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 .
Objection to Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because applicants failed to show a timer module in microcontroller 202-1, 202-2 (see spec., page, 8, para. [0030], figs.2, 3-4, claims 1-20) are not shown for proper understanding of the invention. Timer modules used to compare the duty cycles of PWM signals 216 with the duty cycles of PWM commands 212 for detecting a first duty cycle error are not shown and referenced in applicant’s figs.1-5B.
As to claims 2, 13, 20, the phrase, “open/closed switch state” not shown (FIG.2) and referenced.
As to claim 5, the phrase, “The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that a current rotational speed of a motor component controlled by the motor controller is greater than a rotational speed threshold; and detect a second duty cycle error by comparing a result of a current-based torque calculation and a result of a voltage-based torque calculation” is not shown in system figs.1-2. Determine current rotational speed
of a motor component (not shown), current based torque calculation, voltage based torque calculation not shown in applicant’s system figs.1-2. Torque monitor for vehicle component and rotational component of motor is not shown (see spec., page 3, para. [0015]).
As to claim 17, the phrase, “The system of claim 16, further comprising detecting a second duty cycle error by comparing a result of a current-based torque calculation and a result of a voltage-based torque calculation” is not shown in applicant’s system figs.1-2. CLAIMED SUBJECT-MATTER NEEDS TO BE SHOWN.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Objection to Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s applicants failed to show and reference a timer module in microcontroller 202-1, 202-2 (see spec., page, 8, para. [0030], figs.2, 3-4, claims 1-20) for proper understanding of the invention. Timer modules used to compare the duty cycles PWM signals 216 with the duty cycles of PWM commands 212 for detecting duty cycle error are not shown and referenced in applicant’s figs.1-5B.
As to claim 5, the phrase, “The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that a current rotational speed of a motor component controlled by the motor controller is greater than a rotational speed threshold; and detect a second duty cycle error by comparing a result of a current-based torque calculation and a result of a voltage-based torque calculation” is not shown in system figs.1-2. Determine current rotational speed
of a motor component (not shown), current based torque calculation, voltage based torque calculation not shown in applicant’s system figs.1-2. Torque monitor for vehicle component and rotational component of motor is not shown (see spec., page 3, para. [0015], page 5, para. [0020])).
As to claims 2, 13, 20, the phrase, “open/closed switch state” not shown and referenced in spec.
As to claim 17, the phrase, “The system of claim 16, further comprising detecting a second duty cycle error by comparing a result of a current-based torque calculation and a result of a voltage-based torque calculation” is not shown in applicant’s system figs.1-2.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
4. 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 1-20 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.
As to claims 1-20, The phrase (claims 1, 11 and 16), “detect a first duty cycle error associated with the PWM signal by comparing the PWM signal with a corresponding PWM command” is not clear because applicants failed to show and reference a timer module in microcontroller 202-1, 202-2 (see spec., page, 8, para. [0030], figs.2, 3-4, claims 1-20) for proper understanding of the invention.
Timer modules used to compare the duty cycles PWM signals 216 with the duty cycles of PWM commands 212 for detecting duty cycle error are not shown and referenced in applicant’s figs.1-5B.
compare the duty cycles PWM signals 216 with the duty cycles of PWM commands 212 for detecting a first duty cycle error is missing and are not mentioned in claims 1-20.
As to claims 2, 13, 20, the phrase, “open/closed switch state” are not shown and referenced.
As to claim 5, the phrase, “The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that a current rotational speed of a motor component controlled by the motor controller is greater than a rotational speed threshold; and detect a second duty cycle error by comparing a result of a current-based torque calculation and a result of a voltage-based torque calculation” is not shown in system figs.1-2. Determine current rotational speed
of a motor component (not shown), current based torque calculation, voltage based torque calculation not shown in applicant’s system figs.1-2. Torque monitor for vehicle component and rotational component of motor is not shown (see spec., page 3, para. [0015]).
As to claim 17, the phrase, “The system of claim 16, further comprising detecting a second duty cycle error by comparing a result of a current-based torque calculation and a result of a voltage-based torque calculation” is not shown in applicant’s system figs.1-2. Appropriate corrections and clarifications are required.
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, 2, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiling et al. (Patent. No.: US 10,917,012 B1 and Heiling hereinafter) in view of Alberkrack et al. (Patent. No.: US 7,667,512 B2 and Alberkrack hereinafter).
As to claim 1, A system comprising:
a memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive a pulse-width modulation (PWM) signal for output to a gate drive of a motor controller;
detect a first duty cycle error associated with the PWM signal by comparing the PWM signal with a corresponding PWM command; and
in response to detecting the first duty cycle error, trigger a safe state at the gate drive of the motor controller.
(As to claim 1, Heiling teaches (figs. 1-7, (col.1, lines 5-8), (col.2, lines 38-53)) A system 2/300 (figs.1, 5) comprising:
a memory 804 (fig.7, (col.17, lines 1-11); and
at least one processor [CPU 802] (OF CONTROLLER 16/24/26, FIGS.1, 5) coupled to the memory 804 (FIG.7) and configured to:
receive a pulse-width modulation (PWM) drive signal [DH/DL] (to driver 32/34, see fig.1, (col.4, lines 9-23), (col.7, lines 10-58)) for output to a gate drive 15 of a motor controller [CONTROLLER IC 10/302] (control a motor 20/316, see fig.1/5);
detect a first duty cycle error [D_ERROR] (DUTY compared with duty threshold D_THRESHOLD via comparator 258, see fig.4C, using DUTY CYCLE MEASUREMENT CIRCUIT 116-118, SEE figs.3a-3b, 4B-4C, (col.14, lines 15-67)) associated with the PWM signal (see figs.2B-2C) by comparing the PWM signal with a PWM value (see figs.2B-2C, (col.9, lines 22-67), (col.10, lines 1-67), (col.11, lines 1-20); and
in response to detecting the first duty cycle error [D_ERROR] (see fig.4C), trigger a safe state at the gate drive [switching transistor 18/19 drive 15] (fig.1) of the motor controller [controller IC 10] (Heiling teaches “safety circuitry implemented”, see (col.1, lines 37-43), “Heiling teaches upon assertion of error signal ERROR switching system 2 set switch transistor 18/19 in a shut-off state, see (col.6, lines 1-28), (col.14, lines 54-67), fig.6, (col.16, lines 15-60), (col.17, lines 40-67), (col.18 ,lines 24-26) & (col.20, lines 1-10)).
Heiling teaches comparing PWM signal with a PWM value (see figs.2B-2C, (col.9, lines 22-67), (col.10, lines 1-67), (col.11, lines 1-20), but does not mention comparing the PWM signal with a PWM command.
Alberkrack teaches a motor controller system 300 (see figs.3-4, 8, (col.2, lines 27-57)) wherein comparing [duty cycle comparator 307] the pwm signal 305/305a with a PWM command 303 to generate an error 309.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comparing the PWM signal with a PWM command of Alberkrack in the system of Heiling because saving component cost and automatically produce the error (see Alberkrack, col.3, lines 28-35).
As to claim 2, The system of claim 1, wherein the safe state comprises at least one of an open switch state or a closed switch state of the motor controller.
(As to claim 2, Heiling teaches (figs. 1-7, (col.1, lines 5-8), (col.2, lines 38-53)) A system 2/300 (figs.1, 5) wherein the safe state comprises at least one of an open switch state [deactivated state of switch 18/19] (fig.1) of the motor controller [controller IC 10] (Heiling teaches “safety circuitry implemented”, see (col.1, lines 37-43), “Heiling teaches upon assertion of error signal ERROR switching system 2 set switch transistor 18/19 in a shut-off state, see (col.6, lines 1-28), “in de-asserted state, transistor 18/19 is turned off, see (col.6, lines 38-64, (col.7, lines 1-9), (col.14, lines 54-67), fig.6, (col.16, lines 15-60), “deactivating the switching transistor”, see (col.17, lines 40-67), (col.18 ,lines 24-26) & (col.20, lines 1-10)).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heling et al. (Patent. No.: US 10,917,012 B1, Alberkrack et al. (Patent. No.: US 7,667,512 B2) and further in view of Wright (US 2013/0015798 A1).
As to claim 7, The system of claim 1, wherein the PWM signal is generated by a field programmable gate array.
(As to claim 7, Heiling teaches (figs. 1-7, (col.1, lines 5-8), (col.2, lines 38-53)) A system 2/300 (figs.1, 5) wherein the PWM signal DH/DL (see fig.1, (col.4, lines 9-23), (col.7, lines 10-58))) is generated by a programmable processing device [controller 24] (fig.1, (col.15, lines 10-33), via processing system 800, fig.7).
Alberkrack teaches a motor controller 300 (see figs.3-4, for a motor control system 800, see fig.8, (col.2, lines 27-57)) wherein the pwm signal 305/305a or a PWM command signal 303 is generated.
Neither Heiling nor Alberkrack teaches the PWM signal is generated by a field programmable gate array.
Wright teaches the system 200/400 (for motor control system, fig.10), wherein the PWM signal ([output signal] to motor 180 via processing device 170/471, see figs.2A-2B, 4A-4B) is generated by a field programmable gate array (see para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the PWM signal is generated by a field programmable gate array of Wright in the combination system of Heling and Alberkrack because maintain greater efficiency and ease of control (see Wright, Para. [0006]).
As to claim 11, A method implemented by one or more computer systems, the method comprising:
receiving a pulse-width modulation (PWM) signal for output to a gate drive of a motor controller;
detecting a duty cycle error associated with the PWM signal by comparing the PWM signal with a corresponding PWM command; and
triggering, in response to detecting the duty cycle error, a safe state at the gate drive of the motor controller.
(As to claim 11, Heiling teaches (figs. 1-7, (col.1, lines 5-8), (col.2, lines 38-53)) A method (fig.6) implemented by one or more computer systems 2/300 (fig.1/5) or processing system 800 (fig.7, (col.16, lines 61-67), (col.17, lines 1-34)), the method (fig.6, (col.1, lines 5-8)) comprising:
receiving a pulse-width modulation (PWM) drive signal [DH/DL] (to driver 32/34, see fig.1, (col.4, lines 9-23), (col.7, lines 10-58)) for output to a gate drive 15 of a motor controller [CONTROLLER IC 10/302] (control a motor 20/316, see fig.1/5);
detecting a first duty cycle error [D_ERROR] (DUTY compared with duty threshold D_THRESHOLD via comparator 258,see fig.4C, using DUTY CYCLE MEASUREMENT CIRCUIT 116-118, see figs.3a-3b, 4B-4C, (col.14, lines 15-67)) associated with the PWM signal (see figs.2B-2C) by comparing the PWM signal with a PWM value (see figs.2B-2C, (col.9, lines 22-67), (col.10, lines 1-67), (col.11, lines 1-20); and
in response to detecting the first duty cycle error [D_ERROR] (see fig.4C), triggering a safe state at the gate drive [switching transistor 18/19 drive 15] (fig.1) of the motor controller [controller IC 10] (Heiling teaches “safety circuitry implemented”, see (col.1, lines 37-43), “Heiling teaches upon assertion of error signal ERROR switching system 2 set switch transistor 18/19 in a shut-off state, see (col.6, lines 1-28), (col.14, lines 54-67), fig.6, (col.16, lines 15-60), (col.17, lines 40-67), (col.18 ,lines 24-26) & (col.20, lines 1-10)).
Heiling teaches comparing PWM signal with a PWM value (see figs.2B-2C, (col.9, lines 22-67), (col.10, lines 1-67), (col.11, lines 1-20), but does not mention comparing the PWM signal with a PWM command.
Alberkrack teaches a motor controller system 300 (see figs.3-4, 8, (col.2, lines 27-57)) wherein comparing [duty cycle comparator 307] the pwm signal 305/305a with a PWM command 303 to generate an error 309.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comparing the PWM signal with a PWM command of Alberkrack in the system of Heiling because saving component cost and automatically produce the error (see Alberkrack, col.3, lines 28-35).
As to claim 13, The method of claim 11, wherein the safe state comprises at least one of an open switch state or a closed switch state of the motor controller.
(As to claim 13, Heiling teaches (figs. 1-7, (col.1, lines 5-8), (col.2, lines 38-53)) A method (fig.6), wherein the safe state comprises at least one of an open switch state [deactivated state of switch 18/19] (fig.1) of the motor controller [controller IC 10] (Heiling teaches “safety circuitry implemented”, see (col.1, lines 37-43), “Heiling teaches upon assertion of error signal ERROR switching system 2 set switch transistor 18/19 in a shut-off state, see (col.6, lines 1-28), “in de-asserted state, transistor 18/19 is turned off, see (col.6, lines 38-64, (col.7, lines 1-9), (col.14, lines 54-67), fig.6, (col.16, lines 15-60), “deactivating the switching transistor”, see (col.17, lines 40-67), (col.18 , lines 24-26) & (col.20, lines 1-10)).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heling et al. (Patent. No.: US 10,917,012 B1, Alberkrack et al. (Patent. No.: US 7,667,512 B2) and further in view of Wright (US 2013/0015798 A1).
As to claim 14, The method of claim 11, wherein the PWM signal is generated by a field programmable gate array.
(As to claim 14, Heiling teaches (figs. 1-7, (col.1, lines 5-8), (col.2, lines 38-53)) A method (fig.6), wherein the PWM signal DH/DL (see fig.1, (col.4, lines 9-23), (col.7, lines 10-58))) is generated by a programmable processing device [controller 24] (fig.1, (col.15, lines 10-33), via processing system 800, fig.7).
Alberkrack teaches a method (see fig.9, col.4, lines 20-38), using motor controller 300 (see figs.3-4, for a motor control system 800, see fig.8, (col.2, lines 27-57)) wherein the pwm signal 305/305a or a PWM command signal 303 is generated.
Neither Heiling nor Alberkrack teaches the PWM signal is generated by a field programmable gate array.
Wright teaches the method (see figs.5-6, using system 200/400 for motor control system, see fig.10), wherein the PWM signal ([output signal] to motor 180 via processing device 170/471, see figs.1A, !B, 2A-2B, 4A-4B) is generated by a field programmable gate array (see para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the PWM signal is generated by a field programmable gate array of Wright in the combination system of Heling and Alberkrack because maintain greater efficiency and ease of control (see Wright, Para. [0006]).
Allowable Subject-Matter
Claims 3-4, 5-6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-4, 5-6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 3, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, Heiling et al., Alberkrack et al.) fails to teach the at least one processor is further configured to determine that a current rotational speed of a motor component controlled by the motor controller is less than a rotational speed threshold. Claim 4 depend on allowable claim 3.
As to claim 5, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, Heiling et al., Alberkrack et al.) fails to teach the at least one processor is further configured to: determine that a current rotational speed of a motor component controlled by the motor controller is greater than a rotational speed threshold; and detect a second duty cycle error by comparing a result of a current-based torque calculation and a result of a voltage-based torque calculation. Claim 6 depend on allowable claim 5.
As to claim 8, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, Heiling et al., Alberkrack et al.) fails to teach at least one additional PWM command generated by at least one additional processor.
As to claim 9, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, Heiling et al., Alberkrack et al.) fails to teach wherein detecting the first duty cycle error comprises applying a delay that begins after the corresponding PWM command is generated.
As to claim 10, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, Heiling et al., Alberkrack et al.) fails to teach triggering the safe state causes the field programmable gate array to be bypassed.
As to claim 12, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, Heiling et al., Alberkrack et al.) fails to teach the method of claim 11, further comprising determining that a duty cycle of the PWM signal differs from a duty cycle of the corresponding PWM command by at least one percent.
As to claim 15, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, Heiling et al., Alberkrack et al.) fails to teach triggering the safe state causes the field programmable gate array to be bypassed.
As to claim 16, the prior art of records (closest prior arts, , Heiling et al., Alberkrack et al, and Wright) fails to teach compare a current rotational speed of a motor component controlled by the motor controller with a rotational speed threshold; based on determining that the current rotational speed is less than the rotational speed threshold, detect a first duty cycle error.
However, formal requirements are outstanding (Objection to drawings and specification and 35 USC 112 rejection) needs to be corrected and clarified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONY M PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am to 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, Mr. 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.
/ANTONY M PAUL/
Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights