DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roshdy et al. (US 20240410267 A1).Regarding claim 1:Roshdy teaches (FIG. 2) a system, comprising:
a first sensor (one of 138 and 140) arranged at a first end of a motor (110) and a second sensor (the other one of 138 and 140) at a second end of the motor, opposite the first end; and a controller with instructions stored in memory that cause the controller to: determine a deflection of a shaft of the motor and calculate a torque of the motor(abstract, [0022], [0028]-[0030], [0035])
Regarding claim 2:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Roshdy also teaches (FIG. 2):
wherein the first end (one of the end that 138 is disposed and the end that 140 is disposed; it appears that 140 is at the load end) is a load end of the motor (110)
Regarding claim 4:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Roshdy also teaches:
wherein the motor is an electric motor ([0020]-[0021])
Regarding claim 5:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Roshdy also teaches:
wherein the deflection is based on a position of the shaft of the motor sensed by the first sensor and a position of the shaft sensed by the second sensor(abstract, [0022], [0028]-[0030], [0035])
Regarding claim 7:Roshdy teaches (FIG. 2) a method for an electric motor comprising a first sensor (one of 138 and 140) and a second sensor (the other one of 138 and 140) arranged on a shaft of the electric motor ([0020]-[0021]), the method, comprising:
measuring a deflection of the shaft based on feedback from the first sensor and the second sensor; and calculating a torque applied to the shaft based on the deflection of the shaft(abstract, [0022], [0028]-[0030], [0035])
Regarding claim 9:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Roshdy also teaches:
wherein the deflection of the shaft includes a shear stress and an angular deflection (inherent - the torsional motion / torque of the shaft inherently causes a shear stress and, as set forth above, Roshdy explicitly teaches the angular deflection)
Regarding claim 13:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Roshdy also teaches:
further comprising correcting an offset between the first sensor and the second sensor when the torque is zero (e.g., [0030]-[0031])
Regarding claim 14:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Roshdy also teaches:
wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are position sensors (e.g., [0028], [0025])
Regarding claim 15:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Roshdy also teaches:
wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are identical (e.g., [0028], [0025])
Regarding claim 16:Roshdy teaches (FIG. 2) a system, comprising:
an electric ([0020]-[0021]) motor (110); a shaft (126) coupled to the electric motor; a first sensor (one of 138 and 140) arranged on the shaft adjacent to a first side of the electric motor; a second sensor (the other one of 138 and 140) arranged on the shaft adjacent to a second side of the electric motor, the second side opposite the first side; and
a controller comprising computer-readable instructions stored in memory thereof that when executed cause the controller to: measure a deflection of the shaft based on feedback from the first sensor and the second sensor; and calculate a torque of the shaft directly based on the deflection(abstract, [0022], [0028]-[0030], [0035])
Regarding claim 19:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Roshdy also teaches:
wherein the deflection accounts for an angular deflection and a shear stress of the shaft (inherent - the torsional motion / torque of the shaft inherently causes a shear stress and, as set forth above, Roshdy explicitly teaches the angular deflection)
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roshdy et al. (US 20240410267 A1) in view of Adam et al. (US 20220239188 A1).Regarding claim 3:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Roshdy fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are arranged outside of a housing of the motorAdam teaches:
wherein the sensors are arranged outside of a housing of the motor ([0037])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the sensors outside of the motor housing, as taught by Adam, in the device of Roshdy, to protect them from potential high temperatures or other potential hostile environmental factors in the motor.
Regarding claim 20:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Roshdy also teaches:
wherein the electric motor comprises a housing (FIG. 2 - 124)Roshdy fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are pressed against exterior surfaces of the housingAdam teaches:
wherein the sensors are arranged outside of a housing of the motor and pressed against exterior surfaces of the housing ([0037], [0039])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the sensors outside of the motor housing and pressed against exterior surfaces thereof, as taught by Adam, in the device of Roshdy, to protect them from potential high temperatures or other potential hostile environmental factors in the motor.
Claims 6, 8, 10-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roshdy et al. (US 20240410267 A1).Regarding claim 6:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Roshdy renders obvious:
wherein the instructions further cause the controller to adjust operation of the motor in response to the torque being unequal to a commanded torque
Roshdy teaches ([0037]) that the expected power / torque may differ from the actual, measured power/torque and that the difference may be accurately monitored. Roshy also teaches that unexpected changes to the torque output may forecast inefficient operating parameters ([0003]). The examiner holds it is well-known to adjust operation of a motor when the actual, measured torque differs from the expected / requested torque. E.g., if the operator / system expects or wants the motor to produce X torque but the actual, measured torque output is Y, it is well-known to make adjustments such that the motor actually produces the required / requested torque.
Regarding claim 8:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Roshdy renders obvious:
adjusting operation of the electric motor in response to the torque being unequal to a commanded torque
Roshdy teaches ([0037]) that the expected power / torque may differ from the actual, measured power/torque and that the difference may be accurately monitored. Roshy also teaches that unexpected changes to the torque output may forecast inefficient operating parameters ([0003]). The examiner holds it is well-known to adjust operation of a motor when the actual, measured torque differs from the expected / requested torque. E.g., if the operator / system expects or wants the motor to produce X torque but the actual, measured torque output is Y, it is well-known to make adjustments such that the motor actually produces the required / requested torque.
Regarding claim 10:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Roshdy renders obvious:
wherein the shaft is solid
The examiner takes Official notice / holds that it is well-known that electric motor shafts may be solid or hollow. The ratio between the angular offset / “ShaftTwistAngle” and the torque depends on the shaft type, size, etc. Roshdy explicitly teaches ([0036]) that this ratio (determined by the “correction factor”) varies based on shaft type, size, etc.
Regarding claim 11:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Roshdy renders obvious:
wherein the shaft is hollow
The examiner takes Official notice / holds that it is well-known that electric motor shafts may be solid or hollow. The ratio between the angular offset / “ShaftTwistAngle” and the torque depends on the shaft type, size, etc. Roshdy explicitly teaches ([0036]) that this ratio (determined by the “correction factor”) varies based on shaft type, size, etc.
Regarding claim 18:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Roshdy renders obvious:
wherein the first sensor is arranged between a gear and the electric motor
Specifically, sensor 140 (FIG. 2) is arranged between the actual motor part (e.g., 128, 130; [0020]-[0021]) and where the shaft 126 exits to where it will provide the torque (top of FIG. 2). The examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known to use a gear to transmit the torque of a shaft (e.g., to a pump such as in Roshdy). Any gear would inherently need to be placed above (up relative to FIG. 2) the sensor 140 to transfer the shaft torque. This results in the sensor being arranged between the gear and the electric motor.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roshdy et al. (US 20240410267 A1) in view of West et al. (US 20090066281 A1).Regarding claim 12:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Roshdy fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the electric motor is coupled to an inverterWest teaches:
wherein the electric motor is coupled to an inverter ([0023])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the electric motor to an inverter, as taught by West, in the device of Roshdy, as it is a well-known and art-recognized suitable means for supplying current to an electric motor.
Regarding claim 17:Roshdy teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Roshdy fails to explicitly teach:
wherein an inverter is coupled to the electric motorWest teaches:
wherein an inverter is coupled to the electric motor ([0023])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the electric motor to an inverter, as taught by West, in the device of Roshdy, as it is a well-known and art-recognized suitable means for supplying current to an electric motor.
The combination of Roshdy and West render obvious “wherein the instructions further cause the controller to adjust commands sent to the inverter to adjust operation of the electric motor in response to the torque being unequal to a commanded torque”. Roshdy teaches ([0037]) that the expected power / torque may differ from the actual, measured power/torque and that the difference may be accurately monitored. Roshy also teaches that unexpected changes to the torque output may forecast inefficient operating parameters ([0003]). The examiner holds it is well-known to adjust operation of a motor when the actual, measured torque differs from the expected / requested torque. E.g., if the operator / system expects or wants the motor to produce X torque but the actual, measured torque output is Y, it is well-known to make adjustments such that the motor actually produces the required / requested torque.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855