DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 10-25 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Note on Claim Interpretation
The claims are directed towards a “controller,” or apparatus, but include limitations like “works to control […],” or “determines […].” These limitations are method-like limitations that have been interpreted as limitations of intended use, such that prior art controllers which are capable of the intended step read on the positively claimed structural features. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F. 3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
The claims should be rewritten such that the controller is “programmed to [perform a specific step].”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-15, 18-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ieoka (JP 2014-072955 to Ieoka, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Saha (US 2017/0305274 to Saha et al.) and Kishibata (US 2013/0234446 to Kishibata et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Ieoka teaches:
a temperature raising controller for use with an electrical power system comprising an electrical storage device 70 (Fig. 1, ¶ 0002 and 0014)
a rotating electrical machine 80 with multi-phase windings (¶ 0014)
an inverter which 10 which includes upper and lower arm switches connected in series for a respective one of the multiple phases, each of the joints of the upper and lower arm switches being connected to a first end of a corresponding one of the multi-phase windings (Fig. 1, ¶ 0015-0017)
PNG
media_image1.png
1050
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
positive and negative electrical paths connected to high and low potential terminals of the electrical storage device (Fig. 1)
a capacitor 21 disposed between the positive and negative electrical paths (Fig. 1, ¶ 0019)
power supply switches 31/33 disposed between the battery and the capacitor in the positive and negative electrical paths (Fig. 1, ¶ 0020-0021)
the temperature raising controller works to control a switching operation of the inverter to create a flow of ripple current in a form of a d-axis current between the battery and the capacity with the power supply switch(es) closed, thereby raising the temperature of the battery (¶ 0030-0031)
the controller comprising a determiner which determines a voltage of the smoothing capacitor, and therefore, in principle, an overvoltage (¶ 0022)
Ieoka does not teach:
a controller programmed to determine an overvoltage condition and then perform a condition control mode of opening a first switch combination of upper arm switches or lower arm switches, and closing a second switch combination of lower arm switches or upper arms to circulate electrical current between the inverter and the rotating electrical machine
Saha, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery powering a rotating motor with an inverter, teaches that abnormalities can generate an overvoltage in the circuit with the battery which can damage it (¶ 0005, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Saha, therefore, teaches an active short circuit control method of opening all of the arms of either the upper or the lower switches 31/32 in the multi-phase inverter to circulate current between the inverter and the motor circuit (¶ 0054). Similarly, Kishibata teaches an overvoltage determination means 17, and an active short circuit control method of opening one side of the inverter switches (¶ 0072). It would have been obvious to modify the temperature-raising control method of Ieoka to include an overvoltage determining means in the controller and an active short circuit control method, such as those taught in Saha and Kishibata, with the motivation to prevent excessive current from flowing into the battery during the operation. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Ieoka teaches:
reverse-parallel diodes at the upper and lower arm switches, as claimed
Saha and Kishibata render obvious opening either all the upper or lower arm switches to perform the active short circuit control method. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 13, Saha and Kishibata render obvious:
shorting during an overvoltage condition
Eventually, the shorting will reduce the voltage difference, allowing for a resumption of normal operation, including a return to a temperature raising control method as taught in Ieoka. This simple on-off formula for shorting excess voltage reads on the claim as written, and is obvious, as once the overvoltage condition is detected, a “second time period” begins in which the active shorting is desirable, and then a third period would begin once the overvoltage condition no longer applies.
Regarding Claim 14, Ieoka teaches:
the main switch 33 and a sub-switch 32 with a resistor 34 in parallel to the main switch, as claimed, the current flowing through the resistor to heat the battery during the warming method (Fig. 1, ¶ 0022)
Regarding Claim 15, Ieoka teaches:
monitoring the capacitor voltage
Wherein Saha and Kishibata teach monitoring for an overvoltage condition in either the inverter circuit or at the capacitor to prevent excess current flooding the battery. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 18, Saha and Kishibata render obvious:
resuming normal operating when the overvoltage no longer applies because the voltage drops due to the active short circuit control
Regarding Claim 19, Saha and Kishibata render obvious:
Opening either all the upper or lower arm switches to perform the active short circuit control method. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to alternately apply the open/closed switches absent evidence of unexpected results from the alternation.
Regarding Claim 20, Saha and Kishibata render obvious:
shorting during an overvoltage condition
Eventually, the shorting will reduce the voltage difference, allowing for a resumption of normal operation, including a return to a temperature raising control method as taught in Ieoka. This simple on-off formula for shorting excess voltage reads on the claim as written, and is obvious, as once the overvoltage condition is detected, a “second time period” begins in which the active shorting is desirable, and then a third period would begin once the overvoltage condition no longer applies.
Regarding Claim 21, Ieoka teaches:
the main switch 33 and a sub-switch 32 with a resistor 34 in parallel to the main switch, as claimed, the current flowing through the resistor to heat the battery during the warming method (Fig. 1, ¶ 0022)
Regarding Claim 22, Ieoka teaches:
monitoring the capacitor voltage
Wherein Saha and Kishibata teach monitoring for an overvoltage condition in either the inverter circuit or at the capacitor to prevent excess current flooding the battery. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 25, Saha and Kishibata render obvious:
resuming normal operating when the overvoltage no longer applies because the voltage drops due to the active short circuit control
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 and 23-24 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. The claims should be rewritten such that the limitations include “controller programmed to” language.
The prior art does not appear to teach or render obvious the controller being programmed to determine an overvoltage condition is satisfied if the temperature raising time period during the temperature raising control method is longer than a predetermined time period threshold.
Further art relevant to the instant claims but that do not teach the above limitation include:
DE102015108691
JP 2006-187085
US Patent No. 10,886,867
US Patent No. 12,470,164
US 2023/0238603
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights