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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12 objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “A power converter” in line 1 in claims 2-4 and 6-12 should be re-written as “The power converter”. Similarly, the phrase “In power converter” in line 1 in claim 5 should be re-written as “The power converter”. Additionally, the term “calculates” in line 3 in claim 1 should be re-written as “calculates”. The examiner suggests that the whole claims should be reviewed to correct such issues, if any. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the output frequency" in lines 1 and 2, “the motor” in line 2, “the control unit” in line 3, “the first torque current command” in line 3, “the deviation” in line 4, “the speed reference point”, “the speed estimate” in lines 4 and 5, “the control mode” in line 6. Similarly, “the parameters set”, “the secondary transfer function” in line 2 in claim 2, “the power value”, “the parameters”, “the secondary transfer function filter” in claim 3, “the power value”, “the first or second secondary transfer function” in claim 5, “the low speed range”, ‘the medium to high speed range” in claim 6, ‘the power value” in line 1, the low power range”, the medium to high power range” in claim 7, “the damping ratio”, ‘the secondary transfer function filter” in claim 8, “the voltage reference value”, “the estimated values” in claim 11. The examiner suggests that the whole claims should be reviewed to correct such issues, if any. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “the low power” and “the medium to high power range” in lines 3 and 5 respectively in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ““the low power” and “the medium to high power range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term should be corrected to overcome 112(b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1-3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIKUCHI et al. (2023/0303060 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KIKUCHI et a. disclose
A power converter (figs 2 and 7) with a control unit (items 24 and 34) that controls the output frequency (wG), output voltage (Vu or Vv or Vw) and output current (iu or iw) of the motor (item 23) [0035-0044], the control unit calculate the first torque current command (T*) (Torque and current are interrelated) from the deviation between the speed reference point (wG*) and the speed estimate (wG) of the motor, switch the control mode (via a switch 524) to either a control mode that suppresses the pulsation of the speed of the motor or a control mode that suppresses the pulsation of the torque of the motor, and calculates a second torque current command (Tfin*) from the first torque current command and the switched control mode [0084-0094].
Regarding claim 2, KIKUCHI et a. disclose
, the control unit change the parameters set in the secondary transfer function filter from said speed reference point of the motor, and switches the control mode [0050-0052].
Regarding claim 3, KIKUCHI et a. disclose, the control unit calculates the power value (filter process) of the motor, change the parameters to be set in the secondary transfer function filter from the power value of the motor, and switches the control mode [0050-0052].
Regarding claim 8, KIKUCHI et a. disclose, the control unit switches between said control modes by changing the damping ratio parameters (damping control switching) set for the secondary transfer function filter [0085-0087].
Regarding claim 9, KIKUCHI et a. disclose, the damping ratio parameter comprises a first damping ratio parameter and a second damping ratio parameter power converter [0085-0087].
Regarding claim 10, KIKUCHI et a. disclose
the power converter is used to set the value to switch the control mode from external equipment (item 53) [0085].
Regarding claim 11, KIKUCHI et a. disclose, the control unit sets the value to switch the control mode power converter by learning the voltage reference value (fig. 2, item Vu* or Vv* or Vw*) and the estimated values of current detection, phase error and speed (see fig. 2 for details).
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKUCHI et al. in a view of LAN et al. US 2020/0153373 A1.
Regarding claim 6, KIKUCHI does not disclose but LAN et al. disclose, the control unit (fig. 6, Microprocessor) selects the control mode is to suppress the pulsation of the motor speed when the speed of the motor is in the low speed range, the control unit selects the power converter is in a control mode that suppresses the pulsation of the torque of the motor (permanent magnet synchronous motor) when the speed of the motor is in the medium to high speed range [0036, 0037, 0040-0047].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LAN’s control unit to implement different control mode in KIKUCHI’s teachings to operate the motor steadily and smoothly between two different modes. (LAN’s paragraph 0019)
Regarding claim 7, KIKUCHI does not disclose but LAN et al. disclose, the control unit (fig. 6, Microprocessor) calculates the power value of the motor (permanent magnet synchronous motor), when the power value is in the low power range, select the control mode to suppress the pulsation of the motor speed, when the power value is in the medium to high power range, select a control mode that suppresses the pulsation of the motor torque [0036, 0037, 0040-0047] (LAN uses a velocity but the velocity is estimated using phase currents measurement as shown in fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LAN’s control unit to implement different control mode in KIKUCHI’s teachings to operate the motor steadily and smoothly between two different modes. (LAN’s paragraph 0019)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 and 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. Claims 4 and 5 further mention details about transfer functions while claim 12 mentions details regarding damping ratios.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hidetoshi (JP 2006350792A) discloses a machine position control device.
HONG et al. (US 2011/0194947 A1) disclose an apparatus for driving compressor.
Enoki et al. (US 2015/0180386 A1) disclose a motor controller which suppress vibrations of the electric vehicle.
Kulkarni et al. (US 2019/0186480 A1) a closed loop torque compensation for compressor applications.
KINOMURA (US 2020/0028454 A1) disclose an electric motor control using a vibration suppression unit.
Wu eta al. (US 2023/0029626 A1) disclose system and method for damping mechanical oscillation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896