CTNF 18/836,404 CTNF 90514 DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on 08/07/2024. Claims 1-16 are presented for Examination. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations of "such that the difference is minimized" is a functional recitation and a mere result to be achieved. The claim fails to provide the specific acts, thresholds, or mathematical steps required to define when the difference is considered "minimized," rendering the scope unclear. The limitations of "applying at least a part of the modified optimized pulse pattern" are broad and indefinite. It is unclear what specific "part" (e.g., a single pulse, a timeframe, a phase sequence) is required to be applied to properly execute the method. Claims 7-10 inherit these indefiniteness issues. Appropriate correction is requested. Since the independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and hence the dependent claims of 1 and 11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1-16 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U S Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0097553A1 ("'553"), in view of US Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0350847A1 ("'847"), and further in view of US Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0276919A1 ("'919"). R egarding Independent Claim 1 (and its system equivalent Claim 11), '553 teaches a method for controlling an electrical converter configured to drive an electrical machine (Abstract; ¶[0012]-[0015] - teaching Model Predictive Control for an electrical converter driving a machine). applying at least a part of the modified optimized pulse pattern to the electrical converter ('553, ¶[0028] - applying the optimized switching signal to the electrical converter). '553 does not explicitly detail the specific sub-steps of flux vector estimation, optimized pulse pattern (OPP) selection based on reference parameters, and dynamic time-shifting. However, '847 explicitly addresses OPPs for model predictive control, teaching: estimating a stator flux vector based on at least one measurement in the electrical converter ('847, Abstract; ¶[0035] - deriving an optimal flux based on system measurements) determining a reference stator flux vector based on the optimized pulse pattern and the reference stator angle;('847, ¶[0015]-[0017] - determining optimal reference flux vector based on selected OPP) determining a difference between the reference stator flux vector and the estimated stator flux vector ('847, ¶[0019] - calculating errors based on estimated vs. optimal values) modifying switching instants of the optimized pulse pattern, such that the difference is minimized ('847, Abstract; ¶[0021]-[0023] - modifying OPP by time-shifting switching instants to minimize a cost function/difference) Furthermore, '919 teaches using angular frequencies in OPP control systems, disclosing: determining an optimized pulse pattern for the electrical converter based on a reference angular stator frequency ('919, Abstract; ¶[0031] - modifying switching sequence based on reference output/angular frequency) determining a reference stator angle of the stator flux vector based on the reference angular stator frequency ('919, ¶[0032]-[0034] - utilizing reference angular parameters to correct flux error trajectories in real-time) and the reference stator angle ('919, ¶[0034] - factoring angle into the reference stator flux vector calculations). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the predictive control framework of '553 by incorporating the explicit OPP flux vector estimation and switching instant modification taught by '847, and the reference angle/frequency dependencies taught by '919. Doing so ensures shorter response times, minimizes harmonic distortions at low fundamental frequencies, and provides optimal distribution of switching transitions—predictably improving the transient operations of the converter as targeted by all three reference (MPEP § 2143). Regarding Claims 2 and 12, '919 teaches that the reference stator angle is determined by integrating the reference angular stator frequency ('919, ¶[0028] ,¶[0033] - teaching the standard mathematical integration of angular frequency (speed) to derive angular position/angle in AC drive controls). Regarding Claims 3 and 13, '847 teaches that the optimized pulse pattern is determined based on a reference stator flux magnitude ('847, ¶[0015] - describing the selection of the OPP using reference flux magnitude variables to optimize harmonic content). Regarding Claims 4 and 14, '847 teaches that the optimized pulse pattern is determined based on a modulation index and/or a maximum allowed switching frequency, and the modulation index is determined based on the reference angular stator frequency and/or the reference stator flux magnitude ('847, ¶[0016]-[0017] - teaching the use of a modulation index derived from reference parameters to select the appropriate OPP). Regarding Claims 5 and 15, '847 teaches that the at least one measurement in the electrical converter comprises measuring a stator voltage of the electrical converter, and the stator flux vector is estimated based on the stator voltage ('847, ¶[0035]-[0036] - teaching the measurement of converter voltages/currents to act as state variables for the observer estimating the flux vector). Regarding Claims 6 and 16, '847 teaches that the optimized pulse pattern comprises a sequence of switching transitions at switching instants between different switching states of the converter, the optimized pulse pattern is loaded from a table of optimized pulse patterns stored in a controller... indexed with respect to the modulation index, and for each optimized pulse pattern in the table, switching transitions at switching instants are stored ('847, ¶[0014]-[0017] - disclosing pre-calculated switching sequences stored in memory arrays/tables indexed by the modulation index for rapid runtime retrieval ; Fig.12a-12d). Regarding Claims 7-10, these claims merely recite conventional hardware implementations (a computer program [7], a non-transitory computer-readable medium [8], a controller [9], and an electrical converter comprising semiconductor switches [10]) configured to perform the method of Claim 1. '553 and '847 (Fig.4) teach these conventional hardware environments. Specifically, '553 teaches an electrical converter system with switches and a controller utilizing a computer program/medium to execute the MPC instructions ('553, ¶[0180], ¶[0041]), rendering the hardware-based execution of the combined methods obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm. 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 on 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. /MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/836,404 Page 2 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/836,404 Page 3 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/836,404 Page 4 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/836,404 Page 5 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/836,404 Page 6 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/836,404 Page 7 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/836,404 Page 8 Art Unit: 2837
Prosecution Insights