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 .
Status of the Application
Claim 1-6, 10, 12-15, and 20 have been amended. Claim 1-20 are in pending status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages.7-8 of the remarks, filed on 8/7/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5-10, 14-18, and 19 under Chae (Pub: 2015/0364982) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Chae in view of Montminy (Patent: 5946210) to support the amended claimed limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, and 11 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.
Claim 3-4, and 12-13, and 19 are also objected due to their dependency over the claim 2 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
5. Claim 1, 5-10, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae (Pub: 2015/0364982) in view of Montminy (Patent: 5946210).
6. Regarding claim 1, Chae discloses:
A method, comprising: determining, by one or more processors of a machine (Fig. 2, converter system 200), a power demand of the machine according to a load (Fig. 2, Load 250);
each combination of power converters corresponding to a respective power output which combines to the power demand (e.g., The mapping information may be stored in a form of an efficiency map, and the memory 210 may store an efficiency map indicating the number of converter modules which can process processing power with optimum efficiency.
FIG. 3 is a graph showing an example of an efficiency map stored in the memory of FIG. 2.
In FIG. 3, a horizontal axis represents power processed by the converter system 200. Further, a vertical axis represents the number of converter modules which creates optimum efficiency for each of the processing power.
Referring to FIG. 3, when the converter system 200 processes power of 100 W, the number of converter modules which create optimum efficiency is 1. When the converter system 200 processes power of 200 W, the number of converter modules which creates optimum efficiency is 2. In the graph of FIG. 3, a boundary part may be understood as having a value of a previous state. For example, when processing power is 300 W in the graph, the number of converter modules may be 2 or 3. In this case, if the number of converter modules was 2 in a previous state, the converter system 200 continuously maintains the number of converter modules as 2. In contrast, if the number of converter modules was 3 in a previous state, the converter system 200 continuously maintains the number of converter modules as 3.
Such an efficiency map can be acquired through an experiment. For example, an engineer first configures processing power as 100 W, 200 W, . . . , 800 W and the like and may find the number of converter modules which creates maximum efficiency while changing the number of converter modules. The efficiency map may be determined according to values acquired through the experiment.
The efficiency map may be acquired through calculation or modeling. For example, when there is a loss model of the converter module, the number of converter modules which generates a minimum loss in each of the processing power may be found using the loss model. The efficiency map may be determined according to a value acquired through the calculation.
Meanwhile, in FIG. 3, one axis of the efficiency map is represented by processing power and the other axis is represented by the number of converter modules, but they are represented by other values in the efficiency map.
For example, one axis of the efficiency map may be represented by input power. Since the processing power of the converter system 200 is proportional to the input power, the input power may be used as an index which replaces the processing power.
As a result, the efficiency map may be understood as mapping of first parameters corresponding to the processing power and second parameters corresponding to the number of converter modules which can process the processing power with the optimum efficiency. Here, the first parameter may be the processing power or the input power. Alternatively, the first parameter may be input current amounts. When a voltage is constant, since the input power is determined according to the input current amounts, the input current amounts may be used as an index corresponding to the processing power) (Para. [0048]-[0056]);
selecting, by the one or more processors, a combination of power converters from the plurality of combinations, according to an efficiency metric of the combination satisfying one or more selection criterion (e.g., The controller 220 may select the number of converter modules corresponding to the calculated second parameter value as active converter modules and process processing power of the converter system 200 by using the active converter modules) (Para. [0064]);
and operating, by the one or more processors, the machine according to the selected combination of power converters, to produce power for the load according to the power demand (e.g., The controller 220 may selectively operate the converter modules 230 by using the current reference values. For example, the controller 220 may select the number of converter modules corresponding to the second parameter value from the converter modules and transmit a current reference value corresponding to 0 Ampere (A) to converter modules which are not selected, so as not to operate the corresponding converter modules) (Para. [0075]).
As previously mentioned and discussed during the interview the prior art Chae teaches the pre-stored efficiency metrics for combination of the power converters rather than claimed generating or calculating of efficiency metrics.
Chae does not specifically teach generating, by the one or more processors, for each combination of a plurality of combinations of power converters, efficiency metrics of the machine when operated with a respective combinations of power converter.
Montminy teaches generating, by the one or more processors, for each combination of a plurality of combinations of power converters, efficiency metrics of the machine when operated with a respective combinations of power converter (e.g., If more than one configuration passes the previous step, the converter generator will then evaluate (step 180) each configuration's design metrics, including efficiency (Eff, column 268), lead time (LT, column 270), cost (column 272), and reliability (mean time between failure, MTBF, column 274), and select (step 182) the configuration that is optimal with respect to the user selected design metrics. In one example, a user specifies the efficiency design metric, and the converter generator calculates (step 276) the efficiency of each configuration by calculating the power dissipation of each component in the configuration at NLNL and then summing these values. The converter generator then selects the most efficient configuration. Instead of selecting one design metric, the user may choose a weighted combination of two or more design metrics) (Col. 15. Ln. 20-41).
Because Montminy is also directed to configuring power converters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Chae and Montminy before him/her, to modify the teachings of Chae to include the teaching of Montminy in order to selecting one of the alternative power converter configurations that tends to have optimal efficiency (Montminy: Col. 2, Ln. 38-41)
7. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chae and Montminy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Chae further teaches the plurality of combinations of power converters are in parallel with one another and include one or more parallel DC to DC converters (e.g., Hereinafter, although an embodiment in which the converter module 230 has a form of a DC-DC converter will be described for the convenience of the description, the present invention is not limited thereto) (Para. [0044]).
8. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chae and Montminy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Chae further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, state of the machine; and selecting, by the one or more processors, the combination of power converters according to the efficiency metric and the state of the machine (e.g., a module selector for configuring a value of the first parameter according to a sensing value for input power or output power, calculating a value of the second parameter by substituting the value of the first parameter into the efficiency map, selecting the number of converter modules corresponding to the value of the second parameter as active converter modules from the converter modules, and transmitting enable signals; and a reference value generator for generating current reference value signals for some or all of the converter modules) (Para. [0013]).
9. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chae and Montminy teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Chae further teaches the efficiency metric is based on at least one of a load of the machine (e.g., The converter system according to the present invention operates the number of converter modules which creates optimum efficiency according to power throughput to operate with high efficiency during entire load operation intervals) (Para. [0037]), a battery state, the state of the machine, and a traction bus on the machine.
10. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chae and Montminy teaches the method of claim 7, wherein Chae further teaches the battery state comprises a state of voltage (e.g., Referring to FIG. 5, the digital controller 410 receives an input current (iin), an input voltage (vin), an output current (io), and a battery voltage (vb) as sensing values. Here, since the output voltage of the converter system 400 is fixed to the battery voltage (vb), the battery voltage (vb) may be actually understood as the output voltage of the converter system 400) (Para. [0090]), a state of health, or a state of charge.
11. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chae and Montminy teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Chae further teaches the state of the machine further comprises one or more operator commands indicative of the load or a predicted load (Refer Para. [0043]-[0044], Fig. 2).
12. Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 recites a machine that implement the method of claim 1, with substantially the same limitations, respectively. Therefore the rejection applied to claim 1, also applies to claim 10 respectively.
13. Regarding claim 14-18, as to claim 14-18, applicant is directed to citation of claim 5-9, respectively as above.
14. Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 recites a power controller that implement the method of claim 1, with substantially the same limitations, respectively. Therefore the rejection applied to claim 1, also applies to claim 20 respectively.
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 JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at (571)272-9774. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights