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 § 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 1, 5-6, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepe et al. US publication no.: US 2024/0120869 A1 in view of Flower GB 2202526.6, wherein the US publication no.: US 2025/0183766 is used in this rejection.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Tepe et al. teach, A method for operating an electric machine assembly, the electric machine assembly having an electric machine comprising a first set of windings and a second set of windings (see figure 11 and paragraph 101; where there is a first set of windings and second set of windings disclosed).
Tepe et al. teach a scenario of fault in the motor as seen in paragraphs 118-120 but is silent on specifically teaching: the method comprising: operating the electric machine in a partial phase mode, wherein operating the electric machine in the partial phase mode comprises: powering a first set of windings to provide a net zero current in the first set of windings while maintaining one phase of the first set of windings in a non-conducting condition; and powering a second set of windings to provide a net zero current in the second set of windings while maintaining one phase of the second set of windings in a non-conducting condition.
However, Flower is in the same field of art and teach “partial phase fault” in which one of the phases is fault but the other two are driven for a “net current of zero” by including the sum of the currents within the windings to be zero as seen in paragraphs 52-57.
The teachings of Flower can easily be applied to the “two-windings” system of Tepe et al. and one could’ve easily applied the teachings to both of the windings to yield similar results.
Therefore, in view of Flower’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 Tepe et al. to include; operating the electric machine in a partial phase mode, wherein operating the electric machine in the partial phase mode comprises: powering a first set of windings to provide a net zero current in the first set of windings while maintaining one phase of the first set of windings in a non-conducting condition; and powering a second set of windings to provide a net zero current in the second set of windings while maintaining one phase of the second set of windings in a non-conducting condition, for the purpose of enhancing safety measures.
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Tepe et al. teach, the method of claim 1, wherein the electric machine is a synchronous electric machine, wherein the first set of windings is a three phase set of windings, and wherein the second set of windings is a three phase set of windings (see figure 11 and paragraph 101; where there is a first set of windings and second set of windings disclosed).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Tepe et al. teach, The method of claim 1, wherein neither the first set of windings nor the second set of windings of the electric machine is coupled to a neutral line (see figure 11 and paragraph 101; where there is a first set of windings and second set of windings disclosed).
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepe et al. US publication no.: US 2024/0120869 A1 in view of Flower GB 2202526.6, wherein the US publication no.: US 2025/0183766 is used in this rejection and further in view of Boubaker US publication no.: US 2023/0126330 A1.
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1, wherein operating the electric machine in the partial phase mode further comprises: receiving data indicative of a first back EMF signal from the one phase of the first set of windings; receiving data indicative of a second back EMF signal from the one phase of the second set of windings; and determining data indicative of a position of a rotor of the electric machine based on the data indicative of the first back EMF signal and based on the data indicative of a second back EMF signal.
Tepe et al. teach a system in which first and second windings are disclosed, wherein Flower teaches a partial-phase fault control as seen in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Tepe et al. as modified is silent on teaching detection of “bemf” and further estimating the “rotor position” based on the bemf.
This is a commonly utilized in the motor control field and Boubaker is in the same field of art and teach: receiving data indicative of a first back EMF signal from the one phase of the first set of windings; receiving data indicative of a second back EMF signal from the one phase of the second set of windings; and determining data indicative of a position of a rotor of the electric machine based on the data indicative of the first back EMF signal and based on the data indicative of a second back EMF signal (see figure 1 and paragraphs 41-55 and 72-73 where BEMF and determined and rotor position is derived from the BEMF).
Therefore, in view of Boubaker’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 Tepe et al. as modified to include; receiving data indicative of a first back EMF signal from the one phase of the first set of windings; receiving data indicative of a second back EMF signal from the one phase of the second set of windings; and determining data indicative of a position of a rotor of the electric machine based on the data indicative of the first back EMF signal and based on the data indicative of a second back EMF signal, for the purpose of enhancing safety measures.
Regarding claim 9, Boubaker teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein receiving data indicative of the first back EMF signal comprises receiving data indicative of the first back EMF signal from a first voltage sensor, and wherein receiving data indicative of the second back EMF signal comprises receiving data indicative of the second back EMF signal from a second voltage sensor (see paragraphs 72-73).
Regarding claim 10, Tepe et al. as modified teach the calculation of BEMF as seen in paragraphs 72-73 of Boubaker but is silent on specifically teaching, wherein receiving data indicative of the first back EMF signal comprises receiving data indicative of the first back EMF signal while operating the electric machine at a rotational speed of less than 1,200 revolutions per minute.
However, determining the BEMF data while the motor is operating at a certain speed could’ve been easily configured by one with the ordinary skill in the art through routine experiment.
Therefore, in view of Tepe et al. as modified, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include; wherein receiving data indicative of the first back EMF signal comprises receiving data indicative of the first back EMF signal while operating the electric machine at a rotational speed of less than 1,200 revolutions per minute, as it is merely a design choice.
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boubaker US publication no.: US 2023/0126330 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Boubaker teaches, A method for operating an electric machine assembly, the electric machine assembly having an electric machine comprising a first set of windings and a second set of windings (see figure 5 and paragraph 51), the method comprising: receiving data indicative of a first back EMF signal from a phase of the first set of windings; and determining data indicative of a position of a rotor of the electric machine based on the received data indicative of the first back EMF signal (see paragraphs 72-73, where BEMF is determined and rotor position is calculated based on the induced voltage).
Regarding claim 17, Boubaker teaches, The method of claim 16, further comprising: receiving data indicative of a second back EMF signal from a phase of the second set of windings, wherein determining the data indicative of the position of the rotor of the electric machine further comprises determining data indicative of the position of the rotor of the electric machine based on the received data indicative of first back EMF signal and the second back EMF signal (see paragraphs 51-73 and figure 5, where the induced voltage is determined and rotor position is determined based on the induced voltage).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boubaker US publication no.: US 2023/0126330 A1 in view of Flower GB 2202526.6, wherein the US publication no.: US 2025/0183766 is used in this rejection.
Regarding claim 18, Boubaker is silent on specifically teaching: The method of claim 17, wherein the phase of the first set of windings is in a non-conducting condition, and wherein the phase of the second set of windings is also in a non-conducting condition.
However, Flower is in the same field of and teach: wherein the phase of the first set of windings is in a non-conducting condition, and wherein the phase of the second set of windings is also in a non-conducting condition (see “partial phase fault” in which one of the phases is fault but the other two are driven for a “net current of zero” by including the sum of the currents within the windings to be zero as seen in paragraphs 52-57).
Therefore, in view of Flower’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 Tepe et al. to include wherein the phase of the first set of windings is in a non-conducting condition, and wherein the phase of the second set of windings is also in a non-conducting condition, for the purpose of enhancing safety measures.
Regarding claim 20, Boubaker is silent on specifically teaching: the method of claim 16, comprising: operating the electric machine in a partial phase mode, wherein operating the electric machine in the partial phase mode comprises the steps of receiving data indicative of the first back EMF signal from the phase of the first set of windings, and determining data indicative of the position of a rotor of the electric machine based on the received data indicative of the first back EMF signal; and operating the electric machine in a full phase mode subsequent to operating the electric machine in the partial phase mode.
However, Flower is in the same field of and teach: operating the electric machine in a partial phase mode (see “partial phase fault” in which one of the phases is fault but the other two are driven for a “net current of zero” by including the sum of the currents within the windings to be zero as seen in paragraphs 52-57)., wherein operating the electric machine in the partial phase mode comprises the steps of receiving data indicative of the first back EMF signal from the phase of the first set of windings, and determining data indicative of the position of a rotor of the electric machine based on the received data indicative of the first back EMF signal; and operating the electric machine in a full phase mode subsequent to operating the electric machine in the partial phase mode.
Examiner notes* Boubaker teaches a system in which both the windings are operated normally and BEMF is determined and rotor position is determined based on the BEMF while the teaching of Flower is to determine the partial phase fault which would be applied to the system of Boubaker.
Therefore, in view of Flower’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 Tepe et al. to include; operating the electric machine in a partial phase mode, wherein operating the electric machine in the partial phase mode comprises the steps of receiving data indicative of the first back EMF signal from the phase of the first set of windings, and determining data indicative of the position of a rotor of the electric machine based on the received data indicative of the first back EMF signal; and operating the electric machine in a full phase mode subsequent to operating the electric machine in the partial phase mode, for the purpose of enhancing safety measures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8, 12-13 and 19 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.
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 2837
Prosecution Insights