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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KAUFMANN et al. (WO 2012016914A2), hereinafter Kaufmann.
With respect to claim 1, Kaufmann discloses an assembly (See [1] in figure 1 of Kaufmann) for determining an electrical angle (See paragraph [0050] of Kaufmann) of a rotor in an electrical machine the assembly (See paragraph [0011] of Kaufmann) comprising: an encoder assembly (See paragraph [0043] of Kaufmann) configured to be mounted on a stator of the electrical machine (See paragraph [0058] of Kaufmann), the encoder assembly having an encoder wheel (See the encoder ring shown in figure 2 of Kaufmann) configured to contact a surface of the rotor to obtain relative rotor rotation information based on rotation of the encoder wheel (See paragraph [0058] of Kaufmann): an electrical angle observer configured to provide an absolute electrical angle (See paragraph [0050] of Kaufmann) and a processing device coupled to communicate with the encoder assembly and the electrical angle observer and configured to determine the electrical angle of the rotor based on the relative rotor rotation information and the absolute electrical angle (See paragraphs [0044] and [0045] of Kaufmann).
With respect to claim 2, Kaufmann discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to utilize the absolute electrical angle as an initial value in a determination of the electrical angle of the rotor (See paragraph [0050] in view of paragraph [0044] of Kaufmann).
With respect to claim 12, Kaufmann discloses a method of determining an electrical angle (See paragraph [0050] of Kaufmann) of a rotor (See paragraph [0011] of Kaufmann) in an electrical machine (See [1] in figure 1 of Kaufmann), the method comprising: arranging an encoder having an encoder wheel (See paragraph [0043] of Kaufmann) such that the encoder wheel contacts a surface of the rotor to obtain relative rotor rotation information based on rotation of the encoder wheel (See paragraph [0058] of Kaufmann); providing an absolute electrical angle by an electrical angle observer (See paragraph [0050] of Kaufmann); and determining the electrical angle of the rotor based on the relative rotor rotation information and the absolute electrical angle (See paragraphs [0044] and [0045] of Kaufmann).
With respect to claim 13, Kaufmann discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the absolute electrical angle is utilized as an initial value in a determination of the electrical angle of the rotor (See paragraph [0050] in view of paragraph [0044] of Kaufmann).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Isobe et al. (US PUB 2009/0058400), hereinafter Isobe.
With respect to claim 4, Kaufmann discloses the assembly according to 1, but fails to disclose wherein the processing device is further configured to determine the electrical angle of the rotor based on a gear ratio between the encoder wheel and the surface of the rotor. However, Isobe does disclose wherein the processing device is further configured to determine the electrical angle of the rotor based on a gear ratio between the encoder wheel and the surface of the rotor (See paragraph [0050] of Isobe). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Kaufmann to include the feature disclosed by Isobe because doing so enhances the detection accuracy.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Kaufmann and Isobe discloses the assembly according to claim 4, wherein the processing device is configured to utilize a predetermined fixed gear ratio (See paragraph [0050] of Isobe).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Kaufmann and Isobe discloses the assembly according to claim 4, wherein the processing device is configured to determine and utilize a dynamically corrected gear ratio (See paragraph [0050] of Isobe).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Kaufmann and Isobe discloses the assembly according to claim 6, wherein the processing device is configured to determine a gear ratio correction factor based on the relative rotor rotation information and the absolute electrical angle (See paragraph [0102] of Isobe in view of paragraph [0103] of Isobe).
With respect to claim 14, Kaufmann discloses the method according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the determining the electrical angle of the rotor is based on a gear ratio between the encoder wheel and the surface of the rotor. However, Isobe does disclose wherein the determining the electrical angle of the rotor is based on a gear ratio between the encoder wheel and the surface of the rotor (See paragraph [0050] of Isobe). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method disclosed by Kaufmann to include the method step disclosed by Isobe because doing so enhances the detection accuracy.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Kaufmann and Isobe discloses the method according to claim 14, further comprising determining a gear ratio correction factor based on the relative rotor rotation information and the absolute electrical angle (See paragraph [0102] of Isobe in view of paragraph [0103] of Isobe).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements comprises an HFI observer.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the processing device is configured to determine the gear ratio correction factor by performing a closed-loop control algorithm that receives a difference between the electrical angle of the rotor and the absolute electrical angle.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the processing device is configured to determine the gear ratio correction factor by performing a closed-loop control algorithm that receives a difference between an integrated first rotor speed signal and an integrated second rotor speed signal, wherein the first rotor speed signal is calculated based on the electrical angle of the rotor, and wherein the second rotor speed signal is calculated based on the absolute electrical angle.
With respect to claim 10, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the processing device is configured to determine the dynamically corrected gear ratio based on a predetermined fixed gear ratio and the gear ratio correction factor.
With respect to claim 11, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements comprising a wind turbine controller and an assembly according to claim 1, a stator; a rotor arranged to rotate around the stator; wherein the encoder assembly is mounted on the stator, wherein the encoder wheel contacts a surface of the rotor, and wherein the wind turbine controller is configured to perform rotor position control utilizing the electrical angle as a control signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PAT 10,224,842 discloses a control device and brushless motor.
US PAT 9,719,771 discloses a rotation angle sensor for absolute rotation angle determination
even upon multiple revolutions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5814. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (flex schedule).
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights