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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 15-16 , 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heikkila (US 2011/0001447 A1).
For claim 1, Heikkila discloses a method for configuring a motor drive for driving an induction motor which comprises a rotor and a magnetic core comprising a magnetic inductance component (Fig. 1 of Heikkila disclose a method for configuring a motor drive for driving an induction motor which comprises a rotor (a rotor has a rotor resistance RR) and a magnetic core comprising a magnetic inductance component ϬLs-- see Heikkila, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0016]), the method comprising:
performing a first Direct Current, DC, current injection of a first DC current value in the motor at standstill during a first predetermined time duration for first magnetization of the magnetic core of the motor (Heikkila discloses performing a first Direct Current, DC, current injection (i_m) of a first DC current value in the motor at standstill during a first predetermined time which is duration form the motor at standstill until the motor reaches a steady state for first magnetization of the magnetic core of the motor, wherein the current reference of the inverter has a first value (i_dc_ref1) – see Heikkila, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0012], [0016], [0024] and [0031]);
performing, further to the first DC current injection, a second DC current injection of a second DC current value in the motor at standstill during a second predetermined time duration for second magnetization of the magnetic core of the motor (Figs. 1 and 3 of Heikkila disclose performing, further to the first DC current injection, a second DC current injection (
PNG
media_image1.png
26
174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) of a second DC current value in the motor at standstill during a second predetermined time duration (t1-t0) for second magnetization of the magnetic core of the motor – see Heikkila, Figs 1 and 3, paragraph [0032]);
wherein the second predetermined time duration is shorter than the first predetermined time duration (Heikkila does not specifically disclose the second predetermined time duration is shorter than the first predetermined time duration. However, Heikkila discloses that the first DC magnetization is maintained until the induction machine reach steady state (see Heikkila, paragraph [0024]), while Heikkila discloses that the magnetization time of the subsequent second DC magnetization should be selected to be as short as possible and that a higher second current is used to achieve the desired magnetization within the shortened magnetization time (see Heikkila, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to select magnetization time period to be shorter than the first magnetization time period into Heikkila’s system for purpose of reducing cumulative voltage integration errors and thereby improve estimation accuracy, while increasing the second DC magnetization current as necessary to obtain the desired magnetization within the shortened period).
For claim 2, Heikkila discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: configuring the motor drive based on the first and second DC current injections (see Heikkila, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0006]-[0008] and [0052]-[0056]).
For claim 4, Heikkila discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
performing a plurality of N subsequent DC current injections in the motor at standstill during respective predetermined time durations (Fig. 3 of Heikkila discloses performing a plurality of N subsequent DC current injections in the motor at standstill during respective predetermined time durations – see Heikkila, Fig. 3, abstract, paragraphs [0036] and [0039]), wherein N is an integer greater than 3 (Fig. 4 of Heikkila discloses three different subsequent magnetization tests, each employing a different DC current reference (Idc-ref2) , and discloses that the appropriate current reference is found in the third illustrated test. Thus, when considered together with the initial first DC magnetization test, Heikkila discloses at least four DC magnetization injections/tests performed on the induction machine at standstill, thereby disclosing a plurality of N DC current injections wherein N is an integer greater than 3 and wherein the plurality includes the first and second DC current injections – see Hekkila, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0040]-[0041]), and wherein one or more of the respective predetermined time durations of the N-1 DC current injections subsequent to the first DC current injection are shorter than the first predetermined duration of the first DC injection (Heikkla is silent for disclosing one or more of the respective predetermined time durations of the N-1 DC current injections subsequent to the first DC current injection are shorter than the first predetermined duration of the first DC injection. However, Heikkla disclose the subsequent DC magnetization tests for predetermined magnetization periods shorter than the duration of the initial DC magnetization that is continued until steady state (see Hekkila, Figs. 1- 3, Abstract, paragraphs [0014]-[0015], [0034] and [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to perform the plurality of subsequent DC current injections disclosed by Hekkila using one or more respective predetermined magnetization durations shorter that the duration of the first DC magnetization for purpose of reducing cumulative voltage-integration errors and improving parameter estimation accuracy).
For claim 5, Heikkila disclose the method according to claim 4, wherein the second DC injection is performed upon end of a first predetermined in-between injection time duration following the first predetermined time duration (see Hekkila, Paragraph [0039], and one or more predetermined in-between injection time durations between respective pairs of subsequent DC current injections among the N-2 DC current injections subsequent to the first and second DC current injections are shorter than the first predetermined in-between injection time duration (Hekkila does not disclose one or more of thein-between time durations between the subsequent DC magnetization tests are shorter than the first in- between time duration. However, Heikkila discloses the purpose of each pause is to permit residual rotor flux form the preceding magnetization test to decay sufficiently before commencement of the next test – see Heikkilam paragraph [0039]. Furthermore, Hekkila discloses the initial first magnetization is maintained until the induction machine reaches steady state, whereas the subsequent magnetization tests are performed using a shorter magnetization period (see Hekkila, paragraphs [0034] and [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to select the respective pause durations in this manner because Hekkila discloses that the functional purpose of the pause is to allow residual rotor flux from the preceding test to decay before commencing the next magnetization test for purpose of reducing the total duration of the standstill identification procedure while maintaining the condition required by Hekkila for commencement of the next magnetization test).
For claim 7, Heikkila discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
performing each of a plurality of N measurements of a voltage at motor terminals of the motor at standstill during demagnetization of the magnetic core of the motor further to a respective DC current injection of the plurality of N subsequent DC current injections (Heikkila does not disclose each repeated voltage determination as one of “N voltage measurement” corresponding respectively to the N DC current injection, Heikkila discloses repeating the DC magnetization test and discloses estimating rotor flux in each magnetization test using the voltage model --see Heikkila, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0010], [0024], [0030] and [0045]-[0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to perform the disclosed voltage measurement/flux estimation operation for each of the plurality of repeated DC magnetization tests for purpose of permitting the motor parameter to be determined from the repeated standstill identification measurement);
determining, based on the N voltage measurements, an estimate of the magnetic inductance component of the motor operating in linear regime (see Heikkila, Fig. 1 , paragraphs [0007], [0012]-[0014], [0023], [0048]-[0049] and [0051]); Heikkila does not disclose each repeated voltage determination as one of “N voltage measurement” corresponding respectively to the N DC current injection. However, Heikkila discloses the DC magnetization test and discloses estimating rotor flux in each magnetization test using the voltage model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to perform the disclosed voltage measurement/flux estimation operation for each of the plurality of repeated DC magnetization tests for purpose of permitting the motor parameter to be determined from the repeated standstill identification measurement;
determining, based on one of the N voltage measurements, an estimate of a time constant of the rotor of the motor operating in linear regime (see Heikkila, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0008], [0049] and [0051]);
determining an estimate of a rotor resistance of the motor based on the estimates of the magnetic inductance component of the motor and the rotor time constant (see Heikkila, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0006] [0051]).
For claim 8, Heikkila discloses the method according to claim 7, further comprising: configuring the motor drive based on the estimate of the rotor resistance of the motor (see Heikkila, Fig. 1, paragraph [0051]).
For claim 9, Heikkila discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: for each voltage measurement, determining an estimate of a magnetic flux in the magnetic inductance component of the motor based on the voltage measurement (see Heikkila, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0010], [0034] and [0045]).
For claim 10, Heikkila discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a plurality of N duplets of current and magnetic flux values, based on the N voltage measurements performed further to injecting respective values of DC current in the motor at standstill for respective time periods (Fig. 4 of Heikkila discloses determining a plurality of N duplets of current and magnetic flux values, based on the N voltage measurements performed further to injecting respective values of DC current in the motor at standstill for respective time periods – see Heikkila, Figs. 3-4, paragraphs [0010], [0034]; [0040]-[0042] and [0045]-[0046]. It is noted that Fig. 4 of Heikkila discloses three different magnetization tests, wherein a different DC current reference is used for each test).
For claim 11, Heikkila discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the motor is an asynchronous induction motor (Heikkila discloses an induction machine having the electrical and magnetic characteristic of an asynchronous induction motor, including a rotor flux, rotor resistance, rotor time constant, main magnetizing inductance, stator resistance, and stray inductance. Heikkila further discloses that the rotor time constant is related to the main inductance and toro resistance and determines the rotor resistance from the main inductance and rotor time constant – see Heikkila, Fig. 1, abstract, paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0016], [0042]).
For claim 12, An apparatus, comprising a processor, a memory operatively coupled to the processor (see Heikkila, paragraph [0052]), and an interface for coupling to an induction motor to be driven by the apparatus (see Heikkilak, paragraphs [0016], [0024] and [0052]) wherein the apparatus is configured to perform a method for configuring a motor drive for driving the induction motor which comprises a rotor and a magnetic core comprising a magnetic inductance component, the method comprising:
performing a first Direct Current, DC, current injection of a first DC current value in the motor at standstill during a first predetermined time duration for first magnetization of the magnetic core of the motor (same as claim 1 above. The explanation is omitted);
performing, further to the first DC current injection, a second DC current injection of a second DC current value in the motor at standstill during a second predetermined time duration for second magnetization of the magnetic core of the motor (same as claim 1 above. The explanation is omitted);
wherein the second predetermined time duration is shorter than the first predetermined time duration (same as claim 1 above. The explanation is omitted).
Claims 16 and 18-19 are “an apparatus” claim which is either same or similar to that of the “a method” claims 2 and 4-5, respectively. The explanation is omitted.
For claim 15, A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with executable instructions which, when executed, causes an apparatus comprising a processor operatively coupled with a memory (see Heikkila, paragraph [0052]), to perform a method for configuring a motor drive for driving an induction motor which comprises a rotor and a magnetic core comprising a magnetic inductance component (same as claim 1 above. The explanation is omitted), the method comprising:
performing a first Direct Current, DC, current injection of a first DC current value in the motor at standstill during a first predetermined time duration for first magnetization of the magnetic core of the motor (same as claim 1 above. The explanation is omitted);
performing, further to the first DC current injection, a second DC current injection of a second DC current value in the motor at standstill during a second predetermined time duration for second magnetization of the magnetic core of the motor (same as claim 1 above. The explanation is omitted);
wherein the second predetermined time duration is shorter than the first predetermined time duration (same as claim 1 above. The explanation is omitted).
Claims 20 and 22 are “an apparatus” claims which are either same or similar to that of the “a method” claims 2 and 4, respectively. The explanation is omitted.
Claims 3, 6, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heikkila (US 2011/0001447 A1) in view of Heikkila (2011/0010116 A1 (hereinafter ‘116, US 2011/0010116 A1).
For claim 3, Heikkila discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Heikkila discloses the second DC current value which is silent to be smaller than the first DC current value. However, the ‘116 similarly discloses identification of parameters of an induction machine at standstill using first and second DC magnetizing currents (see the ‘116, abstract, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0045] and [0082]) having different magnitudes (Fig. 3 of the ‘166 discloses the first and second DC magnetizing currents having different magnitudes – see the ‘166, Fig. 3, paragraph [0045]) . the ‘166 discloses the second DC current value is smaller than the first DC current value (the ‘166 does not specifically disclose the second DC current value is smaller than the first DC current value. However, Fig. 3 of the ‘166 discloses the second DC magnetizing current isd2 which is smaller than and the first DC magnetizing current value isd1 – see the ‘166, Fig. 3, paragraph [0045]. It is well-known in art that a dc current flowing through a winding is directly proportional to the static magnetic field (or DC magnetic flux). Thus, the ‘s 166 discloses that the second DC current value is smaller than the first DC current value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heikkila in accordance with the teaching of the ‘166 by selecting the first and second DC magnetizing current values such that the second DC current value is smaller than the first DC current value for purpose of operating of the induction machine parameter identification procedure and that the lower current need not be applied first.
For claim 6, Heikkila discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Heikkila discloses repeating the subsequent magnetization test multiple times while varying the DC current reference (Idc-ref2) until a desired magnetization/current condition is obtained. Thus, Heikkila discloses performing a plurality of subsequent DC current injections having respective DC current values that are varied from one injection to a subsequent injection. Heikkila does not disclose the respective DC current values of the N subsequent DC current injections are decreasing from a DC current value of a ith DC current injection to a DC current value to a subsequent (i + 1)th DC current injection. However, the ‘116 discloses identification of parameters of an induction machine at standstill using DC magnetizing currents having different magnitudes magnetizing current are applied is not critical (see the ‘116, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0045] and [0072]-[0073]). Although an embodiment illustrates a lower magnetizing current followed by higher magnetizing current, the ‘s116 discloses that the lower current does not have to be used first (see the ‘116, Fig. 9, paragraphs [0090] and [0098]). Thus, the ‘166 discloses that the higher magnetizing current may precede the lower magnetizing current). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to perform the repeated DC current injections of the ‘116 by varying the respective DC current values in decreasing order, such that the DC current value of ith DC current injection is greater than the DC current value of a subsequent (i + 1)th DC current injection for purpose of obtaining the desired magnetization/current condition.
Claims 17 and 21 are “an apparatus” claims which are either same or similar to that of the “a method” claim 3. The explanation is omitted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Oct 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights