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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings of 11 January 2026 have overcome the Drawing Objections of the previous Office Action. However, another Drawing Objection remains.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections of the previous Office Action. However, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been considered by are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Edman and Alturi does not explicitly disclose claims 1 or 11. First, Edman is cited to teach the structure of the invention. Edman is silent as to the claimed control of the disclosed structure. Alturi is cited to teach this control. In other words, Alturi is not changing the structure of Edman, but enacting the disclosed voltage drop control on said structure.
Applicant’s first argument is that Alturi teaches away from Edman because paragraph 0030 of Alturi teaches a disadvantage of having a DC-DC boost converter. However, as stated above, Edman is cited to teach the DC-DC boost converter. As Edman does not teach voltage drop control, having any control, even if it involves the preexisting DC-DC boost converter of Edman, it is still an improvement. In fact, one can argue that utilizing a DC-DC boost converter to overcome a temporary voltage drop as claimed, is so well known in the art, Alturi even considers alternatives to that method.
Applicant’s next argument is that modifying the DC-DC boost converter of Edman to include the control of Alturi would modify the principle of operation of Edman by eliminating the need for a second electric machine powered by the low voltage bus. However, as stated above, all Alturi is cited is to modify how the boost converter of Edman is controlled during low voltage transients. There is no modification proposed to any second electrical machine of Edman, and this second electrical machine isn’t even relied upon in this part of the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant further argues that the combination of Edman and Alturi was due to impermissible hindsight. Edman is not relied upon to teach control during a voltage drop transient. This is a common transient event in electrical systems. Thus, the fact that Alturi teaches multiple control techniques to mitigate this transient and would be considered by the skilled artisan regardless of Applicant’s current disclosure. Applicant further states that “the only working example of Applicant’s proposed modification is found in Applicant’s own disclosure”. In addition to maintaining that the below rejection still teaches the claimed invention, Namuduri et al. (US 2018/0258900, paragraph 0031), Namuduri et al. (US 2017/0334422, paragraph 0026), Hao et al. (US 2017/0334297, paragraph 0029) all teach utilizing a DC-DC boost converter to overcome low voltage transients involving a starter motor.
Applicant repeatedly argues that the combination of Edman and Alturi fails to take into consideration the second electrical machine of Edman when combining with Alturi. For example, stating that the examiner cannot pick and choose various components of a prior art refence and exclude or ignore others. However, given the "comprising" language in the claim and the fact that the components relied upon in Edman and Alturi can function by themselves, the components not relied upon in Edman or Alturi are not part of the central teaching of either reference.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the starter motor of claims 1 and 11, disclosed in paragraph 0034 of Applicant’s specification must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edman et al. (“Edman”; US 2021/0071630), in view of Alturi et al. (“Alturi”; US 2018/0050686).
Regarding claim 1: Edman discloses a method of preventing an internal combustion engine (ICE) (118) mechanically connected to an electric power generator (EPG) (114, paragraph 0100, Fig. 1) from stalling (paragraph 0044), comprising:
connecting a low voltage direct current (DC) bus (156) between a low voltage power input of a starter motor (168) that is mechanically linked to the ICE and the starting battery power source (0028);
connecting a high voltage DC bus (154A) between an output of the EPG (114) and an input of an inverter (inherent as power source 136 may be AC, paragraph 0015), the inverter configured to convert a high voltage DC power into an alternating current (AC) power, an output of the inverter coupled to an AC bus (inherent, if 136 is AC the bus leading to it bus be AC);
connecting a DC boosting circuit (128) including a boost converter between the low voltage DC bus and the high voltage DC bus (when power is transferred from the low voltage DC bus to the high voltage DC bus).
Edman does not explicitly disclose preventing stalling during a large transient block load increase, monitoring a voltage of the high voltage DC bus on a periodic basis such that, if the monitored voltage reaches a first voltage setpoint, the DC boosting circuit selectively allows for a low voltage DC current flow from the low voltage DC bus to be converted by the DC boosting circuit into a high voltage DC current flow which passes into the high voltage DC bus, wherein the high voltage DC current flow prevents the monitored voltage from dropping below the first voltage setpoint during a predetermined period of time.
However, Alturi discloses preventing stalling during a large transient block load increase (paragraph 0030),
monitoring a voltage of the high voltage DC bus on a periodic basis such that, if the monitored voltage reaches a first voltage setpoint during the transient block load increase (paragraph 0030: “a temporary voltage drop” implies there must be a threshold), the DC boosting circuit selectively allows for a low voltage DC current flow from the low voltage DC bus to be converted by the DC boosting circuit into a high voltage DC current flow which passes into the high voltage DC bus (paragraph 0030: power is boosted from the low voltage DC bus to the high voltage DC bus when there is a voltage drop), wherein the high voltage DC current flow prevents the monitored voltage from dropping below the first voltage setpoint during a predetermined period of time (paragraph 0030 use the word “temporary” which implies it is for a set period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the DC-DC converter of Edman to boost the voltage from the low voltage bus to the high voltage bus, as disclosed by Alturi, in order to avoid voltage drops.
Regarding claim 2: Edman modified by Atluri disclose the large transient block load increase is a load increase which drops the high voltage DC bus (Atluri paragraph 0030), but does not explicitly disclose dropping the voltage by at least 20%.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have a load drop that increases the voltage on the DC bus by at least 20% in order to ensure the HV DC bus can maintain operation.
Regarding claim 3: Edman discloses the high voltage DC bus operates within a normal range and a first voltage setpoint, but does not explicitly disclose the normal range of 390V to 410V DC and the first voltage setpoint is approximately 330 volts.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have the DC bus operate in the claimed normal range, the threshold to be 330V DC, in order to ensure the HV DC bus adequately received the increase in voltage.
Regarding claim 4: Edman discloses a predetermined time period, but does not explicitly disclose the predetermined period of time is a period of approximately 10 seconds.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have the time to last for approximately 10 seconds in order to ensure the HV DC bus adequately received the increase in voltage.
Regarding claim 5: Edman discloses a predetermined time period, but does not explicitly disclose the predetermined period of time is a period of approximately 20 seconds.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have the time to last for of approximately 20 seconds in order to ensure the HV DC bus adequately received the increase in voltage.
Regarding claim 6: Edman discloses a predetermined time period, but does not explicitly disclose the predetermined period of time is a period of at least 20 seconds.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have the time to last for at least 20 seconds in order to ensure the HV DC bus adequately received the increase in voltage.
Regarding claim 8: Edman discloses a circuit breaker in the power supply system will actuate if the monitored voltage falls below the first voltage setpoint (paragraph 0048, if the SOC, which is equivalent to the voltage of the bus, is below a threshold, the high voltage contactor is opened).
Regarding claim 9: Edman discloses a recovery time of the ICE is less than the predetermined period of time (inherent, in that Edman discloses restarting the ICE, 214, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11: Edman discloses a method of providing an uninterrupted supply of power in a power supply system including a motor generator system (Fig. 1) having an internal combustion engine (ICE) (118) with a starting battery power source (130) and an electric power generator (EPG) (114, paragraph 0010) mechanically connected to the ICE, comprising:
connecting a low voltage direct current (DC) bus (156) between a power input of a starter motor (168) linked to the ICE and the starting battery power source (0028);
connecting a high voltage DC bus (154A) between an output of the EPG (114) and an input of an inverter (inherent as power source 136 may be AC, paragraph 0015), the inverter configured to convert a high voltage DC power into an alternating current (AC) power, an output of the inverter coupled to an AC bus (inherent, if 136 is AC the bus leading to it bus be AC);
connecting a DC boosting circuit (128) including a boost converter between the low voltage DC bus and the high voltage DC bus (when power is transferred from the low voltage DC bus to the high voltage DC bus).
Edman does not explicitly disclose during a large transient block load increase, monitoring a voltage of the high voltage DC bus on a periodic basis such that, if the monitored voltage falls below a first voltage setpoint, the DC boosting circuit selectively allows for a low voltage DC current flow from the low voltage DC bus to be converted by the DC boosting circuit into a high voltage DC current flow which passes into the high voltage DC bus, wherein the high voltage DC current flow inhibits a further drop in the monitored voltage for a predetermined period of time.
However, Alturi discloses a large transient block load increase (paragraph 0030),
monitoring a voltage of the high voltage DC bus on a periodic basis such that, if the monitored voltage reaches a first voltage setpoint during the transient block load increase (paragraph 0030: “a temporary voltage drop” implies there must be a threshold), the DC boosting circuit selectively allows for a low voltage DC current flow from the low voltage DC bus to be converted by the DC boosting circuit into a high voltage DC current flow which passes into the high voltage DC bus (paragraph 0030: power is boosted from the low voltage DC bus to the high voltage DC bus when there is a voltage drop), wherein the high voltage DC current flow inhibits a further drop in the monitored voltage for a predetermined period of time (paragraph 0030 use the word “temporary” which implies it is for a set period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the DC-DC converter of Edman to boost the voltage from the low voltage bus to the high voltage bus, as disclosed by Alturi, in order to avoid voltage drops.
Regarding claim 12: Edman modified by Atluri disclose the large transient block load increase is a load increase which drops the high voltage DC bus (Atluri paragraph 0030), but does not explicitly disclose dropping the voltage by at least 20%.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have a load drop that increases the voltage on the DC bus by at least 20% in order to ensure the HV DC bus can maintain operation.
Regarding claim 13: Edman discloses the high voltage DC bus operates within a normal range and a first voltage setpoint, but does not explicitly disclose the normal range of 390V to 410V DC and the first voltage setpoint is approximately 330 volts.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have the DC bus operate in the claimed normal range, the threshold to be 330V DC, in order to ensure the HV DC bus adequately received the increase in voltage.
Regarding claim 14: Edman discloses a predetermined time period, but does not explicitly disclose the predetermined period of time is a period of approximately 10 seconds.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have the time to last for approximately 10 seconds in order to ensure the HV DC bus adequately received the increase in voltage.
Regarding claim 15: Edman discloses a predetermined time period, but does not explicitly disclose the predetermined period of time is a period of approximately 20 seconds.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have the time to last for of approximately 20 seconds in order to ensure the HV DC bus adequately received the increase in voltage.
Regarding claim 16: Edman discloses an operation of the ICE is interrupted if the monitored voltage (C_1) falls below the first voltage setpoint (C_r, as the engine will have to be restarted, 214 Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18: Edman discloses a circuit breaker in the power supply system will actuate if the monitored voltage falls below the first voltage setpoint (paragraph 0048, if the SOC, which is equivalent to the voltage of the bus, is below a threshold, the high voltage contactor is opened).
Regarding claim 19: Edman modified by Alturi discloses a boosting circuit, but does not explicitly disclose the boosting circuit provides at least 1.5 kW of transient DC power to the high voltage DC bus for a period of at least 10 seconds.
However, in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have the boost be 1.5kW of transient power and to have the time to last for at least 10 seconds in order to ensure the HV DC bus adequately receives the increase in voltage.
Regarding claim 20: Edman discloses a recovery time of the ICE is less than the predetermined period of time (inherent, in that Edman discloses restarting the ICE, 214, Fig. 2).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edman and Alturi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2018/0340503).
Regarding claim 7: Edman discloses a monitored voltage, but does not explicitly disclose the ICE stalls if the monitored voltage falls below the first voltage setpoint.
However, Kim discloses the ICE stalls if the monitored voltage (C_r) falls below the first voltage setpoint (C_r, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the voltage of Edman to indicate a stall if it falls below a setpoint, as disclosed by Kim, in order to accurately know if a stall is occurring.
Regarding claim 17: Edman discloses a monitored voltage, but does not explicitly disclose the ICE stalls if the monitored voltage falls below the first voltage setpoint.
However, Kim discloses the ICE stalls if the monitored voltage (C_r) falls below the first voltage setpoint (C_r, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the voltage of Edman to indicate a stall if it falls below a setpoint, as disclosed by Kim, in order to accurately know if a stall is occurring.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edman and Alturi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Preston (US 2016/0065003).
Regarding claim 10: Edman discloses an engine and a measured voltage of the high voltage DC bus but does not explicitly disclose an engine control system of the motor generator system adjusts ICE engine speed in response to a measured voltage of the high voltage DC bus, and the DC boosting circuit does not substantially alter a normal operation of the engine control system when the monitored voltage above the first voltage setpoint.
However, Preston discloses an engine control system of the motor generator system adjusts ICE engine speed in response to a measured voltage of the high voltage DC bus (Fig. 2, shows the power vs time, which is inherently a measured voltage), and the DC boosting circuit does not substantially alter a normal operation of the engine control system when the monitored voltage above the first voltage setpoint (paragraph 0024, as additional power is not transferred unless there is a transient, which is shown in Fig. 2 to be a dip in the voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to not alter the normal operation of the engine of Edman when there are no transients, as disclosed by Preston, in order to ensure sustained normal operation.
Regarding claim 15: Edman discloses an engine and a measured voltage of the high voltage DC bus but does not explicitly disclose an engine control system of the motor generator system adjusts ICE engine speed in response to a measured voltage of the high voltage DC bus, and the DC boosting circuit does not substantially alter a normal operation of the engine control system when the monitored voltage above the first voltage setpoint.
However, Preston discloses an engine control system of the motor generator system adjusts ICE engine speed in response to a measured voltage of the high voltage DC bus (Fig. 2, shows the power vs time, which is inherently a measured voltage), and the DC boosting circuit does not substantially alter a normal operation of the engine control system when the monitored voltage above the first voltage setpoint (paragraph 0024, as additional power is not transferred unless there is a transient, which is shown in Fig. 2 to be a dip in the voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to not alter the normal operation of the engine of Edman when there are no transients, as disclosed by Preston, in order to ensure sustained normal operation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834