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 § 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 – 2, 11 – 15, and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demont (US 2020/0231047 A1 – hereafter “Demont”) in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2024/0091792 A1 – hereafter “Miyamoto”).
As per claim 1, Demont teaches a control device configured to control an electric flight vehicle, the electric flight vehicle (aircraft 100) including an electric drive device (motor 110 driving propeller/rotor) configured to drive and rotate a rotor blade and a cooling unit (heat dissipating systems 111,112) configured to cool the drive device (see para [0057] – [0058]),
the control device comprising: a temperature acquisition unit (temperature sensor monitoring motor 110) configured to acquire temperature of the drive device as a device temperature; and a cooling determination unit (see para [0079], [0093] – [0094]).
However, Demont does not teach the cooling determination unit configured to determine, according to the device temperature, whether a cooling-related abnormality has occurred as an abnormality related to cooling of the drive device by the cooling unit.
Miyamoto teaches a cooling determination unit (control part 8/microcontroller unit 81) configured to determine, according to the device temperature (temperature detected by temperature sensor 12), whether a cooling related abnormality has occurred (cooling system 9 determined abnormal when temperature fails to drop by reference drop temperature t within reference time M) (see para [0048] – [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto to incorporate threshold-based cooling abnormality determination into the electric aircraft motor cooling system in order to reliably distinguish cooling unit failures from normal thermal behavior, thereby improving flight safety.
Regrading claim 2, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the cooling determination unit is configured to determine that the cooling-related abnormality has not occurred when a change mode of the device temperature is within an allowable range, and determine that the cooling-related abnormality has occurred when the change mode of the device temperature is not within the allowable range.”
Demont fails to teach the cooling determination unit is configured to determine that the cooling-related abnormality has not occurred when a change mode of the device temperature is within an allowable range, and determine that the cooling-related abnormality has occurred when the change mode of the device temperature is not within the allowable range.
Miyamoto teaches that the control part 8 monitors the temperature detected by temperature sensor 12 after the cooling system 9 is activated, and determines the cooling system is normal when the temperature drops by the reference drop temperature t within reference time M, and abnormal when the temperature fails to drop by reference amount within the same period (see para [0048] – [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto to incorporate allowable range-based cooling abnormality determination in order to reliably distinguish normal from abnormal cooling behavior in the electric aircraft motor system.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a drive determination unit configured to determine whether an abnormality has occurred in the drive device, wherein the cooling determination unit is configured to determine whether the cooling-related abnormality has occurred when no abnormality has occurred in the drive device.”
Demont teaches that motor controller monitoring systems 113,114 continuously monitor main motor controller 222A for failures, and motor controller 221 isolates drive device faults from other system faults before taking protective action (see para [0115] – [0117]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto to incorporate drive device abnormality determination prior to cooling abnormality determination in order to accurately isolate cooling related faults from drive device faults, improving diagnostic precision.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: an outside air temperature acquisition unit configured to acquire outside air temperature, wherein the cooling determination unit is configured to determine whether the cooling-related abnormality has occurred according to the outside air temperature in addition to the device temperature.”
Demont teaches TMS controller 184 monitors outside air temperature via temperature sensors T disposed at radiator arrangements 152, and uses that ambient temperature data alongside to adjust cooling circuit operation (see para [0040] – [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto to incorporate outside air temperature into cooling abnormality determination in order to improve diagnostic accuracy under varying ambient conditions.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a drive execution unit configured to drive the drive device; and a cooling execution unit configured to cool the drive device by the cooling unit, wherein the cooling determination unit is configured to determine whether the cooling-related abnormality has occurred when the drive execution unit drives the drive device and the cooling execution unit cools the drive device.”
David fails to teach a drive execution unit operating simultaneously during cooling abnormality determination.
Miyamoto teaches that microcontroller unit 81 activities compressor 9a to operate cooling system 9 while simultaneously operating driving device 6 at a predetermined speed, and uses the resulting temperature behavior to assess whether the cooling system is functioning properly (see para [0046] – [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto to incorporate simultaneous drive and cooling execution during abnormality determination in order to accurately assess cooling performance under actual operating conditions.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 13, wherein the cooling unit includes a blower fan configured to be driven and rotated by the drive device and blow air toward the drive device, and the cooling execution unit is configured to cool the drive device by causing the blower fan to blow air.”
Demont teaches that blower fan 111 is mechanically coupled to and driven by motor 110, rotating together with the motor to direct cooling airflow toward the EPU/drive device during operation (see para [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto to incorporate blower fan cooling execution during abnormality determination in order to assess actual fan-based cooling performance during operation.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 13, wherein the cooling unit includes a cooling device configured to perform heat exchange between refrigerant and the drive device, and the cooling execution unit is configured to cool the drive device by driving the cooling device.”
Demont teaches that refrigeration circuit 124 includes compressor 140, condenser 142, and expansion valve 144 operating together to circulate refrigerant and perform heat exchange with the propeller motor arrangements via chiller 136 (see para [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto to incorporate refrigerant-based cooling execution during abnormality determination in order to assess actual refrigerant cooling performance during operation.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the drive device includes a motor and configured to drive and rotate the rotor blade by driving the motor, and the electric flight vehicle is an electric aircraft that flies by being driven by the drive device.”
Demont teaches that motor 110 is a three-phase brushless or permanent magnet synchronous motor mechanically coupled to propeller 227 and rotor 1110, providing thrust-generating drive force that propels aircraft 100 through the air (see para [0057] –[0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto to apply cooling abnormality determination to an electric motor-driven aircraft in order to improve cooling fault detection safety in electric flight vehicles.
As per claim 18, Demont teaches a control device configured to control an electric flight vehicle, the electric flight vehicle (aircraft 100) including an electric drive device (motor 110 driving propeller/rotor) configured to drive and rotate a rotor blade and a cooling device (heat dissipating systems 111,112) configured to cool the drive device (see para [0057] – [0058]),
the control device comprising: a memory storing one or more computer programs; and at least one processor (digital signal processor/FPGA within motor controller 221) configured to execute the one or more computer programs to acquire temperature of the drive device as a device temperature (temperature sensor monitoring motor 110 temperature) (see para [0061] – [0063]; [0093] – [0094]).
However, Demont does not teach the processor configured to determine, according to the device temperature, whether a cooling-related abnormality has occurred as an abnormality related to cooling of the drive device by the cooling device.
Miyamoto teaches that microcontroller unit 81 executes stored program instructions to compare temperature detected by temperature sensor 12 against a reference drop temperature threshold within a reference time period, and determines the cooling system 9 is abnormal when the expected temperature drop is not achieved (see para [0040], [0048] – [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto to incorporate processor-executed cooling abnormality determination based on device temperature threshold comparison in order to provide reliable software-implemented detection of cooling unit failures in the electric flight vehicle, thereby improving operational safety.
Claims 3 – 5 and 7 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda et al. (US 2018/0048003 A1 – hereafter “Ikeda”).
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the cooling determination unit includes a convergence upper limit determination unit, the convergence upper limit determination unit is configured to determine whether the device temperature is higher than a convergence upper limit temperature, which is an upper limit of the temperature at which the device temperature converges in a state where the cooling-related abnormality has not occurred, and the cooling determination unit is configured to determine that the cooling-related abnormality has occurred when the device temperature is higher than the convergence upper limit temperature.”
Demont in view of Miyamoto fail to teach a convergence upper limit determination unit configured to determine whether the device temperature is higher than a convergence upper limit temperature representing the upper limit of normal cooling convergence behavior.
However, Ikeda teaches that controller 200 monitors stack temperature via temperature sensors 46,47 and determines that a cooling-related condition has occurred when the stack temperature exceeds a predetermined upper limit threshold representing the upper boundary of normal operating temperature convergence in the fuel cell cooling system (see para [0151], [0258]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda to incorporate upper limit threshold-based convergence monitoring into the electric aircraft motor cooling system in order to detect cooling abnormalities early when motor temperature rises above the expected convergence range during normal cooling operation.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the convergence upper limit determination unit is configured to determine that an abnormality in the cooling unit has occurred as the cooling-related abnormality.”
Demont in view of Miyamoto fail to teach that the convergence upper limit determination unit specifically determines an abnormality in the cooling unit has occurred as the cooling-related abnormality.
However, Ikeda teaches that when stack temperature exceeds the upper limit, controller 200 identifies this as an abnormality in the cooling unit (cooling water compressor 42) distinguishing cooling unit failure from other system faults (see para [0153]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda to incorporate cooling unit specific abnormality identification based on upper limit temperature exceedance in order to accurately isolate cooling unit failures from other drive system faults.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the cooling determination unit includes a convergence lower limit determination unit configured to, after drive of the drive device is started, after the cooling unit starts cooling of the drive device, and when a convergence reference time, at which the device temperature converges in a state in which the cooling-related abnormality has not occurred, has elapsed, determine whether the device temperature is lower than a convergence lower limit temperature, which is a lower limit of the temperature at which the device temperature converges in a state in which the cooling-related abnormality has not occurred, and the cooling determination unit is configured to determine that the cooling-related abnormality has occurred when the convergence reference time has elapsed and when the device temperature is lower than the convergence lower limit temperature.”
Demont in view of Miyamoto fail to teach a convergence lower limit determination unit configured to determine, after drive starts and cooling starts, whether device temperature is lower than a convergence lower limit temperature when a convergence reference time has elapsed.
However, Ikeda teaches that controller 200 monitors stack cooling water temperature over time after operation begins, and determines an abnormal cooling condition when the stack temperature falls below a predetermined lower limit threshold at a designated time point representing when temperature should have converged to normal operating range (see para [0251], [0283]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda to incorporate lower limit convergence monitoring after a reference time period in order to detect cooling abnormalities where motor temperature fails to reach expected operating range, indicating insufficient cooling system performance.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the cooling determination unit includes a change upper limit determination unit, the change upper limit determination unit is configured to, after drive of the drive device is started, after the cooling unit starts cooling of the drive device, and before a change reference time, which is shorter than a time at which the device temperature converges in a state in which the cooling-related abnormality has not occurred, elapses, determine whether the device temperature becomes higher than a change upper limit temperature, which is lower than a convergence upper limit value at which the device temperature converges in a state where the cooling-related abnormality has not occurred, and the cooling determination unit is configured to determine that the cooling-related abnormality has occurred when the device temperature becomes higher than the change upper limit temperature before the change reference time elapses.”
Demont in view of Miyamoto fail to teach a change upper limit determination unit configured to determine, before a change reference time shorter than the convergence time elapses, whether device temperature exceeds a change upper limit temperature lower than the convergence upper limit value.
However, Ikeda teaches that controller 200 monitors stack temperature during the initial transient period before steady state convergence, and determines a cooling abnormality when temperature exceeds the upper limit threshold during this earlier time window before full convergence is expected (see para [0258], [0331]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda to incorporate early-stage upper limit monitoring before the convergence reference time elapses in order to detect cooling abnormalities sooner during motor operation, improving response time to cooling failures.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the change upper limit determination unit is configured to determine that an abnormality in the cooling unit has occurred as the cooling-related abnormality.”
Demont in view of Miyamoto fail to teach that the change upper limit determination unit specifically determines an abnormality in the cooling unit as the cooling-related abnormality.
However, Ikeda teaches that when stack temperature exceeds the upper limit during operation, controller 200 attributes this to an abnormality in cooling water compressor 42, specifically identifying the cooling unit as the source of the abnormality (see para [0153], [0258]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda to incorporate cooling unit specific abnormality identification via change upper limit monitoring in order to accurately diagnose cooling unit failures during the early transient phase of motor operation.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 1, wherein: the cooling determination unit includes a change lower limit determination unit, the change lower limit determination unit is configured to, after drive of the drive device is started, after the cooling unit starts cooling of the drive device, and when a shortened reference time, which is shorter than a time at which the device temperature converges in a state in which the cooling-related abnormality has not occurred, elapses, determine whether the device temperature is lower than a change lower limit temperature, which is lower than a temperature lower limit value at which the device temperature converges in a state where the cooling-related abnormality has not occurred, and the cooling determination unit is configured to determine that the cooling-related abnormality has occurred when the device temperature is lower than the change lower limit temperature when the shortened reference time has elapsed.
Demont in view of Miyamoto fail to teach a change lower limit determination unit configured to determine, at a shortened reference time shorter than the convergence reference time, whether device temperature is lower than a change lower limit temperature lower than the temperature lower limit value.
However, Ikeda teaches that controller 200 monitors stack temperature at a shortened time interval during the dry operation, and determines a cooling abnormality when temperature falls below a lower limit threshold at this shortened reference point, enabling earlier detection of insufficient cooling before full convergence time elapses (see para [0251], [0268], [0275]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda to incorporate shortened reference time lower limit monitoring in order to provide earlier detection of cooling abnormalities during motor operation, reducing the time required to diagnose cooling failures and improving flight safety.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Weber et al. (US 2019/0226550 A1 – hereafter “Weber”).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 13, further comprising: an interruption execution unit configured to interrupt transmission of a driving force from the drive device to the rotor blade by a clutch, wherein the drive execution unit is configured to drive the drive device in a state where transmission of the driving force is interrupted by the clutch.”
Demont in view of Miyamoto fails to teach an interruption execution unit configured to interrupt transmission of a driving force from the drive device to the rotor blade by a clutch, wherein the drive device in a state where transmission of the driving force is interrupted by the clutch.
Weber teaches that a disconnect clutch is positioned between electric motor and rotor in the torque path, wherein the disconnect clutch interrupts the torque flow from the electric drive unit when the electric motor id turned on, and the electric motor is operated in a state where the disconnect clutch interrupts transmission of driving force from the motor to the output shaft (see para [0021] – [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Weber to incorporate a disconnect clutch between the electric drive device and rotor blade in order to enable cooling diagnosis while the drive device operates without generating rotor thrust, thereby allowing safe in-flight or pre-flight cooling system testing without affecting vehicle lift or propulsion.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda and in further view of Van Gilder et al. (US 2005/0178130 A1 – hereafter “Van Gilder”).
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the temperature acquisition unit is configured to acquire the device temperature using a detection result of a device temperature sensor provided in the drive device, and the convergence lower limit determination unit is configured to determine that an abnormality in the device temperature sensor has occurred as the cooling-related abnormality.”
Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda fails to teach that the convergence lower limit determination unit is configured to determine than an abnormality in the device temperature sensor has occurred as the cooling related abnormality.
Van Gilder teaches that controller 102 receives ECT readings from temperature sensor 112 and IAT readings from sensor 116, and determines that n abnormality in the coolant temperature sensor has occurred when the temperature difference between the two sensors exceeds an upper threshold value that could not have resulted from normal operating conditions, thereby identifying the sensor itself as the source of the abnormality rather than the cooling system (see para [0031], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda and in further view of Van Gilder to incorporate temperature sensor abnormality determination as a cooling related abnormality in order to distinguish between a failed cooling unit and a faulty temperature sensor, improving diagnostic accuracy and preventing unnecessary cooling system interventions based on erroneous sensor readings.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “The control device for the electric flight vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the temperature acquisition unit is configured to acquire the device temperature using a detection result of a drive temperature sensor provided in the drive device, and the change lower limit determination unit is configured to determine that an abnormality in the drive temperature sensor has occurred as the cooling-related abnormality.”
Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda fails to teach that the change lower limit determination unit is configured to determine that an abnormality in the drive temperature sensor has occurred as the cooling related abnormality.
Van Gilder teaches that controller 102 monitors IAT sensor 116 after vehicle startup and determines that abnormality in the temperature sensor has occurred when the monitored temperature fails to behave within expected parameters during the monitored time period, identifying sensor irrationality as the source of the abnormality rather than the cooling system itself (see para [0036] – [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Demont in view of Miyamoto in further view of Ikeda and in further view of Van Gilder to incorporate drive temperature sensor abnormality determination at the shortened reference time in order to distinguish between cooling unit failures and sensor faults during the early diagnostic phase, improving the reliability of cooling abnormality detection in the electric flight vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights