DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on 11/08/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for Examination. Claims 1 and 12 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Alice Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category (systems and methods).
Alice Step 2A, Prong 1 (Identification of Abstract Idea): Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites a method for detecting disconnection of a power cable by obtaining current values, calculating a correction, and determining a disconnection based on a calculated index. This is a fundamental practice and/or a method of organizing human activity (namely, the management and safety of equipment). Alternatively, the claim is directed to a mathematical concept—the calculation of a "cable disconnection index" from current values. The claim does not recite any specific physical apparatus beyond a generic computing device, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Alice Step 2A/B, Prong 2 (Integration into a Practical Application): No Inventive Concept / Not Integrated into a Practical Application The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations of a "computing device including a processor and a storage medium" are merely generic computer components configured to perform the abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (stating that "merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible application").
The steps of obtaining, determining, and detecting are not tied to any specific machine or process outside of the generic computing environment. The claim is not limited to any particular motor system, vehicle, or sensor arrangement.
Alice Step 2B (Significantly More): The claim does not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea.
The "cable disconnection index" is a result-effective variable that could be calculated by any generic computer. The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect a transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The method could be performed by a human using a calculator given the sensor data. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under § 101.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, and 6 do not cure the § 101 rejection as they merely specify the mathematical calculations or generic additional steps (transmitting information), which do not add an inventive concept or integrate the idea into a practical application.
Claim 12 is rejected under § 101 on similar grounds. While it recites a motor system, the controller is still performing the abstract method of analyzing data. The recited structural components (inverters, windings, sensors) are conventional motor system elements that do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea of data analysis. The claim is not directed to a specific, non-conventional improvement in motor technology but to the generic application of a monitoring algorithm to a motor system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
1. "Cable disconnection index" – Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 16 recited limitations of "cable disconnection index" is indefinite. The claim fails to recite any parameters or algorithm for calculating this index. The specification discloses multiple possibilities, such as using d-axis and q-axis currents in a stationary reference frame, or other equations. The claim provides no guidance, leaving the scope of the claim unclear. The breadth of the term "based on" further exacerbates the indefiniteness.
2. "Predetermined time period" – Claims 3, 5, 15, 17 recited limitations "predetermined time period" is indefinite. The claim fails to recite any duration or range of time. The specification only provides a single, non-limiting example of "e.g., 30 ms." The claims do not provide any structure or guidance on how to determine the appropriate time period, making it unclear whether a person of ordinary skill would know what constitutes infringement. See Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 922 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding that a claim term that can be satisfied by any duration is indefinite).
Appropriate correction is requested.
Since the independent claims 1and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and hence the dependent claims of 1 and 12 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.
Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0061694 A1 ("Kang") in view of US2021/0075355 A1 ("Shoda").
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Kang teaches that an apparatus for detecting disconnection of a power cable of a motor(Fig. 3; ¶ [0038]), comprising:
a computing device including a processor and a storage medium on which one or more programs configured to be executable by the processor are recorded;
wherein by use of the one or more programs, the computing device performs(Fig. 3; ¶ [0038], [0059]):
obtaining a plurality of sensing current values from a plurality of current sensors respectively sensing currents flowing in a plurality of windings of the motor corresponding to a plurality of phases of the motor(Fig. 3; ¶ [0058]);
detecting the disconnection in each of the phases based on a cable disconnection index based on the plurality of correction current values(Fig. 4; ¶ [0079]-[0084], Eq. 1-3);and
Kang fails to teach but Shoda teaches that determining a plurality of correction current values by removing a common mode current from each of the sensing current values(Fig.6 and ¶ [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the common mode current from the sensed current values prior to calculating the d-axis and q-axis currents, as taught by Shoda's recognition that the sum of three-phase currents is zero (¶ [0086]) and as a conventional signal processing step to improve detection accuracy by eliminating common-mode distortion, a problem noted in the art. Kang teaches detecting the disconnection of each phase based on the calculated location of the current space vector (Fig. 8; ¶ [0102], [0113]-[0118]), which constitutes a cable disconnection index based on the correction current values.
Regarding Independent Claim 12, Claim 12 recites that a motor system, comprising:
a first inverter connected to first ends of a plurality of windings of a motor corresponding to a plurality of phases of the motor, and including a plurality of first switching elements;
a second inverter connected to second ends of the plurality of windings, and including a plurality of second switching elements;
a controller operatively connected to a plurality of first switching elements or a plurality of second switching elements and configured for controlling switching of the plurality of first switching elements or the plurality of second switching elements; and
a plurality of current sensors respectively sensing currents flowing in the plurality of windings,
wherein the controller operatively connected to the plurality of current sensors is configured to obtain a plurality of sensing current values from the plurality of current sensors, determine a plurality of correction current values by removing a common mode current from each of the sensing current values, and detect disconnection in each of the phases based on a cable connection index based on the plurality of correction current values (This claim recites a motor system with structural elements similar to claim 7. For the same reasons as stated for claim 7, it would have been obvious to combine the dual-inverter system known in the art with the disconnection detection method of Kang. The controller is configured to perform the same method steps as claim 1, which are taught by Kang and Shoda as noted above).
Regarding the Dependent Claims:
Claim 2 recite that wherein the common mode current corresponds to an average value of the plurality of sensing current values, and
wherein the cable disconnection index is based on current values in a stationary reference frame of the plurality of correction current values (Kang teaches that the common mode current inherently corresponds to the average value of the three-phase currents, as the d-axis and q-axis currents are calculated using transformations that isolate the differential mode components (¶ [0083]-[0084]). Kang further teaches that the location of the current space vector is based on current values in a stationary reference frame, specifically the d-axis and q-axis currents of the stator coordinate system (Fig. 4; ¶ [0079]-[0087]).
Claim 3 recites that wherein the detecting of the disconnection includes
determining that a U-phase disconnection has occurred, in response that the cable disconnection index falls within a U-phase disconnection reference range for a predetermined time period,
determining that a V-phase disconnection has occurred, in response that the cable disconnection index falls within a V-phase disconnection detection reference range for a predetermined time period,
determining that a W-phase disconnection has occurred, in response that the cable disconnection index falls within a W-phase disconnection detection reference range for a predetermined time period,
wherein the U-phase disconnection detection reference range, the V-phase disconnection detection reference range, and the W-phase disconnection detection reference range do not overlap each other ( Kang teaches determining that a U-phase disconnection has occurred when the location of the current space vector is 90° or -90°, a V-phase disconnection when the location is -30° or 150°, and a W-phase disconnection when the location is 30° or -150° (Fig. 5-7; ¶ [0113]-[0118]). These discrete angular ranges do not overlap. Shoda teaches that a disconnection is confirmed when an abnormal state persists for a predetermined number of determination times, which corresponds to a predetermined time period (Fig. 6; ¶ [0093]-[0094]). Combining the specific phase detection of Kang with the time-based persistence confirmation of Shoda would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide robust disconnection detection).
Claim 4 recites that wherein the detecting of the disconnection includes:
determining the cable disconnection index based on a value obtained by dividing a q-axis current by a d-axis current in a stationary reference frame (Kang explicitly teaches that the location of the current space vector, which serves as the cable disconnection index, is calculated using the ratio of the q-axis current to the d-axis current and an arctangent function (Fig. 4; ¶ [0087], [0099], Eq. 3). This directly corresponds to determining the index based on a value obtained by dividing a q-axis current by a d-axis current in a stationary reference frame0.
Claim 5 recites that wherein the detecting of the disconnection further includes:
determining that a U-phase disconnection has occurred, in response that the cable disconnection index falls within a U-phase disconnection detection reference range for a predetermined time period,
determining that a V-phase disconnection has occurred, in response that the cable disconnection index falls within a V-phase disconnection detection reference range for a predetermined time period,
determining that a W-phase disconnection has occurred, in response that the cable disconnection index falls within a W-phase disconnection detection reference range for a predetermined time period,
wherein the U-phase disconnection detection reference range, the V-phase disconnection detection reference range, and the W-phase disconnection detection reference range do not overlap with each other,
wherein the U-phase disconnection detection reference range includes 0,
wherein the V-phase disconnection detection reference range includes a positive number of a square root of 3, and
wherein the W-phase disconnection detection reference range includes a negative number of the square root of 3 ( Kang teaches that for a U-phase disconnection, the location of the current space vector is 90° or -90°, which corresponds to a ratio (q/d) approaching infinity.
However, one of ordinary skill would understand that for small d-axis currents, the ratio may be large, and that the specific reference ranges can be determined based on the theoretical locations. Shoda teaches using a determination threshold and comparing a calculated ratio to that threshold (Fig. 6; ¶ [0088]). It would have been obvious to derive the specific reference ranges (including 0, +√3, -√3) from the theoretical angular locations taught by Kang, as these values are related to the tangent of the angles (e.g., tan(-30°) = -1/√3, tan(30°) = 1/√3), and routine experimentation would yield suitable non-overlapping ranges).
Claim 6 recites that wherein the computing device further performs:
executing a following logic in response that the disconnection is detected by operation of detecting disconnection in each of the phases,
wherein the executing of the following logic includes transmitting information of disconnection of the power cable of the motor to a vehicle or an outside of the vehicle( Kang teaches that when a disconnection is detected, the control unit informs of the error and cuts off power supply (¶ [0106]). Shoda teaches outputting a disconnection detection signal to a switching signal generation unit to stop driving the switching elements (¶ [0048], [0061]). It would have been obvious to transmit this information to a vehicle or outside the vehicle as a standard safety response, as vehicles commonly alert drivers or external systems upon detection of a fault).
Claim 7 recites that a motor system including the motor, a first converter, a second converter, the plurality of current sensors, and a controller,
wherein the first inverter is connected to first ends of the plurality of windings, and includes a plurality of first switching elements,
wherein the second inverter is connected to second ends of the plurality of windings, and includes a plurality of second switching elements, and
wherein the controller operatively connected to the plurality of first switching elements or the plurality of second switching elements is configured to control switching of the plurality of first switching elements or the plurality of second switching elements(Kang discloses an inverter system including a motor, an inverter, current sensors, and a controller (Fig. 3; ¶ [0038]). While Kang shows a single inverter, dual-inverter motor systems are well-known in the art for enhancing motor performance and are disclosed in the instant specification (¶ [0033]-[0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the disconnection detection method of Kang to a dual-inverter motor system, such as that claimed, to provide the same safety benefits in such a system.).
Claim 8 recites that a plurality of third switching elements connected between the plurality of windings (The addition of a plurality of third switching elements connected between the windings is a known configuration for changing between open-end and closed-end winding modes, as disclosed in the instant specification (¶ [0042]-[0043]).Incorporating such known elements into the motor system of Kang would have been an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill to provide mode-switching capability).
Claim 9 recites that a battery commonly used in the first inverter and the second inverter. It is well-known in the art for a dual-inverter system to share a common battery, as disclosed in the instant specification (¶ [0044]). Using a common battery for the first and second inverters would have been an obvious design choice to reduce component count and cost.
Claim 10 recites that wherein the controller is further configured to convert the plurality of correction current values into current values in a synchronous reference frame, to determine a pulse width modulation (PWM) duty based on the current values in the synchronous reference frame, and to control switching of the plurality of first switching elements or the plurality of second switching elements based on the PWM duty (Kang teaches that the control unit generates switching signals based on the calculated current values to control the inverter (¶ [0060]-[0061]). Converting the correction current values to a synchronous reference frame, determining a PWM duty, and controlling switching elements are standard motor control steps that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for implementing the controller's function).
Claim 11 recites that a vehicle, comprising:
the apparatus of claim 1 (The vehicle claim depends on the apparatus of claim 1. Since the apparatus of claim 1 would have been obvious, it would have been obvious to incorporate this known apparatus into a vehicle, as vehicles commonly employ motor systems with disconnection detection for safety.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim adds limitations similar to claim 2, which are taught by Kang as noted above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim adds limitations similar to claim 10, which are taught by Kang and would have been obvious as noted above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim adds limitations similar to claim 3, which are taught by Kang in view of Shoda as noted above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim adds limitations similar to claim 4, which are taught by Kang as noted above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim adds limitations similar to claim 5, which are taught by Kang in view of Shoda as noted above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim adds limitations similar to claim 8, which would have been obvious as noted above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim adds limitations similar to claim 9, which would have been obvious as noted above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim is directed to a vehicle that travels using the motor system of claim 12. Since the motor system of claim 12 would have been obvious, it would have been obvious to employ such a system in a vehicle for propulsion, as is common
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