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 Objections
The Claims are objected to because of the following informalities: The subtitle “I Claim:” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8- 10, 12-16 and 18- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kitano et al. (US 20180287528 A1).
Re. claims 1, 12 and 18, Kitano Fig. 8 teaches a method comprising, at a motor (11) controller (12):
during a first time period:
detecting a first operating speed (the measurement unit 41 for measuring a rotational speed ¶. [0067]) of an electric motor comprising a set of coils (“three armature coils constituting the motor 11” ¶. [0063]);
in response to the first operating speed falling below a first operating speed threshold (for example, V1 to V2 rpm in Fig. 4) :
generating a first varying signal based on a 120-degree commutation technique (“The 120-degree conduction is a conduction method to be used when the motor 11 is driven at a low rotational speed” ¶. [0034] “low rotational speed (for example, 100 rpm)” ¶. [0037]); and
driving current through the set of coils according to the first varying signal (“a current is supplied under the 120-degree conduction at a start-up of the motor 11” ¶. [0036], see drive signal in Fig. 7);
detecting a second operating speed of the electric motor, the second operating speed (rotational speed is V2 rpm) exceeding the first operating speed (V1 rpm); and
in response to the second operating speed exceeding the first operating speed threshold, initiating a first transition from the 120-degree commutation technique to an 180-degree commutation technique during a first transition period (“Subsequently, …” ¶. [0038]);
during the first transition period (“Next” ¶. [0039] and Fig. 4):
generating a second varying signal based on a combination of:
the 120-degree commutation technique transitioning from a first duty rate to a second duty rate (transition between D1,D2, and D3 at 120-degree Conduction); and
the 180-degree commutation technique transitioning from the second duty rate to the first duty rate (transition between D1,D2, and D3 at 180-degree Conduction); and
driving current through the set of coils according to the second varying signal (see drive signal in Fig. 7 and ¶. [0043]) ; and
during a second time period:
in response to completion of the first transition period:
generating a third varying signal based on the 180-degree commutation technique (the motor 11 is driven by the 180-degree conduction method to maintains a predetermined rotational speed ¶. [0085]); and
driving current through the set of coils according to the third varying signal (see drive signal in Fig. 7).
Re. claims 3,13, and 15, Kitano teaches the claimed invention except for the mentioning of a first time period, the second time period, third time period and the time transition. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the sequence of the events cited in Kitano (“Subsequently, …” ¶. [0038]) “Next,…” ¶. [0039] and Fig. 4) to draw the same timeline claimed in order to draw a timing diagram of a relation during a motor holding period between signal elements of the motor drive controlling apparatus (Fig. 13).
Re. claim 4, Kitano teaches a first transition duration; and a function defining a relationship between a first duty cycle of the 120-degree commutation technique and the 180-degree commutation technique during the first transition duration (¶. [0039] and Fig. 4); and wherein driving current through the set of coils according to the second varying signal comprises driving current through the set of coils by: pulse-width-modulating the 120-degree commutation technique according to the first duty cycle decreasing during the first transition duration according to the function; and pulse-width-modulating the 180-degree commutation technique according to the second duty cycle increasing during the first transition duration according to the function (¶. [0037]).
Re. claims 5 and 19, Kitano teaches an inverse linear relationship between the first duty cycle of the 120-degree commutation technique and the second duty cycle of the 180- degree commutation technique during the first transition duration ( D1%, D2% and D3% in Fig. 4 and ¶. [0114]).
Re. claim 6, Kitano teaches the first duty rate of 100% to the second duty rate of 0% during over a transition (¶. [0060]- [0061] and ¶. [0089]).
Re. claim 8, Kitano teaches setting the first operating speed threshold; however, since the speed is directly proportional to the voltage level of the battery, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art set the threshold speed according to the state of charge of the battery.
Re. claim 9, Kitano teaches driving current through the set of coils according to the second varying signal (see drive signal in Fig. 7 and ¶. [0043]); however, it’s silent with regard to generating a toroidal magnetic field tunnel. A toroidal magnetic field in a motor winding arises when the current-carrying conductors are arranged in a toroidal (ring-shaped) coil or when the winding geometry approximates a toroid. This configuration confines most of the magnetic flux within the core, reducing leakage and external interference (Physics Textbooks.)
Re. claims 10, 14 and 16, a six-step commutation technique and field-oriented control commutation technique are conventional techniques implemented in motor control (see Background of the cited reference: de Rosa).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano et al. (US 20180287528 A1) in view of Nakatani et al. (US 6400107 B1).
Re. claims 2 , 17 and 20, Kitano discloses operating the electric motor according to the 120/180-degree commutation techniques based on the operating speed and the torque demand (¶. [0035]- [0039];) however, is silence with regard to detecting a torque demand of the electric motor and estimating efficiency of the electric motor in order to determine operating the motor according to the 120/180-degree commutation technique. Nakatani discloses a selecting unit for selecting an optimum operating the motor for 120/180-degree commutation based on the current rotation speed and torque demand (Load torque calculating unit 13) and information stored in the rotation-speed-vs.-efficiency and estimated torque (Fig. 6- 9 and associated text). Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kitano with the teaching of Nakatani in order to implement motor output parameters (speed, torque and efficiency) for performing 120-degree or 180- degree conduction drive in accordance with the current rotation speed or torque to achieve an optimum efficiency (Nakatani, abstract).
Re. claims 7 and 11, the combination of Kitano and Nakatani teaches accessing a lookup specifying a set of transition durations for a set of throttle positions ( table information stored in a rotation-speed-vs.-efficiency table which is a target rotation speed storing unit 12 for storing a target rotation speed (i.e., speed to be entered by setting throttle position.)
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
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 Colon-Santana. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights