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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2024 was filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 17, 18 and 36 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 17 and 36, These claims both recite a “FAMax table” the issue with this is that “FAMax” is an understood to be an abbreviation/shortening of “Fundamental Amplitude” Maximum; the claims never mention this quantity previously nor link it to the FAMax abbreviation. While abbreviations are permitted in claims the first time they are used they should be accompanied by the full phrase which they stand for.
Regarding Claim 18, this claim recites adjusting the On-torque amplitude based on if the acceptable level of NVH is “relatively high” or “relatively low”, neither claim 18 nor claim 1 make clear what this “relatively” high/low is based on, as such claim 18 recites relative terminology without providing a standard for that terminology. As such the bounds of claim 18 are based solely on the readers judgement and thus would vary from reader to reader, rendering the scope of protection of claim 18 unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 19-22, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190288629 A1, “PULSED ELECTRIC MACHINE CONTROL”, Tripathi in view of itself.
Regarding Claim 1, Tripathi teaches “An electric machine on a vehicle, comprising: a controller for controlling the electric machine, the controller configured to: receive a torque demand;”([0036] “[0036] With pulsed control, the output of the machine is intelligently and intermittently modulated between “torque on” and “zero (no) torque” states in a manner that: (1) meet operational demands, while (2) improving overall efficiency. Stated differently, under selected operating conditions, the electric machine is intermittently driven at a more efficient energy conversion operating level (the “torque on” state) to deliver a desired output.” Desired output=torque demand);” ascertain an acceptable level of Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) for operating the electric machine;”( [0077] As suggested above, the period for each cycle during pulsed operation (or inversely the pulsing frequency) may vary widely based on the design needs and the nature of the controlled system ranging from microseconds to tenths of a second or longer. A variety of factors will influence the choice of the cycle period. These include factors such as the capabilities and characteristics of the motor, the transitory effects associated with switching, potential NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) concerns, the expected operational loads, etc. In general, the pulsing frequency selected for any particular application will involve a tradeoff including factors such as NVH considerations, required responsiveness of the electric machine, efficiency loss associated with pulsing, etc. For example, in some automotive applications, pulsing frequencies on the order of 20 Hz-1000 Hz are believed to work well.” Here teaches pulsing frequency is modulated based on NVH considerations which read in light of [0122] teaches that NVH considerations = acceptable versus unacceptable amount of NVH, ergo setting of pulsing frequency in accordance with NVH considerations is setting it such that it doesn’t not exceed an acceptable level);” and operate the electric machine in the pulsed mode, using the series of pulses, the series of pulses having the ascertained On-Torque amplitude and the duty cycle,”( [0036] With pulsed control, the output of the machine is intelligently and intermittently modulated between “torque on” and “zero (no) torque” states in a manner that: (1) meet operational demands, while (2) improving overall efficiency. Stated differently, under selected operating conditions, the electric machine is intermittently driven at a more efficient energy conversion operating level (the “torque on” state) to deliver a desired output. In);” wherein the electric machine generates a work output sufficient to meet the torque demand during the series of pulses and substantially no work output between the series of pulses.”([0036] teaches the torque on and torque off states means that during torque on the work output is to meet the demand and in the off (between pulses) substantially no work is performed/outputted)
Tripathi however does not explicitly teach ascertaining a On-torque amplitude and duty cycle to meet the acceptable NVH level during pulsed operation.
Tripathi however does teach interlinking the On-torque amplitude and duty cycle with a pulsed frequency in order to meet a torque demand (Figures 2B-2D (posted below), [0044]-[0046], in particular [0045] “However, the duration of the “on” and “off” time durations is different, i.e. the frequency of the pulsed modulation is different. The frequency of the pulsed modulation may vary based on the type of electrical machine used, noise and vibration considerations, current operating rotor speed and other factors” here teaches for satisfying a given torque demand one can modulate the on-torque amplitudes and duty cycles accordingly + [0066] teaches pulsing frequency is then determined based on the current operating conditions (i.e. on-torque and duty cycle) of the motor) and further teaches that the pulse frequency is determined based on NVH concerns ([0077] teaches then modulating pulsing frequency for NVH concerns (i..e change pulsing frequency to achieve a given acceptable NVH)
As such the logic naturally flows that as the as On-torque amplitude, duty cycle, and pulse frequency are modulated together to achieve a torque demand and as pulse frequency is modulated to achieve NVH characteristics the on-torque amplitude and duty cycle would also be correspondingly modulated to account for the NVH modulated pulse frequency. This changing of the torque amplitude and duty cycle would thus implicitly also be based on NVH characteristics/modulating those parameters to achieve an acceptable NVH level.
To put into rough mathematical terms Tripathi teaches the relationship a pulsing frequency = Function(torque amplitude, duty cycle, NVH characteristics) thus rendering obvious the reordered relationship NVH characteristic = Function(pulse frequency, torque amplitude, duty cycle) ergo duty cycle and on-torque amplitude = Function(NVH charactersitics); thus rendering obvious the ascertaining of a on-torque amplitude and duty cycle to meet an acceptable NVH level. One would be motivated to also set On-Torque Amplitude and Duty Cycle in accordance with an acceptable NVH level in order to increase the possibility/range of valid solutions (i.e. Torque Amplitude, Duty Cycle, and Pulsing frequency combinations) for a given torque demand and acceptable NVH level.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Tripathi teaches “ascertain a frequency for the series of pulses to operate the electric machine in the pulsed mode to meet the ascertained acceptable level of NVH and the received torque demand;”( [0045] “…However, the duration of the “on” and “off” time durations is different, i.e. the frequency of the pulsed modulation is different. The frequency of the pulsed modulation may vary based on the type of electrical machine used, noise and vibration considerations, current operating rotor speed and other factors.” + [0112] teaches that NVH considerations is an acceptable or unacceptable amount of NVH for a given application)” and operate the electric machine in the pulsed mode, using the series of pulses, the series of pulses having the ascertained frequency, the ascertained On-Torque amplitude, and the duty cycle.”( [0036] With pulsed control, the output of the machine is intelligently and intermittently modulated between “torque on” and “zero (no) torque” states in a manner that: (1) meet operational demands, while (2) improving overall efficiency. Stated differently, under selected operating conditions, the electric machine is intermittently driven at a more efficient energy conversion operating level (the “torque on” state) to deliver a desired output. In the periods between the pulses, the machine ideally does not generate or consume any torque (the “zero torque” state). This can conceptually be thought of as turning the electric machine “off.” In some implementations, this can be accomplished by effectively turning the electric machine “off,” as for example, by shutting off drive current to a motor or the excitation current for a generator. However, in other implementations, the electric machine may be controlled during the “zero torque” state in a manner that attempts to cause the torque generated by the electric machine to be zero or as close to zero as may be practical or appropriate for the particular machine. In some implementations, any power converters used in conjunction with the electric machine may effectively be turned off for at least portions of the “zero torque” periods as well. )
Regarding Claim 3, modified Tripathi teaches “The electric machine of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to ascertain the acceptable level of Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) for operating the electric machine from one or more factors.”([0112] “0122] As discussed above, transient switching losses associated with switching between motor “on” and motor “off” states during pulsing is another factor that impacts the efficiency of the motor during pulsed operation. As discussed above, one way to reduce these transient switching losses is to improve (shorten) the motor drive current rise and fall times associated with pulsing the motor on and off. Another way to help manage the transient switching losses is to manage the frequency of the pulsing. In general, the lower the switching frequency, the lower the transient switching losses will be. However there is a tradeoff here in that lower frequency switching can sometimes induce noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) that may be undesirable or unacceptable in certain applications.” Here teaches determining acceptable/unacceptable NVH based on the application (i.e. a “factor”))
Regarding Claim 19, modified Tripathi teaches “The electric machine controller of claim 3, wherein data for ascertaining the acceptable level of NVH for operating the electric machine from the one or more factors is stored in or derived from one of the following: (a) a look up table; (b) a multi-dimensional look up table; (c) a sliding scale; (d) a multiplier; (e) a processor; (f) a logic unit; (g) a trained neural network; or (e) any combination of (a) through (g).”( [0071] The machine controller described herein may be implemented in a wide variety of different manners including using software or firmware executed on a processing unit such as a microprocessor, using programmable logic, using application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), using discrete logic, etc. and/or using any combination of the foregoing.” Tripathi implements its system using a machine controller (i.e. a processor))
Regarding Claims 20-22 and 37 they are method equivalents to the controller claims 1-3 and 19 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 , 19-22, and 37 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2-4, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11427177 B2, Serrano et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
In summary Serrano claims 1 + 12 (and 2-4) recite claim limitations, which although worded slightly differently, are equivalent to and/or render obvious the elements of claims 1-3, 19-22.
Regarding Application Claim 1, 177B2 claims “An electric machine on a vehicle, comprising: a controller for controlling the electric machine, the controller configured to: receive a torque demand”(177B2 Claim 1: “An electric machine controller for controlling pulsing of an electric machine onboard a vehicle, the electric machine controller configured to: ascertain a quantity proportional to or a function of the electric machine rotational speed; ascertain a torque request;”);” ascertain an acceptable level of Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) for operating the electric machine;”(177B2, claim 1: “..a frequency from a table by indexing the table using the quantity proportional to or a function of the electric machine rotational speed and the torque request modify the frequency obtained from the table if non-drivetrain sources of Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) exceed a threshold;..” here the in “exceed a threshold” the threshold is “an acceptable level” of NVH);” ascertain an On-Torque amplitude and a duty cycle for a series of pulses to operate the electric machine in a pulsed mode to meet the ascertained acceptable level of NVH and the received torque demand;”(177B2, claim 12:”The electric machine of claim 1, wherein the electric machine controller is further arranged to: determine if the requested torque is within a pulsed control range of the electric machine; determine a magnitude of on pulses of the electric machine if the requested torque is within the pulsed control range of the electric machine; determine a duty cycle for the on pulses of the electric machine; and obtain the frequency of the on pulses as recited in claim 1.” Magnitude of on pulses = On-Torque Amplitude, and determining duty cycle for the on pulses );” and operate the electric machine in the pulsed mode, using the series of pulses, the series of pulses having the ascertained On-Torque amplitude and the duty cycle, wherein the electric machine generates a work output sufficient to meet the torque demand during the series of pulses and substantially no work output between the series of pulses.”(177B2, claim 1: “…, wherein during pulsed operation, the electric machine: (i) generates no output between on pulses when the electric machine is off; and (ii) during on pulses (a) operates at or near its peak efficiency of the electric machine, and (b) generates torque to meet the ascertained torque request.”)
Regarding Application Claim 2, 177B2 claims “The electric machine of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: ascertain a frequency for the series of pulses to operate the electric machine in the pulsed mode to meet the ascertained acceptable level of NVH and the received torque demand;”(Claim 1: “and control pulsed operation of the electric machine by pulsing the electric machine on and off using the frequency obtained from the table or the modified frequency, wherein during pulsed operation, the electric machine: (i) generates no output between on pulses when the electric machine is off; and (ii) during on pulses (a) operates at or near its peak efficiency of the electric machine, and (b) generates torque to meet the ascertained torque request.”);” and operate the electric machine in the pulsed mode, using the series of pulses, the series of pulses having the ascertained frequency, the ascertained On-Torque amplitude, and the duty cycle.”(Claim 12: “…determine a magnitude of on pulses of the electric machine if the requested torque is within the pulsed control range of the electric machine; determine a duty cycle for the on pulses of the electric machine; and obtain the frequency of the on pulses as recited in claim 1.”)
Regarding Claim 3, 177B2 Claims: “The electric machine of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to ascertain the acceptable level of Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) for operating the electric machine from one or more factors.”(claim 1, “from a table by indexing the table using the quantity proportional to or a function of the electric machine rotational speed and the torque request modify the frequency obtained from the table if non-drivetrain sources of Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) exceed a threshold;” Here the table (of non-drive train sources) of noise, vibration, harness is claiming that the acceptable level of NVH is based on non-drive train “factors” + claims 2-4 recite specific ways the table is indexed (i.e. the “factors” used to determine which corresponding entry is applicable))
Regarding Claim 19, 177B2 Claims: “The electric machine controller of claim 3, wherein data for ascertaining the acceptable level of NVH for operating the electric machine from the one or more factors is stored in or derived from one of the following: (a) a look up table; (b) a multi-dimensional look up table; (c) a sliding scale; (d) a multiplier; (e) a processor; (f) a logic unit; (g) a trained neural network; or (e) any combination of (a) through (g).”(Claim 1: “…a table by indexing the table using the quantity proportional to or a function of the electric machine rotational speed and the torque request modify the frequency obtained from the table if non-drivetrain sources of Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) exceed a threshold;…” here claims a lookup table corresponding to NVH threshold)
Claims 20-22 and 37 are method equivalents to the electric machine claims 1-3 and 19; They have the same double patenting rejections.
Claim 4-9, 11-15, 23-28 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1+12 of U.S. Patent No. 11427177 in view of US Patent No. 11628730 (Patent of the application 17/158230 which this application is a CIP of) specifically claim 1.
Regarding Application Claims 4-9 and 11-15 and claims 23-28, 30-34, they recite specific factors which affect the acceptable NVH level, 177B2 does not claim those exact factors.
US 1168730 claim 1 does recite a similar/same invention (pulse control of an electric machine) in which the pulse control is based on the recited NVH factors of claims 4-9, and 11-15, 23-28, and 30-34, modifying the pulsed operation mode of an electric machine based on “A method of pulse controlling an electric machine used on a vehicle by pulsing the electric machine at a pulsing frequency that has been adjusted to take into account Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) that is either caused by one or more components on the vehicle or that allows an adjustment of an amount of the NVH that is acceptable, the pulsing frequency being adjusted based at least in part on one or more of the following: (a) a current gearbox status, wherein in a first gear a first pulsing frequency is used and in a second gear a second pulsing frequency is used that is different than the first pulsing frequency; (b) a wheel drive status; (c) a weight of a load carried by the vehicle; (d) a selectable economy mode; (e) a selectable sport mode: (f) a selectable NVH controller that allows the driver to select different levels of acceptable NVH; (g) an occupancy sensor; (h) a temperature sensor; a first model that models NVH characteristics of the vehicle as the vehicle ages; a second model that models NVH characteristics of the vehicle following a cold start of the vehicle; (k) an active noise control system; (l) an active vibration control system; (m) a road surface conditions; or (n) any combination of (a) through (m).”
Thus rendering obvious modifying claim 1 of 117B2 to include modifying the operation of the electric machine based on the NVH factors as recited on claim 1 of 730 in order to further improve the NVH qualities of the subsequent operation.
Claim 1-9, 11-15, 19-28, 30-34, and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 11628730 (Patent of the application 17/158230 which this application is a CIP of) in view of claim 1+12 of U.S. Patent No. 11427177.
This double patenting rejection is more or less equivalent to the previous 117B2 in view 730 rejection; it is being made as the application is subject to non-statutory (obviousness) double patent rejection due to the claims both Patents 177 and 230 rendering obvious the application’s claims in both directions (i.e. 177’s claims in view 230’s claims render obvious the application claims and 230’s claims in view of 177’s also render obvious the application claims). Put more simply a terminal disclaimer to both 177 and 230 is needed.
Regarding Application claim 1, 730 claims a frequency change of an electric machine pulsed operation based on various factors to achieve an acceptable NVH level, however it is mute as to the specifics of the pulse control itself.
230 claim’s 1 and 12 recite details as to the pulse control (frequency and on-torque amplitude, and duty cycle determinations and subsequent pulsed control) of an electric machine; thus rendering obvious calculating the frequency (from 230 Claim 1) and amplitude and duty cycle (230 Claim 12) using the claimed NVH factors of claim 1 of 730.
Regarding Application claims 2-9, 11-15 claim 1 of 730 recites these factors as part of the pulse control based on acceptable NVH.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim 1 method while not explicitly mentioning a controller/processor from the overall context (controlling the electric machine) that various functions of claim 1 are implemented via a processor is implicit/obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 20-28, 30-34, and 37 are method equivalents to the machine (controller) claims 1-9, 11-15, and 19 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-39 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 38 no prior art was found to teach or render obvious the ascertaining On-Torque Amplitude and Duty cycle being based both on an acceptable NVH level and based on the operation of the combustion as recited in claim 38.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 10, 16, 29 and 35 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669