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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Murota WO2025032792 , translation provided by Examiner.
Re Claim 1, Murota discloses a multi-input charging device, the device comprising: a disconnector actuator system (DAS) controller (controller) configured to release an engagement of a DAS in response to receipt of a multi-charging input signal (P24, P58) ;
a charging efficiency calculator configured to calculate a charging efficiency of a battery according to a rotor position of a rotor of a drive motor (P44, P45), ;
a rotor controller configured to change the rotor position through a motor speed control until a particular rotor position having a highest charging efficiency is detected; and a charging controller configured to start multi-charging at the particular rotor position (P44, P45,P59 P70, P80. the rotor is rotated within a position (or within a predetermined range close to the position) of the rotor at which the inductance L of the motor 3 becomes the maximum value, and the rotor is stopped at that position the controller 4 adjusts the rotor position of the motor 3 the position of the rotor of the motor 3 can be set so that the inductance L of the motor 3 becomes the maximum value or a value close thereto).
Re Claim 2, Murota discloses The device of claim 1, wherein, in a state in which a multi-charging protection mode is set, the DAS controller is configured to confirm conditions of parking gear engagement and a motor speed of 0 kilometer per hour (KPH) and to release the engagement of the DAS in response to the receipt of the multi-charging input signal from a charging station (P58-59).
Re Claim 3, Murota discloses the device of claim 1, wherein, in a state in which the rotor is fixed at the particular rotor position, the DAS controller is configured to re-engage the DAS (P5, P45, P59-60) .
Re Claim 4, Murota discloses The device of claim 1, wherein the charging efficiency calculator is configured to calculate the charging efficiency of the battery by comparing an input voltage and an input current input from a charging station to the battery with an output voltage and an output current of the battery (P44).
Re Claim 5, Murota discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the rotor controller is configured to change the rotor position by a particular angle at a preset period (P12, P30).
Re Claim 7, Muorta discloses the device of claim 5, wherein, after the rotor position is changed at the preset period, the charging efficiency calculator is configured to calculate a first charging efficiency of the battery at a first rotor position before the change and a second charging efficiency of the battery at a second rotor position after the change (P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 8, Muorta discloses the device of claim 7, wherein, in response to a determination that the second charging efficiency is higher than the first charging efficiency, the rotor controller is configured to continue to change the rotor position by the particular angle at the preset period (P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 9, Muorta discloses the device of claim 7, wherein, in response to a determination that the first charging efficiency is higher than or equal to the second charging efficiency, the rotor controller is configured to fix the rotor position to the first rotor position before the change (P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 10, Muorta discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the rotor and a stator of the drive motor are aligned at the particular rotor position (P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 11, Muorta discloses a multi-input charging method, the method comprising:
releasing an engagement of a disconnector actuator system (DAS) in response to receiving a multi-charging input signal (P24, P58);
confirming a first rotor position of a rotor of a drive motor; calculating a first charging efficiency of a battery at the first rotor position through an initial charging current; changing the first rotor position to a second rotor position through a motor speed control; calculating a second charging efficiency of the battery at the second rotor position; fixing the rotor to a particular rotor position, wherein the particular rotor position is a rotor position having a highest charging efficiency; and starting multi-charging by re-engaging the DAS after fixing the rotor to the particular rotor position (P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 12, Muorta discloses the method of claim 11, wherein releasing the engagement of the DAS comprises: confirming conditions of parking gear engagement and a motor speed of 0 kilometer per hour (KPH); and in a state in which a multi-charging protection mode is set, releasing the engagement of the DAS in response to the multi-charging input signal being received from a charging station(P58-59).
Re Claim 13, Muorta discloses the method of claim 11, wherein confirming the first rotor position comprises confirming the first rotor position based on an angle detected through a resolver of the drive motor in a stopped state(P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 14, Muorta discloses The method of claim 11, wherein changing the first rotor position and changing the second rotor position each comprise rotating a resolver angle of the rotor by a particular angle at a preset period(P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 16, Muorta discloses The method of claim 11, wherein calculating the first charging efficiency of the battery at the first rotor position and calculating the second charging efficiency of the battery at the second rotor position each comprise comparing an input voltage and an input current input from a charging station to the battery with an output voltage and an output current of the battery(P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 17, Muorta discloses The method of claim 11, further comprising: comparing the first charging efficiency to the second charging efficiency; changing the second rotor position to a third rotor position in response to a determination that the second charging efficiency is higher than the first charging efficiency; calculating a third charging efficiency of the battery at the third rotor position; and comparing the second charging efficiency to the third charging efficiency(P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 18, Muorta discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising: determining the second rotor position is the particular rotor position in response to a determination that the second charging efficiency is higher than or equal to the third charging efficiency; and determining the third rotor position is the particular rotor position in response to a determination that the second charging efficiency is lower than the third charging efficiency(P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 19, Muorta discloses The method of claim 11, further comprising: comparing the first charging efficiency to the second charging efficiency; and determining the first rotor position having the first charging efficiency is the particular rotor position in response to the first charging efficiency being higher than or equal to the second charging efficiency(P44, P45,P59 P70, P80).
Re Claim 20, Muorta discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the rotor and a stator of the drive motor are aligned at the particular rotor position (P39, P42, P43, P56) .
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) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murota WO2025032792 translation provided by Examiner in view of Bin et al. US Publication No. 2022/0203847.
Re Claim 6, Muorta discloses the device of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the particular angle is an angle of a resolver corresponding to an electrical angle of a predetermined level.
Bin discloses wherein the particular angle is an angle of a resolver corresponding to an electrical angle of a predetermined level(P15,P22, P64, P66, P71, P100-102).
Given the teachings of Bin it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Muorta with wherein the particular angle is an angle of a resolver corresponding to an electrical angle of a predetermined level.
Doing so would provide the required travel distance to be moved to correct the rotor angle using the electric angle difference and a tire dynamic radius (P15).
Re Claim 15, Muorta discloses The method of claim 14.
Murota fails to disclose wherein rotating the resolver angle of the rotor by the particular angle comprises rotating an angle of the rotor by an electrical angle corresponding to the particular angle.
Bin discloses wherein rotating the resolver angle of the rotor by the particular angle comprises rotating an angle of the rotor by an electrical angle corresponding to the particular angle (P15,P22, P64, P66, P71, P100-102).
Given the teachings of Bin it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Muorta with wherein rotating the resolver angle of the rotor by the particular angle comprises rotating an angle of the rotor by an electrical angle corresponding to the particular angle.
Doing so would provide the required travel distance to be moved to correct the rotor angle using the electric angle difference and a tire dynamic radius (P15).
Conclusion
The following reference is cited but not relied upon:
Mollahan et al discloses rein the reserve state of charge is computed based on an energy efficiency of the electric aircraft while the rotors are in the second position, and wherein the buffer state of charge is computed based on an energy efficiency of the electric aircraft while the rotors are in the first position
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI N JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5266. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
SONJI N. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/SONJI N JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights