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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s remarks, but respectfully disagrees that Chen in view of Knoener fails to teach all the limitations of amended Claim 1.
Applicant argues, see page 8, “Chen fails to teach determining "a target fan speed, from a range of fan speeds, according to a combination of the cooling load and the selected operation mode" nevermind that the range of fan speeds "is a continuous range of fan speeds" as recited in amended claim 1. In particular, Chen does not describe any determination of a fan speed according to "a combination of the cooling load and the selected operation mode." In contrast, in Chen, the fan speed is determined solely by the selected operation mode: high/low/off”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the selected operation mode is determined according to the cooling load, see Chen paragraph 0021. Therefore, Examiner asserts that the fan speed is determined according to a combination of the cooling load and the selected operation mode as claimed.
Applicant further argues “Chen does not determine a target fan speed. Instead, Chen simply selects from the three modes (high/low/off), where each mode has a discrete fan speed associated with that mode (e.g., low speed, high speed, off). See, e.g., FIG. 2, [0020] - [0021]. Chen does not teach or suggest determining a target fan speed, let alone one determined from the combined consideration of the resistor grid's cooling load and the fan's operation mode”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner asserts that selecting an operation mode does determine a target fan speed, where the target speed is the discrete speed in that mode. The fact that the fan speed is discrete does not prohibit it from being the target speed. Examiner further asserts that the range of fan speeds is a continuous range, the range being from one operation mode to another. The target fan speeds are only at specific points along the range, but the fan speeds themselves do create a continuous range. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
The rejection of Claim 1 has been updated under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 29 objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of “the electric vehicle” at the end of Claims 26 and 29 should be corrected to “the electric drive machine” in order to stay consistent with the rest of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 26 (the second one), 27, and 28 have been renumbered 27, 28, and 29.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., hereafter Chen (CN 104454611) in view of Knoener et al., hereafter Knoener (US 20180339376).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a system comprising: a resistor grid electrically coupled to a motor of an electric drive machine (paragraphs 0002, 0006 – braking resistor as resistor grid);
a fan coupled to the resistor grid (paragraph 0021 – braking resistor blower as fan), the fan operable in two or more operation modes (paragraph 0021 – high-speed operation and low-speed operation as two operation modes);
a control circuit (paragraph 0055; Fig. 2), the control circuit to:
determine a cooling load of the resistor grid, wherein the cooling load is determined according to an immediate or predicted discharge duty of the resistor grid (paragraph 0021);
select, from two or mode operation modes of the fan, an operation mode in which to operate the fan (paragraph 00221);
determine a target fan speed, from a range of fan speeds, according to a combination of the cooling load and the selected operation mode, wherein the range of fan speeds is a continuous range of fan speeds (paragraph 0021); and
provide an output corresponding to the target fan speed to the fan (paragraph 0021),
wherein, when operated in a first operation mode, the fan is operated at or about the target fan speed such that an amount of noise produced by the operation of the fan is minimized (paragraph 0021 – low speed operation as first operation mode), and when operated in a second operation mode, the fan is operated at or about a maximum fan speed such that an amount of cooling produced by the operation of the fan is maximized (paragraph 0021 – high-speed operation as second operation mode).
However, Chen fails to explicitly teach the control circuit comprising one or more processors and memory structured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control circuit to determine…
Chen does teach that the circuit is controlled by a control unit (paragraphs 0053,0054).
Knoener teaches a system with a fan for cooling electric machine components where the fan can operate in different modes (paragraph 0014), the system including a controller comprising a circuit (paragraph 0033) where the controller includes a processor and memory that stores instructions to operate the circuit and fan (paragraphs 0014, 0036). Chen and Knoener are analogous prior art as they each relate to control systems for cooling fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the control circuit taught by Chen would have a processor and memory as taught by Knoener, as Knoener teaches that such arrangements are well known in the art to operate the control circuit (Knoener paragraphs 0014,0036).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
Knoener further teaches wherein the fan is operable in the two or more operation modes based on an amount of power provided to a fan motor of the fan (paragraph 0009 – power output). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the fan taught by Chen could be operable based on an amount of power provided to a fan motor of the fan, as Knoener teaches that such an operation parameter for controlling fans is one of a finite number of well known solutions in the art for providing a desired output (paragraph 0009).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
Knoener further teaches wherein the control circuit selects between the two or more operation modes in response to an input from an operator of the electric drive machine (paragraph 0024 – controller receives input from operator). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the control circuit taught by Chen could select between operation modes in response to an input from an operation in order to provide manual control over the system (Knoener paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen teaches an electric drive machine comprising: a resistor grid electrically coupled to a motor of an electric drive machine (paragraphs 0002, 0006 – braking resistor as resistor grid);
a fan coupled to the resistor grid (paragraph 0021 – braking resistor blower as fan), the fan operable in two or more operation modes (paragraph 0021 – high-speed operation and low-speed operation as two operation modes); and
a control circuit (paragraph 0055; Fig. 2), the control circuit to:
determine a cooling load of the resistor grid, wherein the cooling load is determined according to an immediate or predicted discharge duty of the resistor grid (paragraph 0021);
select, from two or more operation modes of the fan, an operation mode in which to operate the fan (paragraph 0021);
determine a target fan speed, from a range of fan speeds, according to a combination of the cooling load for the resistor grid and the selected operation mode, wherein the range of fan speeds is a continuous range of fan speeds (paragraph 0021); and
provide an output corresponding to the target fan speed to the fan (paragraph 0021),
wherein, when operated in a first operation mode, the fan is operated at or about the target fan speed such that an amount of noise produced by the operation of the fan is minimized (paragraph 0021 – low speed operation as first operation mode), and when operated in a second operation mode, the fan is operated at or about a maximum fan speed such that an amount of cooling produced by the operation of the fan is maximized (paragraph 0021 – high-speed operation as second operation mode).
However, Chen fails to explicitly teach the control circuit comprising one or more processors and memory structured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control circuit to determine…
Chen does teach that the circuit is controlled by a control unit (paragraphs 0053,0054).
Knoener teaches a system with a fan for cooling electric machine components where the fan can operate in different modes (paragraph 0014), the system including a controller comprising a circuit (paragraph 0033) where the controller includes a processor and memory that stores instructions to operate the circuit and fan (paragraphs 0014, 0036). Chen and Knoener are analogous prior art as they each relate to control systems for cooling fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the control circuit taught by Chen would have a processor and memory as taught by Knoener, as Knoener teaches that such arrangements are well known in the art to operate the control circuit (Knoener paragraphs 0014,0036).
Regarding Claim 21, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 above.
Knoener further teaches wherein the fan is operable in the two or more operation modes based on an amount of power provided to the fan (paragraph 0009 – power output). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the fan taught by Chen could be operable based on an amount of power provided to the fan, as Knoener teaches that such an operation parameter for controlling fans is one of a finite number of well-known solutions in the art for providing a desired output (paragraph 0009).
Regarding Claim 22, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 above.
Knoener further teaches wherein the control circuit selects between the two or more operation modes in response to an input from an operator of the electric drive machine (paragraph 0024 – controller receives input from operator). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the control circuit taught by Chen could select between operation modes in response to an input from an operation in order to provide manual control over the system (Knoener paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 23, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 above. Chen further teaches wherein the control circuit determines the target fan speed according to an elevation of the electric drive machine, an ambient air temperature, an ambient air density, a grade on which the electric drive machine is operated, the cooling load of the resistor grid, or a combination of two or more thereof (paragraph 0021 – speed determined by cooling load of the resistor grid).
Claims 7 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Knoener, further in view of Nikolov et al., hereafter Nikolov (US 20160257201).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
However, Chen as modified by Knoener fails to teach wherein the control circuit determines the target fan speed according to an elevation of the electric drive machine, an ambient air temperature, an ambient air density, a grade on which the electric drive machine is operated, or a combination of two or more thereof.
Chen does teach that the control circuit determines the target fan speed according to the cooling load of the resistor grid (paragraph 0021).
Nikolov teaches a system with a resistor grid coupled to a motor and a fan coupled to the grid, the system including a control circuit that determines a target fan speed according to an ambient air temperature (paragraph 0030,0042; Figs. 1,9). Chen as modified by Knoener and Nikolov are analogous prior art as they each relate to control circuits for fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the control circuit taught by Chen as modified by Knoener could determine the target fan speed according to an ambient air temperature, as Nikolov teaches that such a parameter is one of a finite number of well-known solutions in the art for determining a target fan speed (Nikolov paragraphs 0030,0042).
Regarding Claim 24, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Chen as modified by Knoener fails to teach wherein the cooling load is determined according to a predicted path of the electric drive machine.
Chen does teach that the cooling load is determined according to, in part, the temperature of the brake resistor, and that the cooling load determines the operating speed of the fan (paragraph 0021).
Nikolov teaches a system where the predicted path of the electric drive machine is used to change the operating parameters of the fan (paragraphs 0044, 0047-0049). Chen as modified by Knoener and Nikolov are analogous prior art as they each relate to systems for electric drive machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the cooling load could be determined according to a predicted path of the electric drive machine, as Nikolov teaches that it is well known in the art to determine fan operating parameters according to a predicted path of the electric drive machine (paragraphs 0044, 0047-0049), and Chen teaches that the operating parameters of the fan are determined by the cooling load (paragraph 0021). (Examiner’s note: Examiner also notes that at any given location (i.e. a predicted path), there will inherently be a cooling load associated, or determined by, that location).
Regarding Claim 25, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Chen as modified by Knoener fails to teach wherein the operation mode of the fan is determined according to a position of the electric drive machine such that, when the electric drive machine is positioned in a low-noise operating environment, the fan is operated in the first operation mode.
Nikolov teaches an electric drive machine with a resistor grid coupled to a motor and a fan coupled to the grid, where the operating mode of the fan is determined according to a position of the electric drive machine such that the fan is operated at a lower speed in a low-noise operating environment, in order to reduce the audible noise level of the fan (paragraphs 0044, 0047-0049). Chen as modified by Knoener and Nikolov are analogous prior art as they each relate to electric drive machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the operating mode of the fan taught by Chen could be determined according to a position of the electric drive machine as taught by Nikolov, in order to reduce the audible noise level of the fan (Nikolov paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 26, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Chen as modified by Knoener fails to teach wherein the control circuit determines the operating mode of the fan according to a position of the electric vehicle.
Nikolov teaches a system for an electric drive machine, the system including a control circuit that determines the operating mode of the fan according to a position of the machine in order to reduce the audible noise level of the fan (Nikolov paragraphs 0044, 0047-0049). Chen as modified by Knoener and Nikolov are analogous prior art as they each relate to systems for electric drive machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the control circuit taught by Chen could determine the operating mode of the fan according to a position of the electric drive machine as taught by Nikolov, in order to reduce the audible noise level of the fan (Nikolov paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 27, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 above. However, Chen as modified by Knoener fails to teach wherein the cooling load is determined according to a predicted path of the electric drive machine.
Chen does teach that the cooling load is determined according to, in part, the temperature of the brake resistor, and that the cooling load determines the operating speed of the fan (paragraph 0021).
Nikolov teaches a system where the predicted path of the electric drive machine is used to change the operating parameters of the fan (paragraphs 0044, 0047-0049). Chen as modified by Knoener and Nikolov are analogous prior art as they each relate to systems for electric drive machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the cooling load could be determined according to a predicted path of the electric drive machine, as Nikolov teaches that it is well known in the art to determine fan operating parameters according to a predicted path of the electric drive machine (paragraphs 0044, 0047-0049), and Chen teaches that the operating parameters of the fan are determined by the cooling load (paragraph 0021). (Examiner’s note: Examiner also notes that at any given location (i.e. a predicted path), there will inherently be a cooling load associated, or determined by, that location).
Regarding Claim 28, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 above. However, Chen as modified by Knoener fails to teach wherein the operation mode of the fan is determined according to a position of the electric drive machine such that, when the electric drive machine is positioned in a low-noise operating environment, the fan is operated in the first operation mode.
Nikolov teaches an electric drive machine with a resistor grid coupled to a motor and a fan coupled to the grid, where the operating mode of the fan is determined according to a position of the electric drive machine such that the fan is operated at a lower speed in a low-noise operating environment, in order to reduce the audible noise level of the fan (paragraphs 0044, 0047-0049). Chen as modified by Knoener and Nikolov are analogous prior art as they each relate to electric drive machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the operating mode of the fan taught by Chen could be determined according to a position of the electric drive machine as taught by Nikolov, in order to reduce the audible noise level of the fan (Nikolov paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 29, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 above. However, Chen as modified by Knoener fails to teach wherein the control circuit determines the operating mode of the fan according to a position of the electric vehicle.
Nikolov teaches a system for an electric drive machine, the system including a control circuit that determines the operating mode of the fan according to a position of the machine in order to reduce the audible noise level of the fan (Nikolov paragraphs 0044, 0047-0049). Chen as modified by Knoener and Nikolov are analogous prior art as they each relate to systems for electric drive machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the control circuit taught by Chen could determine the operating mode of the fan according to a position of the electric drive machine as taught by Nikolov, in order to reduce the audible noise level of the fan (Nikolov paragraph 0049).
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Knoener, further in view of Montero et al., hereafter Montero (US 20030015983).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Chen as modified by Knoener fails to teach wherein, when operated in a third fan mode, the fan is operated at or about a fan speed calculated to maximize an operation lifetime of the fan.
Chen does teach that the fan can be operated in a third fan mode (paragraph 0023).
Montero teaches a system including fans for cooling that are operable at a speed such that the fans have an increased life (paragraphs 0015,0027), in order to increase the reliability of the system (paragraph 0015). Chen as modified by Knoener and Montero are analogous prior art as they each relate to systems with fans used for cooling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the fan of Chen could be operated in a third mode where the fan speed is such to maximize an operation lifetime of the fan as taught by Montero, in order to increase the reliability of the system (paragraph 0015).
Regarding Claim 20, Chen as modified by Knoener teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 above. However, Chen as modified by Knoener fails to teach wherein, when operated in a third fan mode, the fan is operated at or about a fan speed calculated to maximize an operation lifetime of the fan.
Chen does teach that the fan can be operated in a third fan mode (paragraph 0023).
Montero teaches a system including fans for cooling that are operable at a speed such that the fans have an increased life (paragraphs 0015,0027), in order to increase the reliability of the system (paragraph 0015). Chen as modified by Knoener and Montero are analogous prior art as they each relate to systems with fans used for cooling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the fan of Chen could be operated in a third mode where the fan speed is such to maximize an operation lifetime of the fan as taught by Montero, in order to increase the reliability of the system (paragraph 0015).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACKSON GILLENWATERS whose telephone number is (469)295-9151. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:00PM ET, M-F.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JACKSON N GILLENWATERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights