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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “the controller arranged to maintain flux in the rotor during a pulsed operation, so that when the EESM is in a pulse off state flux is maintained in the rotor” and “when the EESM is in a pulse off state in order to maintain flux in the rotor.”
Claims 1 and 11 recite the magnetic flux in the rotor is maintained during an ON and OFF pulse period or frequency of the pulsing which been used as parameters determined by the claimed “arrangement” of the controller. However, it is recited in the disclosure paragraph [0071] that “It should be appreciated that there are a number of factors that may go into the determination of the appropriate pulsing threshold for any particular motor/generator speed;” however, the disclosure only provides one particular scenario and one data point based on which the decision is made for determining pulse duration during which the flux is maintained (see paragraph [0075]). The state of the prior art shows that maintaining the flux in the rotor of an electric motor is highly unpredictable, as engineers were not able to successfully apply it universally. The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is significant as evidenced by the fact that the deciding pulse duration during which the flux is maintained differs according to the nature of the motor and the operation circumstances involved.
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- 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “the controller arranged to maintain flux in the rotor during a pulsed operation, so that when the EESM is in a pulse off state flux is maintained in the rotor” and “when the EESM is in a pulse off state in order to maintain flux in the rotor.” The limitation recites the controller is “arranged” so the flux is maintained during a pulse cycle ON/OFF. It’s not clear what modulation scheme is been used to guarantee the magnetic flux is been prevented “maintained” from leaking due to magnetic flux oriented losses. The specification recites “the torque modulation decision module 62 may use algorithmic or other suitable approaches to make such decisions” ¶. [0073] without providing details structures or algorithm on how to perform the claimed function. The limitation the controller arranged to maintain flux in the rotor during a pulsed operation, so that when the EESM is in a pulse off state flux is maintained in the rotor” and “when the EESM is in a pulse off state in order to maintain flux in the rotor” recited in claims 1 and 11 render the claims indefinite, because the claims includes elements and functions not actually disclosed (those encompassed by the arrangement of the controller), thereby rendering the claims confusing, vague, and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “the controller is arranged to.” It’s not clear what it is been arranged within the controller since the controller does not comprise any elements. Hence, the phrase “arranged” recited in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite, because the claims includes elements and functions not actually disclosed (those encompassed by the arrangement of the controller), thereby rendering the claims confusing, vague, and indefinite.
Claims 2- 10 and 12- 18 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claims 1 and 11, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
4. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Conner (US 4845418 A).
Re. claim 1 and 11, Mazda discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a power supply (power section 12);
Mazda discloses motor 11 is an AC induction motor (Stator and Rotor in Fig. 3C); not an externally excited synchronous machine; however, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Mazda invention in externally excited synchronous machine since WRSMs have comparable power density to permanent magnet motors and are comparable to less expensive induction motors.
a controller (control section 21) coupled between the power supply (12) and the motor (11),
the controller arranged to maintain flux in the rotor during a pulsed operation (during the first pulse of first 150 msec), so that when the motor is in a pulse off (second time constant) state flux is maintained in the rotor (improved flux buildup).
Conner also teaches providing power through a rotor charging circuit from a power source to a rotor when the EESM is in a pulse on state (Fig. 3C shows current pulses provided to rotor); and providing a first rotor discharge circuit of a low impedance across rotor terminals when the EESM is in a pulse off state (second time constant in Fig. 3A) in order to maintain flux in the rotor (improved flux buildup).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2- 10 and 12- 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)-(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846