DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on Oct. 10, 2024.
Claims 21-41 are presented for Examination. Claim 21 and 40 are independent.
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 § 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 21-41 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 21 and 40, recite the limitations of "heterogeneous control" which lacks a sufficiently precise definition to inform one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope with reasonable certainty.
The specification describes "heterogeneous control" as encompassing multiple distinct and disparate control techniques without establishing clear boundaries. The specification at ¶[0180] states:
"The heterogeneous control due to the parameter difference between first motor 1500 and the second motor 1600 includes at least one of a function of displaying 9051 that the first and second motors 1500 and 1600 are heterogeneous kinds, a function of operating 9052 the inverter 1200 by differently setting the limit value of the drive current of the first motor 1500 and the limit value of the drive current of the second motor 1600 based on different parameters, a function of selecting 9053 one of the first and second motors 1500 and 1600 as a master to be controlled based on a parameter difference and/or a load current difference, a function of performing 9054 control to compensate the d-axis current of the motor that is the master to be controlled among the first and second motors 1500 and 1600 when there is a difference in speed between the first and second motors 1500 and 1600, and a function of driving 9055 the first and second motors 1500 and 1600 at an optimal control point when there is a parameter difference.".
This definition encompasses five fundamentally different control techniques:Displaying a notification (¶[0180]; Fig. 4:2900) - merely indicating that motors differCurrent limiting (¶[0110]-[0113]; Fig. 5A:2011, 2012) - adjusting drive current limitsMaster selection (¶[0152]-[0156]; Fig. 7:2300) - selecting one motor for controlD-axis compensation (¶[0116]-[0117]; Fig. 3:2812) - adjusting d-axis current based on speed difference Optimal control point operation (¶[0158]-[0164]; Equations 6-8) - minimizing conduction loss. The specification fails to define which combination of these techniques constitutes "heterogeneous control," or whether any single technique alone qualifies. The phrase "includes at least one of" creates uncertainty because it permits any combination from one to all five techniques, without boundaries defining what minimum combination must be present. As stated in Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 598 F.3d 1244, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010), "a claim term fails to satisfy § 112 ¶ 2 when it is
'subjective' and 'impermissibly broad.'. A technician could reasonably interpret "heterogeneous control" to mean merely displaying a notification that motors differ, while another could interpret it to require d-axis current compensation. This creates uncertainty about the scope of protection sought.
Basis for Rejection: "At Least a Certain Value" Lacks Objective StandardClaims 21 and 40 further recites " differ by at least a certain value." These limitations fail to provide an objective standard for determining the threshold that triggers heterogeneous control.
The specification provides two inconsistent examples without establishing a definitive standard. At ¶[0099], the specification states:
"The certain error value may be a percent (%) value (e.g., among the parameters, the counter electromotive forces of the first and second motors differ by at least 10%).". However, at ¶[0178], the specification provides a different example:
"The certain value may be an absolute value according to the specification of the motor or a percentage (%) value that compares the same kind of parameters between motors. For example, assuming that the motor resistors of the first and second motors 1500 and 1600 are produced with a mark of 2Ω, 10% of 2Ω, i.e., 2.2Ω - 2Ω = 0.2Ω, may correspond to the certain value."
The specification further states at ¶[0053] that the parameter comparator 2110 "may generate a command output for heterogeneous control when even one of the parameters exceeds the certain error value, or generate a command output when a certain number of parameters exceed the error value." This additional variability—whether one parameter or multiple parameters must exceed the threshold—further obscures the boundaries of the claimed invention.
The claim fails to recite whether the "certain value" is:
A percentage threshold (¶[0053]; ¶[0178])
An absolute value threshold (¶[0178])
A predetermined value stored in memory (¶[0178])
A dynamically calculated value
Without an objective standard in the claim, one of ordinary skill cannot determine with reasonable certainty what threshold triggers heterogeneous control. As stated in Exelon Corp. v. PSEG LLC, 76 F.4th 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2023), "a term of degree is definite when it 'provides enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the specification.'" Here, the specification provides multiple inconsistent examples without establishing a single objective standard.
Claim 21 recites "determine parameters of the first motor and parameters of the second motor." While claim 22 defines parameters as "at least one of each motor's resistance, inductance and counter electromotive force," claim 21 lacks this definition in the base claim.
The specification at ¶[0095] states: "Representative parameters of the motor include a winding resistance of the motor, a winding inductance of the motor, and a counter electromotive force constant of the motor, without being limited thereto.".
The specification further states at ¶[0177]:"The parameter may include the motor's resistance, inductance and counter electromotive force, without being limited thereto. For example, the motor's leakage inductance may also be included in the parameter.".
This "without being limited thereto" language creates uncertainty about the scope of "parameters." The specification fails to establish boundaries for what constitutes a "parameter" versus what does not. One of ordinary skill could reasonably interpret "parameters" to include any measurable motor characteristic (temperature, vibration, efficiency, etc.), while another could interpret it narrowly to only include resistance, inductance, and counter electromotive force. Without clear boundaries, the scope of claim is indefinite.
Claim 22 recites "the parameters comprise at least one of each motor's resistance, inductance and counter electromotive force." While this provides more specificity than claim 21, it still creates uncertainty about which parameters must be determined and compared.
The phrase "at least one of" permits the parameters to include only resistance, only inductance, only counter electromotive force, or any combination thereof. This creates uncertainty about which minimum set of parameters triggers heterogeneous control under claim 21. If only one motor's resistance is determined and compared, but the claim 21 threshold requires comparing counter electromotive force (per ¶[0096] example), it is unclear whether heterogeneous control is triggered. The interplay between the open-ended "at least one of" language in claim 22 and the unspecified "certain value" threshold in claim 21 creates uncertainty about the scope of the claimed combination.
Claim 25 recites "differently setting a limit value of a drive current of the first motor and a limit value of a drive current of the second motor based on the parameters." Claim 26 similarly recites "indicating on the display that the overcurrent is caused by a difference of at least a certain value between the parameters."
These claims depend from claim 21, which recites "determine parameters of the first motor and parameters of the second motor" and "compare the parameters." However, as discussed above, the term "parameters" in claim 21 lacks clear boundaries. The specification at ¶[0095] states that parameters "include a winding resistance of the motor, a winding inductance of the motor, and a counter electromotive force constant of the motor, without being limited thereto." The specification at ¶[0177] further states that "the motor's leakage inductance may also be included in the parameter.".
The circular reference to the undefined term "parameters" in dependent claims 25-26 perpetuates the indefiniteness of claim 21. As stated in MPEP § 2173.05(e), "a claim that refers to 'said [claim term]' but omits the antecedent basis for that term is indefinite where the antecedent basis is itself indefinite." Here, the antecedent basis "parameters" in claim 21 is indefinite, rendering claims referring to "the parameters" indefinite as well.
Claim 27 recites "differently setting a limit value of a drive current of the first motor and a limit value of a drive current of the second motor." Claims 28-30 similarly refer to "limit value" without specifying how these values are determined.
The specification at ¶[0111] provides an example:
"For example, a limit value of a current flowing to each motor is set to 2.2A and the current limit value of the inverter 1200 is set to 4.5A.".
However, the specification fails to define how these limit values are determined. At ¶[0112]-[0113], the specification states that limit values may be "dynamically changed" based on parameter differences, but fails to provide a formula, algorithm, or objective standard for determining appropriate limit values. At ¶[0113], the specification states:"the controller 2000 may control the inverter 1200 by differently setting the limit value of the drive current of the first motor 1500 and the limit value of the drive current of the second motor 1600 based on the detected parameter of the first motor 1500 and the second motor 1600."
This functional language—"based on the detected parameter"—fails to specify the relationship between parameter values and current limit values. One of ordinary skill cannot determine with reasonable certainty what limit values result from given parameter differences. As stated in MPEP § 2173.05(b), "functional language may be definite when it describes a feature in terms of what it does, rather than in terms of its structure, but only when one of skill in the art would know the structure necessary to perform that function." Here, the specification fails to teach the structural relationship between parameters and current limit values.
Claim 30 recites "a larger one of the limit value of the drive current of the first motor
and the limit value of the drive current of the second motor is smaller than a demagnetization level current of the first motor or the second motor."
The specification at ¶[0112] states:
"the current limit value of the first motor 1500 needs to be set to a smaller value than a demagnetization level current value of the first motor 1500. The demagnetization level current value may be stored in a memory of the power conversion device 1000 when the specification of the first motor 1500 is set.".
The specification merely states that demagnetization level current is "stored in a memory" (¶[0112]) without defining how this value is determined or what it represents. One of ordinary skill cannot determine with reasonable certainty what current level qualifies as "demagnetization level current" without additional context. While one of skill may understand that exceeding certain current levels can demagnetize permanent magnets, the specification fails to define the threshold current level that constitutes "demagnetization level current" for a given motor. This threshold varies with motor design, magnet material, temperature, and other factors, making the term indefinite without a specific definition.
Claim 31 recites "select one of the first motor and the second motor as a master to be controlled." The claim fails to specify the criteria for selecting which motor is designated as the master.
The specification provides multiple inconsistent selection criteria without establishing a definitive standard. At ¶[0153], the specification states: "It is desirable to designate and control a motor with larger torque as a master among the first motor 1500 and the second motor 1600.".
At ¶[0154]-[0155], the specification describes selecting based on load differences:"When the first and second motors 1500 and 1600 have the same parameters, the controller 2000 receives current values iq1, id1, iq2 and id2 of the first motor 1500 and the second motor 1600 as inputs to distinguish a motor with a heavier load from among the first motor 1500 and the second motor 1600, and designates and controls the motor as a master."
At ¶[0169]-[0170], the specification describes selecting based on current flow:"When a larger current flows to the first motor 1500 than to the second motor 1600 based on the parameter difference between the first motor 1500 and the second motor 1600 while assuming the same load, the first motor 1500 is selected as the master to be controlled. In other words, a motor to which a larger current flow is designated as a master."The specification provides at least four different selection criteria:
Motor with larger torque (¶[0153])
Motor with heavier load (¶[0154]-[0155])
Motor with larger current flow due to parameter difference (¶[0169])
Motor with larger current flow considering both parameter difference and loads (¶[0156])The claim limitations of "it is desirable" (¶[0153]) suggests that selecting based on torque is optional, not required. The specification fails to establish which selection criteria must be used, creating uncertainty about what constitutes proper "master selection" under claim 31.
Claim 32 recites "select a motor with greater torque" but fails to specify how torque is measured or determined. The specification at ¶[0085]-[0087] describes torque calculation based on q-axis current, but claim 32 fails to recite how torque values are obtained for comparison.
Claim 33 recites "select a motor with a larger current flowing thereto" but fails to specify whether this refers to instantaneous current, average current, peak current, or some other current measurement. The specification at ¶[0148]-[0151] (Fig. 6A-6C) shows current waveforms with varying magnitudes, creating uncertainty about what constitutes "larger current" for selection purposes.
Claim 34 recites "perform compensation control on a d-axis current of a motor which is a master to be controlled among the first and second motors when there is a speed difference between the first and second motors."
The term "master to be controlled" lacks clear antecedent basis and definition.
Claim 34 depends from claim 21, which does not recite selecting a master. Claim 31 introduces the concept of selecting a master, but claim 34 depends from claim 21, not claim 31. This creates uncertainty about whether claim 34 requires the motor selection step of claim 31, or whether "master to be controlled" in claim 34 refers to a different concept.
The specification at ¶[0146] states: "Although the method of changing the d1-axis current is described above by assuming the first motor 1500 as a master, the second motor 1600 may be designated as a master and in this case, the d2-axis current may be controlled.".
The specification describes selecting a master through control selector 2300 (Fig. 7:2300), but claim 34 lacks a clear relationship to this selection process. Without clear antecedent basis, one of ordinary skill cannot determine with reasonable certainty which motor is the "master to be controlled" under claim 34.
Claim 35 recites "when a parameter difference between the first motor and the second motor causes a difference between a torque of the first motor and a torque of the second motor and a speed difference between the first and second motors... compensate a d-axis current of the first motor to reduce the torque of the second motor.".
This functional language describes what the system does but fails to specify the structural elements or algorithms that perform this function. The specification at ¶[0116]-[0117] describes: ”When there is a difference between the rotational speed ω1 of the first motor 1500 and the rotational speed ω2 of the second motor 1600, the controller 2000 may compensate a current command Id1* to equalize the rotational speeds of the first motor 1500 and the second motor 1600 by eliminating the difference."
However, the specification fails to specify the mathematical relationship between d-axis current compensation and torque reduction. At ¶[0137]-[0145] (Fig. 5D-5I), the specification describes vector diagrams showing how d-axis current changes affect q-axis currents and torque, but fails to provide a formula or algorithm for determining the appropriate d-axis current compensation value.
As stated in MPEP § 2173.05(b), "functional claim limitations are not necessarily indefinite where one of skill in the art would know the structure necessary to perform that function." Here, one of ordinary skill would not know from the specification how to determine the specific d-axis current value that reduces torque by a desired amount, because the specification provides only qualitative descriptions (¶[0137]).
Appropriate correction is requested.
Since the independent claims 21 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) hence the dependent claims of 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 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.
Claim 21-41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over US20150229245A1 (Cho '245) in view of US20170179855A1 (Cho '855).
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Cho’245 teaches that an air conditioner comprising:
an inverter configured to drive a first motor for driving a first outdoor unit and a second motor for driving a second outdoor unit in parallel ((a driver 120 (Fig. 1:120; Fig. 2) which supplies driving currents to a first motor 150 (Fig. 1:150) and a second motor 160 (Fig. 1:160) connected in parallel. The driver 120 includes an inverter having switching circuits S11-S13 and S21-S23 (Fig. 2). Cho '245 explicitly discloses that motors are "widely used not only in home appliances such as washing machines, refrigerators, air-conditioners and vacuum cleaners" (¶[0005]));
a processor configured to:
compare the parameters of the first motor with the parameters of the second motor to determine whether the parameters of the first motor and the parameters of the second motor differ by at least a certain value(a speed comparator 251 (Fig. 12:251; Fig. 16:251) compares the rotating speed ω1 of the first motor 150 with the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor 160 (¶[0142]-[0143]). The speed comparator 251 outputs a preliminary d-axis current command Id1* so that the difference between the rotating speeds is "0" (¶[0143]). A location comparator 252 (Fig. 12:252; Fig. 16:252) compares the location θ1 of the first rotor with the location θ2 of the second rotor (¶[0142], ¶[0145]). This necessarily involves determining whether the parameters differ by a certain value, as the controller initiates control action when a deviation between the rotating speeds is generated (¶[0157]-[0161], ¶[0192]-[0193])),
and control the inverter through heterogeneous control for the first motor and the second motor based on the parameters of the first motor and the parameters of the second motor differing by at least the certain value(controlling the driver/inverter through what the instant application calls "heterogeneous control." Specifically, when the rotating speeds of the first and second motors differ, the controller 200 changes the d-axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 to change the output torque of the second motor 160 while consistently maintaining the q-axis current Iq1 and d-axis voltage of the first motor 150 (¶[0110]-[0113], ¶[0118]-[0123]). A d-axis current compensator 250 (Fig. 11:250; Fig. 12:250; Fig. 16:250) outputs a d-axis current command Id* based on the difference between the rotating speeds (¶[0141]-[0143]). Cho '245 explicitly teaches: "when the load of the first motor 150 and the load of the second motor 160 are different from each other, the controller 200 may change a d1 axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 to change an output torque of the second motor 160 without change in an output torque of the first motor 150" (¶[0110]). This is precisely the "heterogeneous control" described in the instant specification—differently controlling the motors based on parameter differences.)
Cho '855 provides additional teachings that would have been considered together with Cho '245 by one of ordinary skill because both references are commonly assigned to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and share common inventors (¶[0010], ¶[0072]-[0073]). Cho '855 teaches a d-axis current command generator 260 (Fig. 14:260) that generates a d-axis current command Id1* based on the difference between the rotating speed ω1 of the first motor and the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor (¶[0166]-[0168]). Cho '855 explicitly teaches controlling two motors using a single inverter (¶[0010]-[0012]).
The limitations of "heterogeneous control" in Claim 21 is not defined with particular boundaries and encompasses control techniques that Cho '245 and Cho '855 explicitly teach. The specification of the instant application describes heterogeneous control as: (1) differently setting limit values for drive currents of the motors; (2) selecting one motor as a master to be controlled; and (3) performing compensation control on a d-axis current. Cho '245 teaches all of these techniques: (1) the d-axis current selector 290 (Fig. 15:290) outputs optimal d-axis currents for each motor to minimize losses (¶[0188]); (2) the controller selects which motor's current to compensate based on parameter differences (¶[0110]-[0123]); and (3) the d-axis current compensator 250 (Fig. 11:250) performs compensation control based on speed differences (¶[0141]-[0148]). Thus, "heterogeneous control" is merely a label for techniques already taught in the prior art.
Setting a threshold ("at least a certain value") for when to initiate control action is inherent in Cho '245's teachings, as the controller initiates compensation when a deviation between rotating speeds is detected (¶[0157]-[0161]). As stated in In re GPB, 778 F.2d 691, 694 (Fed. Cir. 1985), "the discovery of the optimum value of a variable in a known process is ordinarily a matter of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art."
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Cho '245 and Cho '855 because they address the same technical problem (controlling multiple motors with a single inverter), are commonly assigned, and share common inventors. The combination teaches all claim elements, and the differences are merely labeling of known techniques and application to a specifically listed appliance (air-conditioners).
Regarding Independent Claim 40, Cho’245 teaches that a method of driving a plurality of motors in parallel in an air conditioner including an inverter, the plurality of motors having a difference in parameter and being used for operating outdoor units, the method comprising:
determining parameters of a first motor of the plurality of the motors for driving a first outdoor unit and parameters of a second motor of the plurality of the motors for driving a second outdoor unit ((a driver 120 (Fig. 1:120; Fig. 2) which supplies driving currents to a first motor 150 (Fig. 1:150) and a second motor 160 (Fig. 1:160) connected in parallel. The driver 120 includes an inverter having switching circuits S11-S13 and S21-S23 (Fig. 2). Cho '245 explicitly discloses that motors are "widely used not only in home appliances such as washing machines, refrigerators, air-conditioners and vacuum cleaners" (¶[0005]));
comparing the parameters of the first motor with the parameters of the second motor to determine whether the parameters of the first motor and the parameters of the second motor differ by at least a certain value (a speed comparator 251 (Fig. 12:251; Fig. 16:251) compares the rotating speed ω1 of the first motor 150 with the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor 160 (¶[0142]-[0143]). The speed comparator 251 outputs a preliminary d-axis current command Id1* so that the difference between the rotating speeds is "0" (¶[0143]). A location comparator 252 (Fig. 12:252; Fig. 16:252) compares the location θ1 of the first rotor with the location θ2 of the second rotor (¶[0142], ¶[0145]). This necessarily involves determining whether the parameters differ by a certain value, as the controller initiates control action when a deviation between the rotating speeds is generated (¶[0157]-[0161], ¶[0192]-[0193])); and
controlling the inverter through heterogeneous control for the first motor and the second motor based on the determining that the parameters of the first motor and the parameters of the second motor differ by at least the certain value (controlling the driver/inverter through what the instant application calls "heterogeneous control." Specifically, when the rotating speeds of the first and second motors differ, the controller 200 changes the d-axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 to change the output torque of the second motor 160 while consistently maintaining the q-axis current Iq1 and d-axis voltage of the first motor 150 (¶[0110]-[0113], ¶[0118]-[0123]). A d-axis current compensator 250 (Fig. 11:250; Fig. 12:250; Fig. 16:250) outputs a d-axis current command Id* based on the difference between the rotating speeds (¶[0141]-[0143]). Cho '245 explicitly teaches: "when the load of the first motor 150 and the load of the second motor 160 are different from each other, the controller 200 may change a d1 axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 to change an output torque of the second motor 160 without change in an output torque of the first motor 150" (¶[0110]). This is precisely the "heterogeneous control" described in the instant specification—differently controlling the motors based on parameter differences.)
Cho '855 provides additional teachings that would have been considered together with Cho '245 by one of ordinary skill because both references are commonly assigned to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and share common inventors (¶[0010], ¶[0072]-[0073]). Cho '855 teaches a d-axis current command generator 260 (Fig. 14:260) that generates a d-axis current command Id1* based on the difference between the rotating speed ω1 of the first motor and the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor (¶[0166]-[0168]). Cho '855 explicitly teaches controlling two motors using a single inverter (¶[0010]-[0012]).
The limitations of "heterogeneous control" in Claim 21 is not defined with particular boundaries and encompasses control techniques that Cho '245 and Cho '855 explicitly teach. The specification of the instant application describes heterogeneous control as: (1) differently setting limit values for drive currents of the motors; (2) selecting one motor as a master to be controlled; and (3) performing compensation control on a d-axis current. Cho '245 teaches all of these techniques: (1) the d-axis current selector 290 (Fig. 15:290) outputs optimal d-axis currents for each motor to minimize losses (¶[0188]); (2) the controller selects which motor's current to compensate based on parameter differences (¶[0110]-[0123]); and (3) the d-axis current compensator 250 (Fig. 11:250) performs compensation control based on speed differences (¶[0141]-[0148]). Thus, "heterogeneous control" is merely a label for techniques already taught in the prior art.
Setting a threshold ("at least a certain value") for when to initiate control action is inherent in Cho '245's teachings, as the controller initiates compensation when a deviation between rotating speeds is detected (¶[0157]-[0161]). As stated in In re GPB, 778 F.2d 691, 694 (Fed. Cir. 1985), "the discovery of the optimum value of a variable in a known process is ordinarily a matter of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art."
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Cho '245 and Cho '855 because they address the same technical problem (controlling multiple motors with a single inverter), are commonly assigned, and share common inventors. The combination teaches all claim elements, and the differences are merely labeling of known techniques and application to a specifically listed appliance (air-conditioners).
Regarding Independent Claim 39, Cho’245 teaches that an air conditioner system comprising:
first and second outdoor units;
first and second motors;
an inverter configured to drive in parallel the first motor for driving the first outdoor unit and the second motor for driving the second outdoor unit((a driver 120 (Fig. 1:120; Fig. 2) which supplies driving currents to a first motor 150 (Fig. 1:150) and a second motor 160 (Fig. 1:160) connected in parallel. The driver 120 includes an inverter having switching circuits S11-S13 and S21-S23 (Fig. 2). Cho '245 explicitly discloses that motors are "widely used not only in home appliances such as washing machines, refrigerators, air-conditioners and vacuum cleaners" (¶[0005])); and
a processor configured to:
determine parameters of the first motor and parameters of the second motor,
compare the parameters of the first motor with the parameters of the second motor to determine whether the parameters of the first motor and the parameters of the second motor differ by at least a certain value (a speed comparator 251 (Fig. 12:251; Fig. 16:251) compares the rotating speed ω1 of the first motor 150 with the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor 160 (¶[0142]-[0143]). The speed comparator 251 outputs a preliminary d-axis current command Id1* so that the difference between the rotating speeds is "0" (¶[0143]). A location comparator 252 (Fig. 12:252; Fig. 16:252) compares the location θ1 of the first rotor with the location θ2 of the second rotor (¶[0142], ¶[0145]). This necessarily involves determining whether the parameters differ by a certain value, as the controller initiates control action when a deviation between the rotating speeds is generated (¶[0157]-[0161], ¶[0192]-[0193])), and
control the inverter through heterogeneous control for the first motor and the second motor based on the parameters of the first motor and the parameters of the second motor differing by at least the certain value(controlling the driver/inverter through what the instant application calls "heterogeneous control." Specifically, when the rotating speeds of the first and second motors differ, the controller 200 changes the d-axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 to change the output torque of the second motor 160 while consistently maintaining the q-axis current Iq1 and d-axis voltage of the first motor 150 (¶[0110]-[0113], ¶[0118]-[0123]). A d-axis current compensator 250 (Fig. 11:250; Fig. 12:250; Fig. 16:250) outputs a d-axis current command Id* based on the difference between the rotating speeds (¶[0141]-[0143]). Cho '245 explicitly teaches: "when the load of the first motor 150 and the load of the second motor 160 are different from each other, the controller 200 may change a d1 axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 to change an output torque of the second motor 160 without change in an output torque of the first motor 150" (¶[0110]). This is precisely the "heterogeneous control" described in the instant specification—differently controlling the motors based on parameter differences.)
Cho '855 provides additional teachings that would have been considered together with Cho '245 by one of ordinary skill because both references are commonly assigned to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and share common inventors (¶[0010], ¶[0072]-[0073]). Cho '855 teaches a d-axis current command generator 260 (Fig. 14:260) that generates a d-axis current command Id1* based on the difference between the rotating speed ω1 of the first motor and the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor (¶[0166]-[0168]). Cho '855 explicitly teaches controlling two motors using a single inverter (¶[0010]-[0012]).The limitations of "heterogeneous control" in Claim 21 is not defined with particular boundaries and encompasses control techniques that Cho '245 and Cho '855 explicitly teach. The specification of the instant application describes heterogeneous control as: (1) differently setting limit values for drive currents of the motors; (2) selecting one motor as a master to be controlled; and (3) performing compensation control on a d-axis current. Cho '245 teaches all of these techniques: (1) the d-axis current selector 290 (Fig. 15:290) outputs optimal d-axis currents for each motor to minimize losses (¶[0188]); (2) the controller selects which motor's current to compensate based on parameter differences (¶[0110]-[0123]); and (3) the d-axis current compensator 250 (Fig. 11:250) performs compensation control based on speed differences (¶[0141]-[0148]). Thus, "heterogeneous control" is merely a label for techniques already taught in the prior art.
Setting a threshold ("at least a certain value") for when to initiate control action is inherent in Cho '245's teachings, as the controller initiates compensation when a deviation between rotating speeds is detected (¶[0157]-[0161]). As stated in In re GPB, 778 F.2d 691, 694 (Fed. Cir. 1985), "the discovery of the optimum value of a variable in a known process is ordinarily a matter of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art."
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Cho '245 and Cho '855 because they address the same technical problem (controlling multiple motors with a single inverter), are commonly assigned, and share common inventors. The combination teaches all claim elements, and the differences are merely labeling of known techniques and application to a specifically listed appliance (air-conditioners).
Claim 22-38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Cho '245.
Regarding Claim 22, Cho’245 teaches that wherein the parameters of the first motor and the parameters of the second motor comprise at least one of each motor's resistance, inductance and counter electromotive force (motor parameters including resistance Rs, inductance Ls, and magnetic flux λ (related to counter electromotive force) are used in calculating optimal control currents. Cho '245 discloses Equation 4 (¶[0165]-[0167]);where "Rs is resistance of a coil included in the stator, Ls is inductance of the coil included in the stator, λ is magnetic flux of a permanent magnet" (¶[0165]). The counter electromotive force E0 is explicitly described at ¶[0097]-[0098] and ¶[0126], where Cho '245 teaches applying a dq axis voltage corresponding to the vector sum of the voltage drop ωr·Ls·I0 due to the coil and the counter electromotive force E0. Cho '245 further teaches that the d-axis current compensator 250 outputs a d-axis current command based on the rotating speeds and locations of the rotors (¶[0141]), which are directly related to counter electromotive force. Cho '245 at ¶[0165]-[0167] and Equations 4-6 explicitly considers these parameters for calculating optimal currents that minimize losses.).
Regarding Claims 23 and 26, Cho’245 teaches that a display (Fig.13),
wherein the heterogeneous control is characterized in that the processor is configured to indicate on the display that the first motor and the second motor are different in kind.
Regarding Claim 24, Cho’245 teaches that current sensors detecting a current of the first motor and a current of the second motor,
wherein the heterogeneous control is characterized in that the processor is configured to determine by the processor, when a current detected by at least one of the current sensors is an overcurrent that exceeds a certain current value to be controlled by the inverter, that the overcurrent is caused by a difference of at least a certain value between the parameters of the first motor and the parameters of the second motor (Fig.1:130,140).
Regarding Claim 25, Cho’245 teaches that wherein the heterogeneous control is characterized in that the processor is configured to control the inverter by differently setting a limit value of a drive current of the first motor and a limit value of a drive current of the second motor based on the parameters of the first motor and the parameters of the second motor( differently setting current values for the motors based on their parameters through the d-axis current selector 290 (Fig. 15:290). Cho '245 discloses that the d-axis current selector 290 "outputs the optimal d-axis current Ir which may minimize losses of the first and second motors 150 and 160 based on the d-axis current Id1 and q-axis current Iq1 of the first motor 150, the d-axis current Id2 and the q-axis current Iq2 of the second motor 160, and the rotating speed of the first motor 150" (¶[0188]). This teaches differently setting current values for each motor based on their parameters. Cho '245 further teaches at ¶[0116]-[0123] that the controller changes the d1 axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 differently from the d2 axis current Id2 of the second motor 160 to control their respective output torques. Cho '245 discloses: "when the d axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 is '0', and the d axis current Id2 of the second motor 160 is '0', the losses are minimum" and further teaches different optimal d-axis current values for different load conditions (¶[0181]-[0183]). For example, when the second motor has half the load of the first motor, "the d axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 is -0.2A, and the d axis current Id2 of the second motor 160 is +0.2A" (¶[0182]). This explicitly teaches differently setting current limit values based on motor parameters).
Regarding Claims 27:Cho '245 teaches that wherein the heterogeneous control is characterized in that the processor controls the inverter by differently setting a limit value of a drive current of the first motor and a limit value of a drive current of the second motor based on the parameters(Cho '245 teaches independent control of q-axis and d-axis currents through separate controllers. A q-axis current controller 240 (Fig. 11:240) compares a q-axis current command Iq* with the q-axis current Iq1 of the first motor 150 and outputs a q-axis voltage command (¶[0140]). A d-axis current controller 260 (Fig. 11:260) compares a d-axis current command Id* with the d-axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 and outputs a d-axis voltage command (¶[0150]). Cho '245 explicitly teaches that these controllers operate independently: "The controller 200 may consistently fix the q1 axis current and the d1 axis voltage of the first motor 150 to consistently maintain the output torque of the first motor 150, and may change the d1 axis current and the q1 axis voltage of the first motor 150 to change the output torque of the second motor 160" (¶[0112]). This teaches independent control of q-axis and d-axis currents).
Regarding Claims 28:Cho '245 teaches that wherein the processor is configured to independently control a q-axis current and a d-axis current of at least one of the first motor and the second motor whose drive current is to be limited, in limiting the drive current of the first motor or the second motor to be equal to or smaller than the limit value of the drive current of the first motor or the limit value of the drive current of the second motor (Cho '245 teaches at ¶[0169]-[0175] and Equations 4-6 that the sum (Id1² + Id2²) must be minimized to minimize losses. Cho '245 discloses Equation 4 (¶[0165]):and teaches that "(Id1² + Id2²) should be minimized to minimize the losses of the first and second motors 150 and 160" (¶[0172]-[0173]). This inherently teaches setting the sum of current limits to a constrained value for optimization.).
Regarding Claims 29:Cho '245 teaches that wherein the heterogeneous control is characterized in that the processor is configured to set a sum of the limit value of the drive current of the first motor and the limit value of the drive current of the second motor to be equal to or smaller than a limit value of a drive current of the inverter (This is a standard design constraint that one of ordinary skill would apply as a matter of routine engineering judgment to prevent motor damage. Cho '245 teaches optimal current selection to minimize losses (¶[0181]-[0188]), which inherently requires staying within safe operating limits including avoiding demagnetization).
Regarding Claims 29:Cho '245 teaches that wherein the heterogeneous control is characterized in that the processor is configured to set a sum of the limit value of the drive current of the first motor and the limit value of the drive current of the second motor to be equal to or smaller than a limit value of a drive current of the inverter(Cho '245 teaches at ¶[0169]-[0175] and Equations 4-6 that the sum (Id1² + Id2²) must be minimized to minimize losses. Cho '245 discloses Equation 4 (¶[0165]):and teaches that "(Id1² + Id2²) should be minimized to minimize the losses of the first and second motors 150 and 160" (¶[0172]-[0173]). This inherently teaches setting the sum of current limits to a constrained value for optimization.).
Regarding Claims 31:Cho '245 teaches that wherein the heterogeneous control is characterized in that the processor is configured to select one of the first motor and the second motor as a master to be controlled(Cho '245 teaches selecting which motor to control through the operation of the d-axis current compensator 250 (Fig. 11:250) and d-axis current selector 290 (Fig. 15:290). Cho '245 teaches that "the controller 200 may increase or reduce the output torque of the second motor 160 by increasing or reducing the d1 axis current of the first motor 150 according to the locations of the rotators of the first and second motors 150 and 160" (¶[0132]). This teaches selecting a motor (the first motor in this example) for control to affect the other motor's operation. Cho '245 further teaches that the d-axis current selector 290 outputs optimal d-axis current based on the currents and rotating speeds of both motors (¶[0188]), implicitly selecting control parameters based on motor parameters. The controller's operation inherently involves selecting which motor's parameters dominate the control decision, as Cho '245 teaches controlling the second motor's torque by changing the first motor's current (¶[0110]-[0123]).
Regarding Claims 32:Cho '245 teaches that wherein the processor is configured to select a motor with greater torque from among the first motor and the second motor as the master to be controlled by consideration of a parameter difference between the first and second motors(Cho '245 teaches at ¶[0117]-[0123] that increasing or decreasing d-axis current of the first motor increases or decreases torque of the second motor, implicitly teaching that motor torque is considered in control decisions. Cho '245 teaches detecting currents of both motors through first current detector 130 (Fig. 1:130) and second current detector 140 (Fig. 1:140) (¶[0063]-[0064]) and using these currents in control decisions (¶[0156]-[0161]). The selection of a motor as "master" based on torque or current magnitude would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill implementing Cho '245's teachings).
Regarding Claims 33:Cho '245 teaches that wherein the processor is configured to select a motor with a larger current flowing thereto from among the first motor and the second motor as the master to be controlled by consideration of a parameter difference between the first and second motors and loads of the first and second motors (Cho '245 teaches at ¶[0117]-[0123] that increasing or decreasing d-axis current of the first motor increases or decreases torque of the second motor, implicitly teaching that motor torque is considered in control decisions.).
Regarding Claims 34:Cho '245 teaches that wherein the processor is configured to perform compensation control on a d-axis current of a motor which is a master to be controlled among the first and second motors when there is a speed difference between the first and second motors(Cho '245 explicitly teaches this limitation through the d-axis current compensator 250 (Fig. 11:250; Fig. 12:250; Fig. 16:250). Cho '245 discloses: "The d-axis current compensator 250 outputs a d-axis current command Id* based on the rotating speed ω1 of the first motor 150, the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor 160, the location θ1 of the first rotor and the location θ2 of the second rotor" (¶[0141]). The speed comparator 251 (Fig. 12:251) within the d-axis current compensator 250 "outputs the preliminary d axis current command Id1* so that a difference between the rotating speed ω1 of the first motor 150 and the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor 160 is '0'" (¶[0143]). This is precisely compensation control on d-axis current when there is a speed difference. Cho '245 further teaches: "When deviation between the rotating speed ω1 of the first motor 150 and the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor 160 is generated, the d axis current compensator 250 immediately outputs the d axis current Id1 to stabilize the rotating speed ω2 of the second motor 160" (¶[0192]-[0193]). This teaches performing compensation control on the d-axis current of the first motor (the "master" in Cho '245's implementation) based on the speed difference).
Regarding Claims 35:Cho '245 teaches that when a parameter difference between the first motor and the second motor causes a difference between a torque of the first motor and a torque of the second motor and a speed difference between the first and second motors, a rotational speed of the second motor being higher than a rotational speed of the first motor, the processor is configured to compensate a d-axis current of the first motor to reduce the torque of the second motor.(Cho '245 explicitly teaches at ¶[0116]-[0123] and FIGS. 5-10 that when loads differ (which causes parameter differences and speed differences), the controller changes the d-axis current of the first motor to reduce or increase the torque of the second motor. Cho '245 discloses: "when the d1 axis-q1 axis of the first motor 150 is located ahead of the d2 axis-q2 axis of the second motor 160 in a rotating direction, the output of the second motor 160 may be reduced when the d axis current of the first motor 150 is reduced" (¶[0129]), and "when the d1 axis-q1 axis of the first motor 150 is located behind the d2 axis-q2 axis of the second motor 160 in the rotating direction, the output of the second motor 160 may be increased when the d axis current of the first motor 150 is reduced" (¶[0130]-[0131]). Cho '245 further teaches: "when the rotating speeds of the first and second motors 150 and 160 in the controller 200 are different from each other, the controller 200 may increase or reduce the output torque of the second motor 160 by increasing or reducing the d1 axis current of the first motor 150" (¶[0132]-[0133]).).
Regarding Claims 36:Cho '245 teaches that wherein, when a parameter difference between the first motor and the second motor causes a difference between a torque of the first motor and a torque of the second motor and loads of the first and second motors differ from each other, the first and second motors are driven to minimize a conduction loss based on the parameter difference(Cho '245 teaches at ¶[0141]-[0148] that the d-axis current compensator 250 performs compensation using speed comparator 251 and location comparator 252 to output d-axis current commands. Cho '245 teaches the mathematical relationships and control techniques at ¶[0164]-[0175] and Equations 4-6 for calculating optimal currents)
Regarding Claims 37:Cho '245 teaches that wherein, when a parameter difference between the first motor and the second motor causes a torque difference and a speed difference between the first and second motors, the rotational speed of the second motor being less than the rotation seed of the first motor, the processor is further configured to compensate a d-axis current of the first motor to increase the torque of the second motor(Fig. 11:250; Fig. 12:250; Fig. 16:250) outputs a d-axis current command Id* based on the difference between the rotating speeds (¶[0141]-[0143]). Cho '245 explicitly teaches: "when the load of the first motor 150 and the load of the second motor 160 are different from each other, the controller 200 may change a d1 axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 to change an output torque of the second motor 160 without change in an output torque of the first motor 150" (¶[0110]). This is precisely the "heterogeneous control" described in the instant specification—differently controlling the motors based on parameter differences.).second motor
Regarding Claims 38:Cho '245 teaches that wherein the difference in speed between the first and second motors is caused by a difference in parameters between the first and second motors and a difference in load between the first and second motors (Fig. 11:250; Fig. 12:250; Fig. 16:250) outputs a d-axis current command Id* based on the difference between the rotating speeds (¶[0141]-[0143]). Cho '245 explicitly teaches: "when the load of the first motor 150 and the load of the second motor 160 are different from each other, the controller 200 may change a d1 axis current Id1 of the first motor 150 to change an output torque of the second motor 160 without change).
Regarding Claims 41:Cho '245 teaches that herein the heterogenous control comprises at least one of:
displaying that the first and second motors are heterogeneous (Fig.13);
operating the inverter by differently setting a limit value of drive current of the first motor and a limit value of drive current of the second motor;
selecting one of the first and second motors as a master to be controlled based on a parameter difference and/or a load current difference;
performing control to compensate d-axis current of the master to be controlled when there is a difference in speed between the first and second motors; and
driving the first and second motors at an optimal control point when there is a parameter difference (Cho '245 teaches at ¶[0169]-[0175] and Equations 4-6 that the sum (Id1² + Id2²) must be minimized to minimize losses. Cho '245 discloses Equation 4 (¶[0165]):and teaches that "(Id1² + Id2²) should be minimized to minimize the losses of the first and second motors 150 and 160" (¶[0172]-[0173]). This inherently teaches setting the sum of current limits to a constrained value for optimization.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is 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 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
Prosecution Insights