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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 21 November 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0086250, filed on 01 July 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 21 November 2024 and 13 February 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS’s were considered.
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.
Claim 1 recites “a controller configured to perform linearization control on a voltage modulation index while the auxiliary battery is mounted to limit a change rate of the voltage modulation index serving as a basis for an electric current command for the motor during switching between a first driving mode and a second driving mode” which is ambiguous. It is not clear “…to limit a change rate…” is a result of “perform linearization control” or is further limiting “the auxiliary battery”. Further, it is not clear whether the voltage modulation index is “serving as a basis for…” or “perform linearization control” is “serving as a basis for…” or “the auxiliary battery” is “serving as…”. In addition, it is not clear whether the linearization control is performed…while the auxiliary battery is mounted means the linearization control is always being performed when the auxiliary is mounted on the vehicle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 11 recites similar language as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim 2 recites “…perform the linearization control by adding or subtracting a preset correction value to or from the voltage modulation index according to the mode before the switching, during the switching between the first driving mode and the second driving mode” which is ambiguous. It is not clear whether the linearization control is performed “according to the mode before…” or the adding or subtracting is “according to the mode before…”. Further, it is not clear the action of performing is “before the switching” or “during the switching”. In addition, “the mode” lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 12 recites similar language as claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 8-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omata (US20190296678) in view of Li (US20210206290) and further in view of Itoh (US20040150541).
As to claims 1 and 11, Omata teaches an electrified vehicle capable of mounting an auxiliary battery and a method of controlling an electrical vehicle (Omata para 0083, Fig. 1), comprising:
a motor having a plurality of windings (Omata para 0025: MG…windings…, Fig. 1);
a first inverter having a plurality of direct current (DC) terminals and including a plurality of legs connected to first ends of each of the plurality of windings (Omata para 0025-0026: … Each of the end points 811,821, 831 of the 3-phase windings 81, 82, 83 is connected to a corresponding one of the three phase output terminals of the first inverter 60…, Fig. 1);
a main battery connected to the plurality of DC terminals (Omata para 0025-0027: first power source…batteries…lithium-ion battery could be used as the first power source…, Fig. 1).
Omata does not teach:
a controller configured to perform linearization control on a voltage modulation index while the auxiliary battery is mounted to limit a change rate of the voltage modulation index serving as a basis for an electric current command for the motor during switching between a first driving mode and a second driving mode;
wherein the first driving mode is configured to drive the motor in a state where the auxiliary battery and the motor are electrically disconnected from each other; and
wherein the second driving mode is configured to drive the motor in a state where the auxiliary battery is electrically connected between one end of the plurality of DC terminals and second ends of each of the plurality of windings.
Li is directed to a power supply system for an electric vehicle. Li teaches a range extender (3) to generate a DC current so as to charge the battery system and/or power the electric vehicle; a controller (4) to control a power generating mode of the range extender (3), to control a connection status of each battery pack with the high-voltage DC bus of the electric vehicle, and/or to control a connection status of the range extender (3) with the high-voltage DC bus of the electric vehicle; and a plurality of switches arranged between each battery pack and the high-voltage DC bus of the electric vehicle, and/or between the range extender (3) and the high-voltage DC bus of the electric vehicle (Li, abstract, also see para 0038-0039, para 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Omata so as to include wherein the first driving mode is configured to drive the motor in a state where the auxiliary battery and the motor are electrically disconnected from each other; and wherein the second driving mode is configured to drive the motor in a state where the auxiliary battery is electrically connected between one end of the plurality of DC terminals and second ends of each of the plurality of windings in view of Li et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the mode switching of Li can used in Omata to control the operating of the apparatus in different modes, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Omata and Li because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Itoh is directed to an input changing switch at a preceding stage of a comparator that measures a DC offset of a D/A converter. Itoh teaches a D/A converting device with an offset compensation function, which detects a DC offset of a D/A converter by using a comparator, obtains a compensation value based on an output signal of the comparator, and then corrects input data by adding or subtracting the compensation value to or from the input data, to compensate the DC offset (see at least Itoh claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Omata so as to include a controller configured to perform linearization control on a voltage modulation index while the auxiliary battery is mounted to limit a change rate of the voltage modulation index serving as a basis for an electric current command for the motor during switching between a first driving mode and a second driving mode in view of Itoh et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the offset compensation of Itoh can used in Omata, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Omata and Itoh because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claims 8 and 18, Omata in view of Li and Itoh teaches the electrified vehicle of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Li further teaches a plurality of charging switches connected between the auxiliary battery and the second ends of each of the plurality of windings, wherein the controller is configured to control the switching between the first driving mode and the second driving mode by turning on or off the plurality of charging switches (Li abstract, para 0038-0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Omata so as to include a plurality of charging switches connected between the auxiliary battery and the second ends of each of the plurality of windings, wherein the controller is configured to control the switching between the first driving mode and the second driving mode by turning on or off the plurality of charging switches in view of Li et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Omata and Li because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claims 9 and 19, Omata in view of Li and Itoh teaches the electrified vehicle of claim 1 and the method of claim 11.
Omata further teaches a second inverter comprising a plurality of legs connected to the second ends of each of the plurality of windings, wherein the first driving mode comprises: and an open end winding (OEW) mode configured to drive the motor through the first inverter and the second inverter (Omata Fig. 1 and related text).
Li further teaches a closed end winding (CEW) mode configured to drive the motor only with the first inverter (Li para 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Omata so as to include a closed end winding (CEW) mode configured to drive the motor only with the first inverter in view of Li et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Omata and Li because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claims 10 and 20, Omata in view of Li and Itoh teaches the electrified vehicle of claim 9 and the method of claim 19.
Li further teaches a plurality of switching switches each having a first end connected to the second ends of each of the plurality of windings, and each having second ends interconnected together to form a node, wherein the controller is configured to control the first driving mode as the CEW mode or the OEW mode by turning on or off the plurality of switching switches (Li Fig. 1 and related text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Omata so as to include a plurality of switching switches each having a first end connected to the second ends of each of the plurality of windings, and each having second ends interconnected together to form a node, wherein the controller is configured to control the first driving mode as the CEW mode or the OEW mode by turning on or off the plurality of switching switches in view of Li et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Omata and Li because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 12-17 are 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, and overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office Action.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights