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 .
This action is in response to an application filed on 04/23/2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Welchko et al. (US 2013/0043816 A1 and Welchko hereinafter).
As to Claims 1 and 9, Welchko in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-4 disclose a method/a vehicle (HEV- see [0024]) comprising:
detecting (150), by a motor controller (200), an operating fault associated with operation of a powertrain (100) of an electric vehicle (see [0057]), the powertrain including:
a permanent magnet motor (120);
a multi-phase inverter (110) that is operationally coupled with the permanent magnet motor (see [0026]); and
a rotational position sensor (121) that is operationally coupled with the permanent magnet motor (120);
determining (410) a classification of the operating fault (see [0079]);
determining (420) a present speed of the permanent magnet motor (see [0081]); and
in response (430) to the detection of the operating fault, and based on at least one of the classification of the operating fault and the present speed of the permanent magnet motor (see [0082]), performing, by the motor controller (200), a fault reaction operation ((440, 450) and see [0083] – [0084]).
As to Claim 2 and 10, Welchko disclose the method of claim 1 and the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the multi-phase inverter (110) includes a three- phase inverter having a high-side (182, 186, 190) and a low-side (184, 188, 192), and the fault reaction operation (440) includes one of:
applying a high-side, three-phase short in the three-phase inverter; applying a low-side, three-phase short in the three-phase inverter; applying low-side and high-side three-phase open circuit in the three-phase inverter; or setting a torque command for the permanent magnet motor to zero (at 440, the controller 200 generates short-circuit fault response control signals 201-1 . . . 201-3 that will cause a short-circuit fault response at the inverter module 110. In the short-circuit fault response, one-half of the switches of the inverter module 110 are in a shorted state -see [0083]).
As to Claim 3 and 11, Welchko disclose the method of claim 1 and the vehicle of claim 9, wherein:
if the present speed is above a first threshold speed, applying a first fault reaction operation; and if the present speed is a below a second threshold speed, applying a second fault reaction operation that is different than the first fault reaction operation, the second threshold speed being less than the first threshold speed (the controller 200 determines whether the estimated angular velocity (ωobs) 156 of the rotor exceeds a transition angular velocity threshold (ωTth) and when the estimated angular velocity (ωobs) 156 of the rotor is greater than the transition angular velocity threshold (ωTth), at 440, the controller 200 generates short-circuit fault response control signals 201-1 . . . 201-3 that will cause a short-circuit fault response at the inverter module 110 and when the estimated angular velocity (ωobs) 156 of the rotor is less than or equal to the transition angular velocity threshold (ωTth), at 450, the controller 200 generates open-circuit fault response control signals 201-1 . . . 201-3 that will cause an open-circuit fault response to be applied at the inverter module 110 -see also [0082] – [0084]).
As to Claim 4 and 12, Welchko disclose the method of claim 3 and the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the first threshold speed is less than or equal to a base speed of the permanent magnet motor, the base speed being a speed at which a back electromotive force (EMF) voltage of the permanent magnet motor is greater than a battery voltage of the powertrain of the electric vehicle (see [0032] – [0033]).
As to Claim 7 and 15, Welchko disclose the method of claim 1 and the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the operating fault is detected by a processor included in the motor controller (see [0089] – [0091]).
As to Claim 8 and 16, Welchko disclose the method of claim 1 and the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the operating fault is detected by a field programmable gate array included in the motor controller (see [0089] – [0091]).
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 5, 6, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welchko in view of Hu et al. (US 2020/0066066 A1 and Hu hereinafter).
As to Claim 5, 6, 13 and 14, Welchko disclose the method of claim 1 and the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the operating fault is a first operating fault (see [0057] and [0081]), however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose:
detecting, by the motor controller, a second operating fault associated with operation of the powertrain of the electric vehicle, performing the fault reaction operation being further based on respective priorities of the first operating fault and the second operating fault, the respective priorities being included in a set of predetermined priorities; and
wherein operating faults, from a highest predetermined priority to a lowest predetermined priority, include: power electronics operating faults; speed sensor operating faults; vehicle speed operating faults; torque generation operating faults; and powertrain operation warnings
Nonethless, Hu in its teachings as shown in Fig.1- Fig. 3-3 disclose on-board on-board monitoring systems that are configured to detect occurrence of a fault or another indication of a need for service and/or vehicle maintenance and a control routine 200 for monitoring and isolating a fault which is executable as one or more control routines and predetermined calibration tables, and includes the steps of dynamically monitoring parameters associated with operation of the fluidic subsystem to determine the observed/sensed parameters and the estimated parameters, and a set of fault isolation parameters are determined based upon the first and second sets of parameters. A plurality of fault isolation parameters can be determined based upon the observed parameters (sensed) and the estimated parameters and the fault isolation parameters can include a current error ratio, a PWM error ratio, a flow error ratio, a speed error, a speed error ratio and a zero speed ratio (see [0038] – [0040]). Furthermore, it is also thought that fault isolation parameters are communicated to the fault isolation routine 260 to isolate a fault in the fluidic subsystem 10, wherein the faults relate to the fluidic pump 28, the electric machine 26, or the fluidic circuit 30. The fault isolation routine 260 periodically executes to evaluate each of the fault isolation parameters to determine occurrence of a fault, or absence of occurrence of a fault. This is depicted in Table 1. The symbol “⬇,” indicates a low value, which is determined relative to a threshold value, and the symbol “⬆” indicates a high value, which is determined relative to a threshold value (see TABLE 1 and also [0077] – [0084])
Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the instant application for a vehicle operating faults to be classified based on priorities such as highest or lowest predetermined priority as thought by Hu within the teachings of Welchko in order to allow for a structured and logical approach to vehicle maintenance and operation, focusing resources and attention on the most severe problems first to ensure safety and longevity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 7,279,862 B1: An apparatus includes a multi-phase inverter, a fault detector to indicate a detection of a fault, a sensor to provide a speed signal indicative of whether a speed of a PM motor is greater than a transition speed, and a controller. The controller is operable to apply either an open-circuit response or a short-circuit response to the multi-phase inverter. The open-circuit response is applied when the speed of the PM motor is greater than the transition speed and a fault is detected. The short-circuit response is applied when the speed of the PM motor is less than the transition speed and the fault is detected. The transition speed is either a fixed predetermined speed or an adjusted predetermined speed – see [Abstract]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL T AGARED whose telephone number is (571)270-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Mon- Thur).
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 5712722060. 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.
/GABRIEL AGARED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846