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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 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 limitation “a changeover is made from step AKS to step F if the phase current reaches a second current limit, which is below the first current limit, and wherein a changeover is made from step F to step AKS if the DC voltage reaches a second voltage limit, which is below the first voltage limit” recited in claim 1 in the wherein clause render the claim indefinite because it causes confusion as to which conditions with regard to phase current limits being reached to changeover from AKS to freewheeling state and with regard to DC voltage limits being reached to changeover from freewheeling to AKS state. In “Step AKS”, the claimed limitation recites changing over from AKS to F if a first current limit is reached, but then recites that the same changeover from AKS to F is made if the same phase current reaches a second current limit, which is below the first current limit. It appears if the phase current reaches the second current limit, the changeover is going to be made, and therefore not clear how the changeover is again to be mad when the first current limit is reached that is higher than the second current limit. Same reasoning applies to the changeover from F to ASK based on a second voltage limit, which is below the first voltage limit. It is requested to clearly and specifically point out where in the originally filed specification describe the cited features. The Examiner, in attempt to promote compact prosecution interprets the features in question to have an effect of hysteresis, a well-known technique to not over correcting any control systems.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baburajan et al. (US 2017/0353140 A1) and Raichle et al. (9,154,051).
For claims 1, 9 and 10, Baburajan discloses an electric vehicle drive having an inverter and an electric machine, wherein provision is made for a control apparatus which is connected to the inverter for actuation purposes and is configured to execute the method for actuating a vehicle drive having an electric machine and an inverter which is connected to the electric machine for actuation purposes (Fig. 2, abstract), wherein, if a fault occurs in the electric drive or in a component connected thereto, the inverter generates an AKS state in the form of an active short circuit of phase connections of the electric machine, or the inverter generates a freewheeling state of the electric machine (Para. 0002, 0005, where when failure occurs with the inverter, the active short circuit state or freewheel state is to be operated), wherein, once the fault has occurred, the following steps AKS and F are executed alternately in an intermediate phase (Para. 0019, where the circuit is driven alternatively in SC and FW states):
Step AKS: setting the AKS state if a phase current flowing through the phase connections is below a first current limit and changing over to step F if the phase current reaches the first current limit (Para. 0026, 0027, where the machine is set to the AKS state and change over to F state when parameter exceeds/crosses a threshold value);
Step F: setting the freewheeling state if a DC voltage generated by the electric machine is below a first voltage limit and changing over to step AKS if the DC voltage is above the first voltage limit (Para. 0026-0029, 0031, where freewheeling state is set when the voltage threshold is not reached and changes over to AKS state when DV voltage exceed the threshold).
Baburajan does not specifically disclose set the AKS state if a phase current flowing through the phase connections is below a first current limit and changing over to step F if the phase current reaches the first current limit; and wherein, furthermore, a changeover is made from step AKS to step F if the phase current reaches a second current limit, which is below the first current limit, and wherein a changeover is made from step F to step AKS if the DC voltage reaches a second voltage limit, which is below the first voltage limit. Raichle in the same field of the art discloses set the AKS state if a phase current flowing through the phase connections is below a first current limit and changing over to step F if the phase current reaches the first current limit (Col. 3, ln 3-29, where the AKS state is switched to a freewheeling state based on the monitored currents); and wherein, furthermore, a changeover is made from step AKS to step F if the phase current reaches a second current limit, which is below the first current limit (Fig. 1, col. 8, ln 54-67, col. 9, ln 1-39where current profiles regulates the switching from AKS to F in different ranges), and wherein a changeover is made from step F to step AKS if the DC voltage reaches a second voltage limit, which is below the first voltage limit (Col. 2, ln 18-40, where multiple adjustable threshold values maybe set for mode switching). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Baburajan to set the AKS state if a phase current flowing through the phase connections is below a first current limit and changing over to step F if the phase current reaches the first current limit; and wherein, furthermore, a changeover is made from step AKS to step F if the phase current reaches a second current limit, which is below the first current limit, and wherein a changeover is made from step F to step AKS if the DC voltage reaches a second voltage limit, which is below the first voltage limit, as taught by Raichle to adaptively switch the machine in different modes to protect the components of the system.
For claim 2, Baburajan, as modified, disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in a preliminary phase, which begins at or after the occurrence of the fault and takes place before the intermediate phase, an AKS state or a freewheeling state is set until the intermediate phase is reached (Raichle - col. 9, 30-46, where a delay may be used to before the transition).
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baburajan et al. (US 2017/0353140 A1) and Raichle et al. (9,154,051) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merkel et al. (US 2016/0322927 A1).
For claim 3, Baburajan, as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein in a subsequent phase, which takes place after the intermediate phase, an AKS state or a freewheeling state is set until the end of the subsequent phase. Merkel in the same field of the art discloses wherein in a subsequent phase, which takes place after the intermediate phase, an AKS state or a freewheeling state is set until the end of the subsequent phase (Para. 0038-0045). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Baburajan to transition in a subsequent phase, which takes place after the intermediate phase, an AKS state or a freewheeling state is set until the end of the subsequent phase, as taught by Merkel to avoid excessive high overcurrent to occur.
For claim 5, Baburajan, as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically disclose if a fault occurs before the intermediate phase in a preliminary phase, an AKS state is set if a rotational speed of the electric machine is below a rotational speed limit and a freewheeling state is set if the rotational speed of the electric machine is above a rotational speed limit. Merkel in the same field of the art discloses if a fault occurs before the intermediate phase in a preliminary phase, an AKS state is set if a rotational speed of the electric machine is below a rotational speed limit and a freewheeling state is set if the rotational speed of the electric machine is above a rotational speed limit (Para. 0028, 0030, 0049, claim 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Baburajan to operate if a fault occurs before the intermediate phase in a preliminary phase, an AKS state is set if a rotational speed of the electric machine is below a rotational speed limit and a freewheeling state is set if the rotational speed of the electric machine is above a rotational speed limit, as taught by Merkel to avoid excessive high overcurrents by optimally control and transition the states of the machine.
For claim 6, Baburajan, as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein at the beginning of the preliminary phase it is ascertained whether the rotational speed of the electric machine is above or below the rotational speed limit by measuring a rotational speed by means of a rotational speed sensor and comparing said rotational speed with the rotational speed limit (Merkel – Para. 0028, 0030, 0049, claim 4).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baburajan et al. (US 2017/0353140 A1) and Raichle et al. (9,154,051) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raichle et al. (9,496,810), thereby after Raichle ‘810.
For claim 4, Baburajan, as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically disclose the intermediate phase is ended if the first current limit is not reached in step AKS. Raichel ‘810 in the same field of the art discloses the intermediate phase is ended if the first current limit is not reached in step AKS (Col. 6, ln 27-51). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Baburajan to execute the intermediate phase to ended if the first current limit is not reached in step AKS, as taught by Raichel ‘810 to reduce the risk of the battery or components being overloaded or damaged.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baburajan et al. (US 2017/0353140 A1), Raichle et al. (9,154,051) and Merkel et al. (US 2016/0322927 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Voith et al. (DE 10 2013 213046 A1).
For claim 7, Baburajan, as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 5, but does not specifically disclose at the beginning of the preliminary phase it is ascertained whether the rotational speed of the electric machine is above or below the rotational speed limit by setting a freewheeling state at the beginning of the preliminary phase, during which state the DC voltage is measured and is compared with a voltage threshold value, wherein if the voltage threshold value is exceeded a rotational speed above the rotational speed limit is assumed and if the voltage threshold value is fallen below a rotational speed below the rotational speed limit is assumed. Voith in the same field of the art discloses at the beginning of the preliminary phase it is ascertained whether the rotational speed of the electric machine is above or below the rotational speed limit by setting a freewheeling state at the beginning of the preliminary phase, during which state the DC voltage is measured and is compared with a voltage threshold value, wherein if the voltage threshold value is exceeded a rotational speed above the rotational speed limit is assumed and if the voltage threshold value is fallen below a rotational speed below the rotational speed limit is assumed (Para. 0032, 0033, claims 1, 2, 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Baburajan to determine at the beginning of the preliminary phase it is ascertained whether the rotational speed of the electric machine is above or below the rotational speed limit by setting a freewheeling state at the beginning of the preliminary phase, during which state the DC voltage is measured and is compared with a voltage threshold value, wherein if the voltage threshold value is exceeded a rotational speed above the rotational speed limit is assumed and if the voltage threshold value is fallen below a rotational speed below the rotational speed limit is assumed, as taught by Voith to maintain a certain mode of operation of the system as long as necessary without damaging components.
For claim 8, Baburajan, as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein at the beginning of the preliminary phase it is ascertained whether the rotational speed of the electric machine is above or below the rotational speed limit by setting an AKS state at the beginning of the preliminary phase, during which state the phase current is measured and is compared with a current threshold value, wherein if the current threshold value is exceeded a rotational speed above the rotational speed limit is assumed and if the current threshold value is fallen below a rotational speed below the rotational speed limit is assumed (Voith – Para. 0032, 0033, claims 1, 2, 4).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baburajan et al. (US 2017/0353140 A1) and Raichle et al. (9,154,051) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Merkel et al. (US 2016/0322927 A1).
For claim 11, Baburajan, as modified, discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, but does not specifically disclose wherein in a subsequent phase, which takes place after the intermediate phase, an AKS state or a freewheeling state is set until the end of the subsequent phase. Merkel in the same field of the art discloses wherein in a subsequent phase, which takes place after the intermediate phase, an AKS state or a freewheeling state is set until the end of the subsequent phase (Para. 0038-0045). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Baburajan to transition in a subsequent phase, which takes place after the intermediate phase, an AKS state or a freewheeling state is set until the end of the subsequent phase, as taught by Merkel to avoid excessive high overcurrent to occur.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2024/0348189 A1) Sprenger et al. discloses an electrical machine switching between short circuit and freewheeling state based on various conditions accounting for hysteresis operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657