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 arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-8 and 18 under §112, and claims 1-16 and 18 under §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of enablement and clarity, as detailed below.
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 “direct interconnection” that enables the first and second motor inverters to selectively drive either propulsion motor, as recited by amended claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
While the drawings as filed depict a configuration wherein the motor inverters are ostensibly interconnected (see FIG. 3), the drawings do not show how, for example, motor inverter 208B would provide electrical power to electric motor 204A in the event that inverter 208A malfunctions. As shown by FIG 3, inverter 208A provides power only to motor 204A and inverter 208B provides power only to motor 204B.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Enablement is evaluated in view of the Wands factors, derived from In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The factors are as follows:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Turning then to the instant claims and disclosure, Applicant claims “the first motor inverter and the second motor inverter comprise a direct interconnection therebetween” such that, in the event of an inverter fault, “a remaining operating motor inverter…is configured to provide AC electric power, via the direct interconnection, to drive an electric motor operatively coupled with the failed motor inverter.” It is not evident from the disclosure as filed how this interconnection is formed.
With respect to factor A, the present recitation broadly covers any form of “direct interconnection.” As Applicant has recited a “direct” interconnection, the claim necessitates the first and second inverters form at least one interconnection that has no intervening elements. Moreover, when broadly construed, an “interconnection” is nothing more than a connection between elements and, as a result, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an interconnection” is simply a wire connection between the first and second inverters. Finally, this “direct interconnection” must provide the means for delivering power to either of the first or second electric motors from either of the first or second motor inverters when there is a fault in one of the two recited inverters.
This combination effectively necessitates the “direct interconnection” be formed at the output of the inverters, meaning that the output of each inverted is directly coupled to the output of the other inverter. If the direct interconnection were formed prior to the output, some amount of power would necessarily have to pass through the faulty inverter; such a configuration would be seemingly at odds with Applicant’s intent to not use the faulty inverter. Thus, the only apparent interpretation of the claim limitations that makes logical sense is a direct connection of inverter outputs.
In terms of how the “interconnection” is formed, any form could be possible because Applicant does not recite the structure of the interconnect. From a simple wire to a complex interconnection circuit, the possibilities are nigh endless. Indeed, the term “interconnect” bears no inherent structural form and, thus, could be virtually any configuration so long as there are no intervening elements between the interconnection and either inverter. Applicant’s disclosure as filed provides virtually no elaboration on the structure of the interconnect, showing nothing more than a singular bi-directional arrow between the inverters on FIG 3.
With respect to delivery of power via the direct interconnection “in response to a failed motor inverter,” it is unclear how the interconnect would be configured to provide such a response. The structure of the interconnect is not disclosed in any meaningful way by Applicant, resulting in a black box configuration that would require those of ordinary skill to unduly experiment to arrive at an interconnect between the inverters that is both “direct” and which provides power from one motor inverter to the electric motor corresponding to the other of the motor inverters in response to a fault of the other motor inverter.
In view of the above, Examiner believes that factor A favors a finding of non-enablement. The sheer number of possible “interconnects” itself necessitates an amount of experimentation that is unduly burdensome.
With respect to factors B-D, the “nature of the invention” is the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains and is also the backdrop to determine the state of the art and the level of one of ordinary skill. Broadly construed, “a direct interconnect” could be virtually any circuit which would link the first and second motor inverters. While the term “direct” implies that there is nothing between the inverters beyond the interconnect, the interconnect itself could have any number of configurations ranging from a simple wire to a complex circuit. As the claim language itself is so incredibly broad, it becomes difficult to then determine both the state of the art and one of ordinary skill. For example, a simple wire to connect two outputs is indisputably well-known within the field of endeavor; on the other hand, a complex circuit operated based on numerous sensors and other conditional data may be more niche. Even accounting for the fault response limitation, the subject matter is hardly narrowed at all since a simple wire connection between outputs would deliver power to both electric motors regardless of fault state. Thus, Examiner does not believe that factors B-D, on their own, favor a finding of enablement or non-enablement.
With respect to factor E, the “level of predictability” within the prior art, Examiner notes that the breadth of the claim results in a low level of predictability. As “a direct interconnect” could comprise any number of elements, any number of which may meet the instant limitation, it cannot be said that there is a “predictable” configuration that would enable one of ordinary skill to make and use the invention. Thus, Examiner believes that factor E, when evaluated in view of factors B-D, favors a finding of non-enablement as a result of the sheer number of possible configurations leading to a low level of predictability.
Factors F and G pertain to guidance provide by the Applicant in the instant disclosure. As briefly noted above, there is virtually no disclosure or discussion pertaining to “a direct interconnection” as presently recited. The term “interconnect” does not appear once within the Specification as filed. Discussion of “interconnected” inverters may be found in para. [0031] of the Specification as filed; there, Applicant merely contends that the inverters may be interconnected in some embodiments without elaborating on the interconnection. Notably, however, Applicant appears to distinguish between the interconnection and “a series of connections between the electric motors…and the motor inverters…to allow for selective connection and disconnection of the electric motors…to the motor inverters….” Thus, the Specification suggest that the recite interconnection is not a simple configuration of switches between the output of the inverters and the motors. While this does not, however, impose any meaningful limitation on the actual structure or configuration of the interconnect, it does suggest that the fault response function must be within the interconnect itself, as the provision of switches is presented as an alternative option to inclusion of the interconnect. As Applicant does not provide any meaningful guidance and provides zero examples of how the interconnect is configured, Examiner must conclude that factors F and G favor a finding of non-enablement.
Having looked at factors A-G, all that is left is evaluation of factor H, the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. As discussed above, the breadth of the claim creates a virtual sea of possibilities; there is no clear trend or predictability within the prior art, and Applicant provides essentially no guidance on how to achieve the invention as claimed. Thus, Examiner believes that one of ordinary skill would be required to perform an undue amount of experimentation to arrive at that which Applicant considers to the be invention. Thus, factor H also favors a finding of non-enablement.
As none of the factors favor a finding of enablement, Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 1 is not enabled by the disclosure as filed. Independent claim 9 recites substantially identical limitations and is rejected for the same reasons. The remaining dependent claims fail to cure these deficiencies and are rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 1-3, 5-11, and 13-18 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 claim 1, Applicant recites “a controller configured for selectively driving the first and second electric motors from the generator, the first and second motor inverters, or a combination thereof….” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant is claiming that the first motor inverter may be used to drive the second motor and/or that the second motor inverter may be used to drive the first motor. Neither of these options are supported by the preceding limitations of claim 1. Instead, the claim provides support only for the first motor being driven by the generator and/or the first motor inverter and the second motor being driven by the generator and/or the second motor inverter. Thus, Applicant’s claim that the controller drives each motor from “the generator, the first and second motor inverters, or a combination thereof” is indefinite. Appropriate clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “configured for selectively driving the first and second electric motors….”
Claim 1 further recites “a remaining operating motor inverter…is configured to provide AC electric power, via the direct interconnection, to drive an electric motor operatively coupled with the failed motor inverter.” Applicant’s recitation of “an electric motor” creates ambiguity as to whether or not there is an additional motor provided with either of the inverters. As best understood by Examiner, the purpose of this limitation is to claim that the operable motor inverter (among the first and second inverters) drives either the first motor or the second motor, depending upon which of the first and second inverter has failed. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “the respective electric motor corresponding to the failed motor inverter.”
Independent claim 9 recites substantially identical limitations and is rejected for at least the same reason. The remaining dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected for at least the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
While a rejection based on prior art has not been provided at this time, Examiner is not indicating any subject matter as allowable at this time due to the issue of enablement detailed above. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter is not properly enabled, Examiner is unable to reasonably ascertain the scope of the subject matter as amended. The subject matter will be reevaluated upon resolution of the issues under §112.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, TULSIDAS 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834