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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “SBC device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said first electric configuration of the stator windings determines a voltage induced by the rotation of the rotor (BEMF1) that, on reaching a pre-determined threshold value (ω_th) of the angular velocity of the rotor, exceeds a supply voltage of the battery pack (V_batt)…. said second electric configuration of the stator windings determines a voltage induced by the rotation of the rotor (BEMF2) that is lower than said voltage of the battery pack (V_batt) for any angular velocity within a range of use of the electric machine” There is a clarity/definiteness problem for this limitation in the claim due to ambiguous functional language and unclear causal relationships.
The phrase “said first electric configuration of the stator windings determines a voltage induced by the rotation of the rotor” is unclear because it improperly attributes the determination of the induced voltage (BEMF1) to the “configuration” itself. A “configuration” is not a structural component or active element capable of determining or generating voltage; rather, the induced voltage is a function of machine parameters and operating conditions (e.g., rotor speed, winding arrangement, magnetic flux). The claim fails to clearly define how the recited “configuration” structurally or functionally results in the claimed voltage, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
The phrases “on reaching a pre-determined threshold value (ω_th) of the angular velocity of the rotor” lacks clarity as to what structure or component is responsible for “reaching” or defining this threshold. It is unclear whether: a) the rotor inherently reaches this threshold, b) the control unit monitors or defines the threshold, or c) the threshold is a design parameter of the system. Because no structure is clearly linked to the determination or recognition of the threshold value, the claim fails to inform with reasonable certainty, how and when the condition is satisfied.
The phrase “exceeds a supply voltage of the battery pack (V_batt)” upon reaching the threshold introduces a result based condition without clearly defining the structural or operational parameters that ensure this relationship. As a result, it is unclear under what specific conditions or configurations the limitation is met, further contributing to the indefiniteness of the claim.
The phrase “ for any angular velocity within a range of use of the electric machine” is also indefinite because the “range of use” is not defined or bounded. It is unclear whether this refers to a design range, a control defined operating range, or all operating speeds, and therefore the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably determined.
Accordingly, the claim fails to clearly define the relationship between the stator winding configuration, rotor speed, and induced voltage, and does not provide sufficient clarity as to the structure or conditions that satisfy the recited limitation.
The phrase “characterised in that it comprises an emergency device…” is indefinite because the term “it” lacks a clear antecedent basis. It is ambiguous whether “it” refers to the traction system, the electric machine, or another component. Additionally, it is unclear which structure is “configured to” perform the subsequentially recited functions, as the claim does not clearly link the functional language to a specific structural element.
The phrase “said first signal being able to assume at least one first value, representing the full operation of the control unit and/or of the inverter, and at least one second value, representing a partially or totally inoperative condition…” is indefinite because the claim fails to identify the structure that performs the “send” operation. Although it may be implied that the emergency device performs this function, the claim does not explicitly recite this, resulting in ambiguity.
The phrase “wherein said second signal is alternately representing…” is indefinite because the term “alternately” is ambiguous and does not clearly define whether it refers to temporal alternation, conditional selection, or another form of variation. Moreover, the use of “representing” is unclear as to whether the signal merely encodes information or actively cause the recited control actions.
Finally, the phrase “a switching of the stator from the low-speed configuration to the high-speed configuration, if said stator is in the low-speed configuration; a disabling of the switching device, if said stator is in the high-speed configuration.” Is indefinite because the claim fails to clearly define the operational logic and relationship between these actions. It is unclear how the “second signal” corresponds to these different outcomes, whether these actions are mutually exclusive or sequential, and what structure is responsible for executing them. The claim therefore does not clearly set forth the control scheme or conditions under which each action occurs.
In conclusion, when read as a whole, the claim fails to clearly define structure-function relationships, operational conditions, and control logic of the recited system, such that one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "wherein the emergency device is defined by an SBC device configured to receive the incoming first signal and to return the outgoing second signal…" in lines 1-3. The term “SBC device” renders the claim indefinite because its meaning is not reasonably certain in the context of the claimed invention. The acronym “SBC” can have multiple interpretations in the relevant and adjacent arts (e.g., System Basis Chip, Single Board Computer, Session Border Controller), and the claim and specification fail to provide sufficient context or description to identify which meaning is intended. The specification merely repeats the term without describing any corresponding structure or components. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the structure encompassed by the recited “SBC device,” and the metes and bounds of the claim are therefore unclear. In order to establish compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the structure as intending to refer to a Session Border Controller.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “an angular velocity (ω_real) that varies depending on the machine's operating conditions” in lines 3-4. Applicant is advised to keep terminology of “electric machine” as previously introduced in the claim consistent as to not incur a 35 USC 112(b) rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burke (GB 2540602 A).
Claim 1
Burke teaches: An electric or hybrid electric-endothermic traction system, comprising:
an electric machine (10) comprising a stator (252) equipped with multiple stator windings (windings of coils 60) and a rotor (240) housed in the stator (252) and configured to rotate with an angular velocity (varied RPM illustrated in Fig. 7) that varies depending on the machine's (10) operating conditions;
a switching device (switches 620) associated to the stator (252) of said electric machine (10) and configured to switch said stator (252) between a low-speed configuration (second configuration, see Abstract), wherein the stator windings (windings of coils 60) take a first electric configuration (first configuration, see. Abstract), and a high-speed configuration (pre-determined speed configuration of first configuration, see Abstract), wherein the stator windings (windings of coils 60) take a winding electric configuration;
an inverter (410) associated to said electric machine (10) in order to drive it;
a battery pack (battery, 13-14) connected to said electric machine (10) to supply power to the electric machine (10);
a control unit (400) configured to drive said switching device (switches 620) and/or said inverter (410) depending on the operating conditions (see Abstract) of the electric machine (10);
wherein:
said first electric configuration (open circuit configuration, see para. 54) of the stator windings (windings of coils 60) determines a voltage (Hall sensor determines voltage, para. 36-37) induced by the rotation of the rotor (240) that, on reaching a pre-determined threshold value (pre-determined velocity, see. Abstract) of the angular velocity of the rotor (240), exceeds a supply voltage (voltage source, see. Abstract) of the battery pack (V_batt);
said second electric configuration (short circuit configuration, see para. 59) of the stator windings (windings of coils 60) determines a voltage induced by the rotation of the rotor (240) that is lower than said voltage of the battery pack (voltage source, see. Abstract) for any angular velocity within a range of use of the electric machine (10);
characterised in that it comprises an emergency device (controller 620, see para. 62-65) connected to said switching device (switches 620), to said control unit (400), and/or to said inverter (410) and configured to:
receive a first signal representing an operating condition of said control unit (400) and/or of said inverter (410) from said control unit (400) and/or from said inverter (410); said first signal (of PWM signals, see para. 37-48) being able to assume at least one first value, representing the full operation of the control unit (400) and/or of the inverter (410), and at least one second value (of PWM signals, see para. 37-48), representing a partially or totally inoperative condition (non-operational condition, see para. 62-65) of said control unit (400) and/or of said inverter (410);
send a second signal to said switching device (switches 620) when said first signal has said second value, wherein said second signal is alternately representing:
a switching of the stator (252) from the low-speed configuration (second configuration, see Abstract) to the high-speed configuration (pre-determined speed configuration of first configuration, see Abstract), if said stator (252) is in the low-speed configuration (second configuration, see Abstract);
a disabling (using controller 620, see para. 62-65) of the switching device (switches 620), if said stator (252) is in the high-speed configuration (pre-determined speed configuration of first configuration, see Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
818
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
528
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
484
912
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 2/1
Burke teaches: The traction system according to claim 1, wherein the emergency device(controller 620) is configured, alternatively, to:
receive a first signal both from the control unit (400) and from the inverter (410);
receive a single first signal having information representing the operating state of both the control unit (400) and the inverter (410).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke in view of Lope (US 20160134178 A1).
Claim 3/1
Burke teaches: The traction system according to claim 1, but is silent to: wherein the emergency device is defined by an SBC device configured to receive the incoming first signal and to return the outgoing second signal along a control branch parallel to a control branch that goes from the control unit to the switching device.
Lope conversely teaches an electric drive system including a supervision device (SBC device 74) configured to receive signals (e.g., ignition signal, communication signals) and to send control signals to control elements such as relays (para. 0053-0054). The SBC device operates as a supervisory control element that communicates with the system and provides control signals independently of a primary microprocessor (i.e. a controller) control path.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the system of Burke to include the SBC device of Lope in order to provide a supervisory or redundant control path capable of issuing control signals independently of the primary control unit, thereby improving system reliability and enabling fail-safe operation in the event of partial or total failure of the control unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED F SECK whose telephone number is (571)272-4638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at (571) 272-3560. 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.
/AHMED F SECK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights