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 .
This action is in response to an application filed on 10/01/2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current value" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the winding" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inductance value" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the resistance value" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the motor" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the control mode" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determination result" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the square " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recite “the motor)” in line 8, the typographical error (the bracket after motor) needs to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the current value" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the winding" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inductance value" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the resistance value" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the motor" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the control mode" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “determination unit” and “a switching unit” in claim 1, “a control unit” in claim 4, “a calculation unit” in claim 6, “a determination step” in claim 8 and “a switching step” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (US 2022/0412612 A1 and Shimizu hereinafter).
As to claims 1, 6, 8 and 9, Shimizu in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-13 disclose a semiconductor device/ a switching method/ a program that causes a computer to run comprising (see [0027] and [0058] – [0059]) comprising:
a determination unit for (14) determining whether the current value of the winding exceeds a threshold value after a predetermined time based on at least one of the inductance value and the resistance value of the winding inside the motor (…an increase in the temperatures of the compressor 1 and the motor 8 changes the resistance, inductance, etc. of the motor 8, and hence changes the current flowing through the motor 8, that is, current values detected by the current detection unit 31. In general, a change in a current value caused by a change in temperature and detected by the current detection unit 31 has a time constant longer than that of a change in the current value caused by a change in the stop position of the rotor 120, that is, the magnetic-pole position and detected by the current detection unit 31. The control switching determination unit 14 can therefore accurately detect whether the stop position of the rotor 120, that is, the magnetic-pole position has changed, by using the gradient of change in current values or the like in addition to comparison with the threshold values described in the first to third embodiments…see [0079]); and
a switch unit (9) for switching the control mode of the motor Based on the determination result of the determination unit (see Fig13, S306: the control switching determination unit 14 determines that the stop position of the rotor 120 of the motor 8 has changed, and stops outputting the mode switching signal for instructing the steady heating control unit 13 to operate- see also ([0080] - [0083])).
As to claim 6, Shimizu disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1 further comprising a calculation unit for calculating an increase amount per unit time of the current value based on the inductance value and the resistance value, comprising, wherein the determination unit determines whether the current value exceeds the threshold value based on the measurement result of the current sensor for measuring the current value and the increase amount per unit time (see [0079]).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Hagimoto et al. (US2021/0171010 A1 and Hagimoto hereinafter).
As to claim 2, Shimizu disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1, however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the switch unit switches the control mode from a rectangular wave control mode to PWM control mode value when the current value is determined to exceed the threshold
Nonethless, Hagimoto in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-15 disclose that when the electronic control unit (HVECU) 7 determines that the SOC of the battery 6 is equal to or higher than the predetermined level (YES in step S4), the HVECU 7 changes the operating point of the generation motor MG1 from the rectangular wave control mode region to the PWM control mode region (step S5) (see [0069])
Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the instant application to switch between a rectangular wave control mode to PWM control mode as thought by Hagimoto within the teachings of Shimizu for a precise, efficient, and smooth control of power or speed, reduced harmonic distortion, better dynamic response, and easier integration with modern digital control systems.
As to claim 7, Shimizu in view of Hagimoto disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein the determination unit determines whether the current value exceeds the threshold value when the rotation speed of the motor exceeds a predetermined speed (Hagimoto: see [0051] – [0053]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Nakai (US2014/0152205 A1).
As to claim 3, Shimizu disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1, however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the switch unit switches the control mode from PWM control mode to the square wave control mode when the current value is determined not to exceed the threshold value
Nonetheless, Nakai in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-20 disclose as shown schematically in FIG. 4, in a range I in which the number of revolutions is low is used the sine wave PWM control mode so as to reduce a torque variation, and in a range II in which the number of revolutions is middle is used the overmodulation PWM control mode, and in a range III in which the number of revolutions is high is used the square wave control mode (see [0075])
Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the instant application to switch from the control mode from PWM control mode to the square wave control mode as thought by Nakai within the teachings of Shimizu so that the output of the AC motor can be enhanced (see also [0075]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Hagimoto and in further view of Sasaki et al. (US2011/0080124 A1 and Sasaki hereinafter).
As to claim 4, Shimizu in view of Hagimoto disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 2, however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose:
a plurality of switching elements for generating a voltage applied to the winding; a gate driver for driving the gate of each switching element; an IPS (Inductive Position Sensor) for measuring the rotational angle of the motor); and a control unit for controlling the operation of the gate driver based on the control mode and the rotation angle
Nonetheless, Sasaki in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-7 disclose a plurality of switching elements for generating a voltage applied to the winding (inverter 3); a gate driver for driving the gate of each switching element (The current controller 7 converts the velocity command to a current command, generates a PWM gate signal, transmits the command for driving the semiconductor device 201 of the inverter 3, and the motor 13 is driven – see [0030]); an IPS for measuring the rotational angle of the motor (14) and a control unit (5) for controlling the operation of the gate driver (7) based on the control mode and the rotation angle (see [0024])
Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a control unit for controlling the operation of the gate driver based on the control mode and the rotation angle as thought by Sasaki within the teachings of Shimizu and Hagimoto in order to enable an efficient switching and minimize losses.
As to claim 5, Shimizu in view of Hagimoto and Sasaki disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 4, wherein the determination unit determines whether the timing generated by the timer is within a first period in which the current value increases, and when the timing is within the first period, the current value exceeds the threshold (Sasaki: see [0043]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 2022/0231628 A1: The first square wave control mode using the square wave pulse pattern is used when the voltage acting on the inverter is equal to or higher than the threshold voltage. On the other hand, when the voltage acting on the inverter is lower than the threshold voltage, a square wave pulse pattern is used when the rotation speed of the motor is equal to or higher than the first predetermined rotation speed that is higher than the first resonance region, and the second square wave control mode using the first switching pattern for suppressing the LC resonance in the first resonance region is used when the rotation speed of the motor is lower than the first predetermined rotation speed – see [Abstract]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL T AGARED whose telephone number is (571)270-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Mon- Thur).
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.
/GABRIEL AGARED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights