Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/713,795

AN EXCITER CIRCUIT FOR A SYNCHRONOUS MACHINE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
May 28, 2024
Examiner
IMTIAZ, ZOHEB S
Art Unit
2846
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Brush Electrical Machines LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
369 granted / 460 resolved
+12.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
485
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
55.8%
+15.8% vs TC avg
§102
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 460 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 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 and 39 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 “DC output coupled to the synchronous machine” renders the claim indefinite as synchronous machine depicted in figures 1a-1b appears to be an AC machine and it is unclear to the examiner how the DC output is connected to an AC machine. Clam 1 recites “control demand” renders the claim indefinite, because it Is unclear to the examiner which technical features are required to perform the functions of the “control demand”. It is unclear to the examiner which parameter of the motor is the control demand. The claim further recites “an appropriate operating state” leaves the reader confused as a vague terminology is used. Appropriate corrections are required to further define “an appropriate operating state” Claim 1 further recites “threshold capability of the synchronous machine” renders the claim indefinite because the claim doesn’t positively definite what threshold element of the machine is in sight. The claims 1 and 39 contain many vague and ambiguous features and some that the examiner may have missed. Applicants are urged to revise the claims and make corrections. Dependent claims are rejected based on the dependency from the independent claims. 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 1-4, 8-10 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dalessandaro US publication no.: US 2011/0057631 A1. Regarding claims 1 and 39, Dalessandro teaches, an exciter circuit (see figures 1 and 3) for a synchronous machine, the exciter circuit comprising: at least one charge storage device (capacitor bank 13, figure 1) configured to supply energy to a DC output coupled to the synchronous machine; and control circuitry (control unit 11, figure 1) configured to: receive a first signal indicative of an operating state of the synchronous machine (see the detection of voltage in paragraphs 39-40, which corresponds to the first signal), receive a second signal indicative of a control demand for the synchronous machine (see paragraphs 46-47, in which “prefixed voltage value” corresponds to the second signal) and supply at least a portion of energy stored by the at least one charge storage device to satisfy the control demand indicated by the second signal when: the control demand indicated by the second signal exceeds a threshold capability of the synchronous machine that would otherwise exist if the at least one charge storage device was not present (see paragraphs 67-69, when the second condition is satisfied and the power is transferred by discharging the capacitor bank 13 based on a threshold set), and the synchronous machine is in an appropriate operating state as derived from the first signal. Regarding claim 2, Dalessandro teaches, the exciter circuit of claim 1, further comprising rectifier circuitry configured to convert an AC input to the DC output (field converter 9, figure 1). Regarding claim 3, Dalessandro teaches, the exciter circuit of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to: initiate charging of the at least one charge storage device by the DC output (see capacitor 13, paragraph 30, which is connected on the low voltage side of the transformer 8 and charged via DC output) when the control demand indicated by the second signal is associated with a removal of energy from the synchronous machine. Regarding claim 4, Dalessandro teaches, the exciter circuit of claim 3, wherein the control circuitry is configured to: receive a third signal indicative of an amount of charge stored by the at least one charge storage device; and initiate charging of the at least one charge storage device by the AC input when the amount of stored charge indicated by the third signal is below a predefined threshold (see paragraphs 41-44, where it can be seen that the control unit control the charging level of the capacitor) and the operating state indicated by the first signal satisfies the control demand indicated by the second signal (further see paragraph 63, where it is disclosed that the control unit charges the capacitor based on no fault detected). Regarding claim 8, Dalessandro teaches, the exciter circuit of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to electrically isolate the at least one charge storage device from the DC output to provide a pre-defined voltage ceiling at the DC output when the operating state indicated by the first signal satisfies the control demand indicated by the second signal (see paragraph 63, where the capacitor is charged as long as no fault is detected). Regarding claim 9, Dalessandro teaches, the exciter circuit of claim 1, wherein the DC output is a positive or negative voltage (this is implied that once a voltage applied it is either positive or negative voltage). Regarding claim 10, Dalessandro teaches, the exciter circuit of claim 2, wherein the AC input is a three-phase signal or a single-phase signal (see figures 1 and 3, for the AC input). 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. Claims 5-7, 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalessandaro US publication no.: US 2011/0057631 A1 in view of Joho US publication no.: US 2007/0296275 A1. Regarding claim 5, Dalessandaro is silent on specifically teaching, the exciter circuit of claim 1, wherein the first signal is indicative of a measured parameter of the operating state of the synchronous machine, wherein the control circuitry is configured to supply at least a portion of energy stored by the at least one charge storage device when the operating state indicated by the first signal does not satisfy the control demand indicated by the second signal by a predefined amount. However, Joho is in the same field of art and teach: wherein the first signal is indicative of a measured parameter of the operating state of the synchronous machine, wherein the control circuitry is configured to supply at least a portion of energy stored by the at least one charge storage (see paragraphs 28 and 38/48, wherein the discharged to “zero” corresponds to the “predefined amount”) device when the operating state indicated by the first signal does not satisfy the control demand indicated by the second signal by a predefined amount In view of Joho’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Dalessandro to include; wherein the first signal is indicative of a measured parameter of the operating state of the synchronous machine, wherein the control circuitry is configured to supply at least a portion of energy stored by the at least one charge storage device when the operating state indicated by the first signal does not satisfy the control demand indicated by the second signal by a predefined amount, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system. Regarding claim 6, Joho teaches, The exciter circuit of claim 5, wherein the predefined amount is an absolute or relative amount (see paragraphs 28 and 38/48, wherein the discharged to “zero” corresponds to the “predefined amount”). Regarding claim 7, Dalessandaro is silent on specifically teaching, the exciter circuit of claim 1, wherein the first signal is indicative of a measured parameter of the operating state of the synchronous machine, wherein the control circuitry is configured to supply at least a portion of energy stored by the at least one charge storage device when the operating state indicated by the first signal does not satisfy the control demand indicated by the second signal for a predefined period of time. However, Joho is in the same field of art and teach: wherein the first signal is indicative of a measured parameter of the operating state of the synchronous machine, wherein the control circuitry is configured to supply at least a portion of energy stored by the at least one charge storage device when the operating state indicated by the first signal does not satisfy the control demand indicated by the second signal for a predefined period of time (see figure 4 and paragraph 22) In view of Joho’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Dalessandro to include; wherein the first signal is indicative of a measured parameter of the operating state of the synchronous machine, wherein the first signal is indicative of a measured parameter of the operating state of the synchronous machine, wherein the control circuitry is configured to supply at least a portion of energy stored by the at least one charge storage device when the operating state indicated by the first signal does not satisfy the control demand indicated by the second signal for a predefined period of time, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system. Regarding claim 30, Dalessandaro is silent on specifically teaching, the exciter circuit of claim 1, wherein the threshold capacity is based on an output voltage of an automatic voltage regulator configured to control the synchronous machine, wherein the automatic voltage regulator comprises a smoothing capacitor and the threshold capacity is limited by a voltage on the smoothing capacitor. However, Joho is in the same field of art and teach: wherein the threshold capacity is based on an output voltage of an automatic voltage regulator configured to control the synchronous machine, wherein the automatic voltage regulator comprises a smoothing capacitor and the threshold capacity is limited by a voltage on the smoothing capacitor (see voltage regulator 14, figure 1 and paragraph 46). In view of Joho’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Dalessandro to include; wherein the threshold capacity is based on an output voltage of an automatic voltage regulator configured to control the synchronous machine, wherein the automatic voltage regulator comprises a smoothing capacitor and the threshold capacity is limited by a voltage on the smoothing capacitor, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system. Regarding claim 40, Dalessandaro as modified is silent on specifically teaching, A computer program comprising computer code configured to perform the method of claim 39. However, utilizing a computer program could’ve easily been implemented by one with the ordinary skills in the art by creating a control unit for a motor control system especially given the motor control system as shown by Dalessandro and Joho in figure 1, respectively. it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Dalessandro to include; A computer program comprising computer code configured to perform the method of claim 39 , for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHEB S IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4308. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-730pm. 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 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. /ZOHEB S IMTIAZ/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2846
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 28, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603594
VOICE COIL MOTOR, METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING VOICE COIL MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592612
SYSTEM FOR DAMPING UNWANTED MOTOR MOVEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580456
ROTOR POWER TRANSFER CIRCUIT FOR ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573917
Powertrain, Noise Suppression Method, and Electric Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573970
A LOW-LOSS MOTOR AND A DRIVE CIRCUIT THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+14.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 460 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month