DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-15, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 1, 13, 14 and 15 is 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.
In claims 1, 13 , 14 and 15 the recitation, “if there is no a sudden change that is a change in the operation-related value detected by the first sensor beyond a predetermined range within a predetermined time, control the electric propulsion unit based on the operation-related value detected by the first sensor,” renders it indefinite, since it is not clear, because, “if there is no sudden change” means there is no abnormality, again “that is a change in the operation-related value detected by the first sensor beyond a predetermined range within a predetermined time” means that is the abnormality detected. This recitation is ambiguous. Appropriate clarification is required.
In Claim 1 and 14, the recitation, “after the occurrence of the sudden change, when the sudden change ends before a predetermined period elapses, resume using the operation-related value detected by the first sensor to control the electric propulsion unit”, renders it indefinite, since it is not clear, when abnormality starts, is there any time frame, that it should last so long? Appropriate clarification is required.
In Claim 13 and 15 the recitation, “attempt to drive the anomalous unit with a target value smaller than the target value and determine whether the anomalous unit is normal based on the operation-related value detected by the first sensor”, renders it indefinite, since it is not clear, what is meant by a target value smaller than a target value? Appropriate clarification is required.
In claim 13, the recitation, “attempt to drive the anomalous unit with a target value smaller than the target value” renders it indefinite, since it is not clear, what is meant by “a target value smaller than the target value”.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Dependent claims 2-12 inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 1 and are rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (USP 2022/0006418) in view of Arai et al. (USP 2005/0104552).
As Per Claim 1, Sato teaches, a control device (via a motor control device 2)
\comprising: a control unit (31, 32 diagnosis unit 202, self-diagnosis unit 203, and control unit 204) configured to control an electric propulsion unit (motor 1, inverter circuit, micro-controller, sensor ) for powering a rotor (7) included in an electric aircraft (UAV 100, Fig.1-2) wherein the electric propulsion unit includes a motor ( via motor 1) configured to rotate the rotor, [00329-0032]), an inverter configured to supply AC power to the motor, (inverter circuit not shown , [0040]), a control circuit (controller 204, Fig.1) configured to control the inverter,([0040]), and a first sensor (sensor 301, Fig.1) configured to detect an operation-related value related to an operation state of the electric propulsion unit including an operation of the motor,([0045-0050]) and the control unit (31, 32, 204) is configured to: if there is no a sudden change that is a change in the operation-related value detected by the first sensor beyond a predetermined range within a predetermined time, control the electric propulsion unit based on the operation-related value detected by the first sensor,( via diagnosis unit 202 detects abnormality of operation from control data M11, [0038-0039], [0040]); when the sudden change occurs, stop using the operation-related value detected by the first sensor to control the electric propulsion unit, (via stop using control data M11, [0041], [0042], [0043]).
Examiner interprets , a sudden change as abnormality.
However, Sato does not explicitly teach, after the occurrence of the sudden change, when the sudden change ends before a predetermined period elapses, resume using the operation-related value detected by the first sensor to control the electric propulsion unit, and after the occurrence of the sudden change, when the sudden change has not ended after the predetermined period elapses, continue the stoppage.
In a related field of art, Arai et al. Arai) teaches, wherein, after the occurrence of the sudden change, when the sudden change ends before a predetermined period elapses, resume using the operation-related value detected by the first sensor to control the electric propulsion unit, (via a motor control apparatus being equipped with an inverter controller 5E, a setting unit 6E, an abnormal state detecting unit etc. (via “abnormal state detecting unit for detecting abnormality of the motor on the basis of change amount of motor current. At this time, the setting unit changes the setting so as to perform a predetermined process when detecting motor abnormality. For example, the setting unit may set so as to stop motor operation once when abnormality is detected by the abnormality detecting unit, and to resume motor operation after the operation state is restored”.[0022], also see Abstract, and Claim 6, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sato and Arai before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Sato, to include the teachings ( inverter controller 5E) of Arai and configure with the system of Sato in order to , when abnormality condition is detected stopping the motor operation, and when the abnormality condition is no more existing, the resuming the operation of motor. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to stop vehicle operating under erroneous condition (i.e., controlling vehicle operation under erroneous operating condition, crash avoidance).
However, Sato in view of Arai does not explicitly teach, after the occurrence of the sudden change, when the sudden change has not ended after the predetermined period elapses, continue the stoppage.
However, Arai teaches, stopping the motor operation when abnormality is detected and resuming the operation when normal condition is being restored.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to stop the motor operation when abnormal state is being detected as taught by Arai, and
after a predetermined time, if the abnormality is not ended, do not resume the operation, rather keep the motor in stoppage position, in order to ensure safety for the operation and components.
As per Claim 2, Sato as modified by Arai teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Sato in view of Arai teaches, a storage, wherein the control unit is configured to, when the sudden change occurs, record sudden change related information into the storage, the sudden change related information being related to the occurrence of the sudden change (Sato : [0081]).
As per Claim 3, Sato as modified by Arai teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Sato in view of Arai teaches, wherein the electric aircraft includes a plurality of the electric propulsion units, (Sato : Fig.2) the control unit is configured to control the plurality of electric propulsion units, ( Sato: via 31, 32, 21-26).
and the sudden change related information includes information for identifying the electric propulsion unit in which the sudden change has occurred among the plurality of electric propulsion units. (Sato : via diagnosis unit 202 detects abnormality of operation from control data M11, [0038-0039], [0040]).
As per Claim 4, Sato as modified by Arai teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Sato in view of Arai teaches, wherein the sudden change related information includes at least one of (i) a time of the occurrence of the sudden change and (ii) location information about the electric aircraft at the time of the occurrence of the sudden change. (Sato: [0038-0040]).
As per Claim 6, Sato as modified by Arai teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Sato in view of Arai teaches, wherein each of the electric propulsion units includes a second sensor being a sensor configured to detect the operation-related value and different from the first sensor, and the control unit is configured to, when the sudden change occurs, control the electric propulsion unit in which the sudden change has occurred by using the operation-related value detected by the second sensor included in the electric propulsion unit in which the sudden change has occurred , ([0046-0048]).
As per Claim 7, Sato as modified by Arai teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Sato in view of Arai teaches, wherein the electric aircraft includes a plurality of the electric propulsion units,( Sato : Fig.2) and the control unit is configured to, when the sudden change occurs, control the electric propulsion unit in which the sudden change has occurred by using the operation-related value detected by a third sensor (Sato: [0046-0048]) configured to detect the operation-related value and included in another electric propulsion unit than the electric propulsion unit in which the sudden change has occurred. ( Sato: via diagnosis unit 202 detects abnormality of operation from control data M11, [0038-0039], [0040]).
As per Claim 8, Sato as modified by Arai teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Sato in view of Arai teaches, wherein the control unit is configured to, when the sudden change occurs, stop power supply to the rotor from the electric propulsion unit in which the sudden change has occurred (Arai : “abnormal state detecting unit for detecting abnormality of the motor on the basis of change amount of motor current. At this time, the setting unit changes the setting so as to perform a predetermined process when detecting motor abnormality. For example, the setting unit may set so as to stop motor operation once when abnormality is detected by the abnormality detecting unit, and to resume motor operation after the operation state is restored”.[0022], also see Abstract, and Claim 6, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sato and Arai before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Sato, to include the teachings ( inverter controller 5E) of Arai and configure with the system of Sato in order to , when abnormality condition is detected stopping the motor operation, and when the abnormality condition is no more existing, the resuming the operation of motor. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to stop vehicle operating under erroneous condition (i.e., controlling vehicle operation under erroneous operating condition, crash avoidance).
As Per Claim 14, Sato teaches, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, the computer program ( via a motor control device 2 storing computer program) [0032], [0045], [0081], Fig.1) controlling an electric propulsion unit (vai 31, 32 diagnosis unit 202, self-diagnosis unit 203, and control unit 204) configured to power a rotor included in an electric aircraft, (Fig.2) wherein the electric propulsion unit includes a motor ( via motor 1) configured to rotate the rotor, [00329-0032]), an inverter configured to supply AC power to the motor, (inverter circuit not shown , [0040]), a control circuit ( controller 204, Fig.1) configured to control the inverter,([0040]) and a first sensor (sensor 301, Fig.1) configured to detect an operation-related value related to an operation state of the electric propulsion unit including an operation of the motor,([0045-0050]), and the computer program causes a computer to implement: a function of, if there is no a sudden change that is a change in the operation-related value detected by the first sensor beyond a predetermined range within a predetermined time, controlling the electric propulsion unit based on the operation-related value detected by the first sensor;( via diagnosis unit 202 detects abnormality of operation from control data M11, [0038-0039], [0040]); a function of, when the sudden change occurs, stopping using the operation-related value detected by the first sensor to control the electric propulsion unit; ( vai stop using control data M11, [0041], [0042], [0043]).
Examiner interprets , a sudden change as abnormality.
However, Sato does not explicitly teach, a function of, after the occurrence of the sudden change, when the sudden change ends before a predetermined period elapses, resuming using the operation-related value detected by the first sensor to control the electric propulsion unit; and a function of, after the occurrence of the sudden change, when the sudden change has not ended after the predetermined period elapses, continuing the stoppage.
In a related field of art, Arai et al. Arai) teaches, (vai a motor control apparatus being equipped with an inverter controller 5E, a setting unit 6E, an abnormal state detecting unit etc. wherein, a function of, after the occurrence of the sudden change, when the sudden change ends before a predetermined period elapses, resuming using the operation-related value detected by the first sensor to control the electric propulsion unit; ( via “abnormal state detecting unit for detecting abnormality of the motor on the basis of change amount of motor current. At this time, the setting unit changes the setting so as to perform a predetermined process when detecting motor abnormality. For example, the setting unit may set so as to stop motor operation once when abnormality is detected by the abnormality detecting unit, and to resume motor operation after the operation state is restored”.[0022], also see Abstract, and Claim 6, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sato and Arai before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Sato, to include the teachings ( inverter controller 5E) of Arai and configure with the system of Sato in order to , when abnormality condition is detected stopping the motor operation, and when the abnormality condition is no more existing, the resuming the operation of motor. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to stop vehicle operating under erroneous condition (i.e., controlling vehicle operation under erroneous operating condition, crash avoidance).
Sato in view of Arai does not explicitly teach, after the occurrence of the sudden change, when the sudden change has not ended after the predetermined period elapses, continue the stoppage.
However, Arai teaches, stopping the motor operation when abnormality is detected and resuming the operation when normal condition is being restored.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to stop the motor operation when abnormal state is being detected as taught by Arai, and
after a predetermined time, if the abnormality is not ended, do not resume the operation, rather keep the motor in stoppage position, in order to ensure safety for the operation and components.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5, 9-13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 112 (b) rejection is overcome and if rewritten in independent form including 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 MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666