers 453 in order to apply voltage to the motor windings.
Although, the teachings of Heynlein et al describe determining zero-crossing points of the motor windings and predicting the direction of phase currents based on the drain-source voltage monitored by device 405, they do not specifically describe the use of a sensor on just the first phase of the motor. However, they describe phase reconstruction unit 410 outputting individual currents based on the current signal from a single shunt resistor 401, wherein the polarity of the detected current is determined based in part on signals from unit 405.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Heynlein et al to determine the zero-crossing of a motor current that would be used in part to predict the polarity of a motor phase, since as described by Heynlein et al knowing the direction (polarity) of the motor current would align the zero-crossing of the motor phase and the zero-crossing of the BEMF in order to generate the proper timing for controlling the plurality of switches in the inverter and ultimately the motor of the motor (see col. 2 lines 13-32).
Claim 2, Heynlein et al teaches the inverter including a plurality of switches 454/455, wherein the ON/OFF state of the plurality of switches in controlled by control module 407 which outputs control signals to PWM control unit 411 based on the zero-crossing of the motor phase and zero crossing of the BEMF (transition from a low side transistor to a high side transistor).
Claim 3, Heynlein et al teaches, col. 9 lines 33-38, controlling timing of the control signals outputted to the plurality of switches 454/455 based on a voltage vector (space vector modulation).
Claim 4, Heynlein et al teaches the timing of the control signal outputted by control module 407 is determined based on a portion of an electrical cycle (during zero-crossing of the phase current, transition between a position direction to a negative direction or from a negative direction to a positive direction).
Claim 5, Heynlein et al teaches, fig. 8 and corresponding description, using a PWM modulation sequence to activate/deactivate desired lower side transistors to apply a desired voltage.
Claims 6-8, Heynlein et al teaches an example of a commutation sequence of the plurality of transistors 454/455 (see the example given in fig. 8), the preferred energization sequence is considered a design choice.
Claim 9-12, as stated above, the commutation sequence of the plurality of switches is considered a design choice. Additionally, Heynlein et al teaches the use of space vector PWM as described in col. 9 lines 33-38.
Claims 13-14, Heynlein et al teaches determining the zero-crossing of the motor phase currents as well as the back-electromotive force (bemf) in undriven coils, wherein the bemf is used to determine the position of the motor (see for example col. 1 lines 31-38).
Claims 15-21, the preferred equation to determine a parameter based on the detected bemf is considered a design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 described other sensorless motor control systems and methods for controlling a brushless motor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights