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 .
This action is in response to an application filed on 12/09/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 recites “…A vehicle comprising a drive train…” in line 1, but should be rewritten as “…The vehicle comprising the drive train…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 is written as dependent on claim 11, but should be rewritten as dependent to independent claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 is written as dependent on claim 12, but should be rewritten as dependent on independent claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Schedel et al. (US 2017/0174039 A1 and Schedel hereinafter).
As to Claim 1 and 15, Schedel in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-2 disclose a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to/a computer-implemented (see [0029]):
disconnect an electrical motor from a drive train of a vehicle (electric machine 2 is connected to a gearbox 4 of a vehicle and in when in neutral position no torque is no torque is transmitted from the electric machine 2 to a drive wheel 8 – see [0053] and [0062]);
control a stator current vector, indicating a stator current amplitude and stator current angle, driving the electrical motor to cause the electrical motor to accelerate to a predetermined rotational speed; and responsive to the electrical motor rotating at the predetermined rotational speed, control the stator current angle to maintain the predetermined rotational speed at a predetermined stator current amplitude (The current vector control with use of set-point parameters of field-forming current id, torque-forming current iq and current angle beta, controlling such set-point parameters that causes electric machine to accelerate to predetermined rotational speed and maintain the predetermined rotational speed at a predetermined current amplitude (see [0054] – [0056])).
As to Claim 2 and 16, Schedel disclose the computer system of claim 1 and the computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the predetermined stator current amplitude based on a temperature (30) of windings of the electrical motor (see [0023], [0040], [0050] and [0056]).
As to Claim 3 and 17, Schedel disclose the computer system of claim 1 and the computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the predetermined stator current amplitude to control the temperature of the windings to be at or above a first winding temperature limit of the electrical motor (see [0023], [0040], [0050] and [0056]).
As to Claim 4, Schedel disclose the computer system of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: responsive to the temperature of the windings not reaching a steady state at or above the first winding temperature limit, control the stator current vector to deaccelerate the electrical motor below the predetermined rotational speed until the temperature of the windings reaches a steady state at or above the first winding temperature limit (see [0062]).
As to Claim 5, Schedel disclose the computer system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the predetermined stator current amplitude to control the temperature of the windings to be at or below a second winding temperature limit of the electrical motor, the second winding temperature limit being below a first winding temperature limit (see [0023], [0040], [0050] and [0056]).
As to Claim 6, Schedel disclose the computer system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: during control of the stator current vector to accelerate the electrical motor, controlling the stator current amplitude to be at the predetermined stator current amplitude (see [0023], [0040], [0050] and [0056]).
As to Claim 7 and 18, Schedel disclose the computer system of claim 1 and the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the predetermined rotational speed to provide rotational losses by the electrical motor being above a speed loss threshold (see [0062]).
As to Claim 12, Schedel disclose a vehicle comprising a drive train, an electrical motor selectively coupled to the drive train and the computer system of claim 1 (see [0053]).
As to Claim 13, Schedel disclose the vehicle of claim 12, further comprising a heating system thermally connected to the electrical motor (see [0030]).
As to Claim 14, Schedel disclose the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the vehicle is a heavy duty vehicle (see [0053).
As to Claim 19, Schedel disclose a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by processing circuitry, the method of claim 15 (see [0029]).
As to Claim 20, Schedel disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 15 (see [0029]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schedel in view of Khan et al. (US 2021/0175832 A1 and Khan hereinafter).
As to Claim 8, Schedel disclose the computer system of claim 1, however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control a clutch of the vehicle to disconnect the electrical motor from the drive train
Nonetheless, Khan in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-4B disclose that the disconnect clutch 26 may be engaged and M/G 18 may operate as a generator to convert rotational energy provided by a crankshaft 28 and M/G shaft 30 into electrical energy to be stored in the battery 20. The disconnect clutch 26 can also be disengaged to isolate the engine 14 from the remainder of the powertrain 12 such that the M/G 18 can act as the sole drive source for the HEV 10 (see [0013])
Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the instant application to control a clutch of the vehicle to disconnect the electrical motor from the drive train as thought by Khan within the teachings of Schedel so the engine can idle, gears can be changed, and torque can be applied smoothly and safely.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schedel in view of Athavale et al. (US 2021/0099118 A1 and Athavale hereinafter).
As to Claim 9 and 10, Schedel disclose the computer system of claim 1, however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the stator current vector comprises polar coordinates and Cartesian coordinates
Nonethless, Athavale in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-7 disclose stator flux observer 504 that can determine the stator flux vector based on the inputs that include, for example, the stator voltage command vector, stator current vector, and the mechanical angle position and the slip estimator 110 that can determine a tan 2 (e.g., a 2-argument arctangent) of the estimated stator flux vector that can take as input the stator flux vector and convert the stator flux vector from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates and output an electrical angle position in radians (see [0058])
Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the instant application for the stator current vector to comprise polar coordinates and Cartesian coordinates as thought by Athavale within the teachings of Schedel so that the stator current vector is represented in Cartesian coordinates for control and modeling and in polar coordinates for magnitude/phase insight and phasor analysis. Both forms are mathematically equivalent and chosen according to the analysis or control task at hand.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 2022/0158574 A1: An apparatus for heating a DC battery in a vehicle including an electric motor. The apparatus comprises an AC generating module coupled to the battery and the electric motor that generates three AC phases. The first, second, and third AC phases are applied to first, second, and third windings of the electric motor, respectively. The first, second, and third AC phases create zero torque in the electric motor because the first AC phase amplitude is equal to the sum of the second and third AC phase amplitudes and the second and third AC phases are 180 degrees out of phase with the first AC phase. The AC generating module creates a heating alternating current in the DC battery – see [Abstract]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL T AGARED whose telephone number is (571)270-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Mon- Thur).
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.
/GABRIEL AGARED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights