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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 1, the phrase “A power inverter” should read –The power inverter--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 3, the phrase “the first electrical pathway” should read --the first electric path--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 1-2, the phrases “a low voltage source”, “an electric motor”, “a high voltage source” should read --the low voltage source--, --the electric motor--, --the high voltage source--.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22 and 24-25 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.
Claims 1 and 25 are unclear because they refers to a "certain capability of the first electrical path as being connectable. (emphasis added to "connectable"), which is not possible without further elements (maybe additional switches) which provide such a connection and which should, therefore, be explicitly defined. That is, the present formulation conveys the impression that the electrical path per se is itself connectable to a high voltage source and to a low voltage source, which is not possible. Furthermore, without further clarification, the question arises whether such a connection is "undesired" or "forced by additional elements". In this respect, it is unclear whether the high voltage source and the low voltage source can be simultaneously connected due to an undesired fault (see section A below). Additionally, it is unclear whether the first electrical path can be simultaneously connected to the high voltage source and to the low voltage source (see section A below).
Moreover, the present formulation using the term "connectable" leaves unclear whether such a connection is established, or it merely refers to an optional capability of the intended elements (as stated above), which results in that the features introduced by "connectable" have to be regarded as entirely optional without defining the scope of these claims.
A. The subject matter of claims 1 and 25 are unclear because it is not properly defined whether the connection of the first electrical path to the high voltage source and to the low voltage source is exclusive or simultaneous; furthermore, it is unclear in which case can be simultaneous. That is, it is unclear whether, when the first electrical path is connected to the high voltage source, it is not connected to the low voltage source and vice-versa, or whether the first electrical path can be connected to both sources. In this respect, the attention is drawn to claim 2 explicitly defining that when the first electrical path is connected to the low voltage source (that is, during the test mode), it is not connected to the high voltage source; therefore, claim 1 also covers the case that the first electrical path is connected to both voltage sources and only the dependent claim 2 limits such a case to an exclusive connection to the low voltage source, which leads to a clarity objection of claim 1 when covering the simultaneous connection to two different voltage sources.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 25 are unclear because it refers to a "certain capability of the second electrical path as being connectable (emphasis added to "connectable"), which is not possible without further elements (maybe additional switches) that provide such a connection, and which should therefore be explicitly defined. That is, the present formulation conveys the impression that the second electrical path per se is itself connectable to the first electrical path, which is not possible. Furthermore, without further clarification, the question arises whether such a connection is "undesired" or "forced by additional elements".
Moreover, the present formulation using the term "connectable" leaves unclear whether such a connection is established, or it merely refers to an optional capability of the intended elements (as stated above), which results in that the features introduced by "connectable" have to be regarded as entirely optional without defining the scope of these claims.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 25 are unclear because it refers to the fact that "the second electrical path is also capable of being electrically isolated" (emphasis added to "capable") which is not possible without further elements (maybe additional switches) that provide such a capability, and which should therefore be explicitly defined. That is, the present formulation conveys the impression that the second electrical path per se is capable to isolate itself to the first electrical path, which is impossible. Furthermore, without further clarification, the question arises whether such a capability is "undesired" or "forced by additional elements".
Furthermore, the term capable" results in that the features following that term have no limiting effect on the scope of protection, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of claims 1 and 25 unclear. In particular, it is not clear under which conditions the features introduce by "being capable" are actually implemented.
The subject matter of claim 1 is unclear because nothing in these claims defines the connections of the second electrical path during the operational mode and the test mode.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 25 are unclear because nothing in these claims defines the "first electrical path" and the "second electrical path". According to the present formulation of these claims it is not possible to know "which electrical paths" of the power inverter are intended. Therefore, it is not clear "where" and "how" these "paths" connect to the windings defined in claim 7 (It is unclear because the connections of the "multiple windings" to the "first and second electrical paths" are not defined).
The subject matter of claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, and 25 are unclear because the type of connections, direct or indirect, are not defined. In this respect, a direct and simultaneous connection of the first electrical path to the high voltage source and the low voltage source would result in a clarity objection (as stated above).
The subject matter of claim 1 is unclear because it refers to an electric "motor of the vehicle" without being clear whether such a motor forms part of the invention; in fact, the present formulation conveys the impression that the "vehicle" and the "electric motor" are not defined as elements under the scope of the invention. However, the attention is also drawn to claims 7-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22 and 24-25 defining features of the "electric motor", when such an electric motor is not an element of the invention, which leads to a clarity objection. In this respect, claim 1 is defined by the use of another entity (the motor and the vehicle), wherein such an entity does not belong to the scope of the claim but, which is defined as defining the scope of the invention (see claims 7-8, 10-13, 15-20, 22 and 24-25), which leads to a clarity objection. Therefore, claim 1 should explicitly define the elements of the invention and in case that the vehicle and the motor do not belong to the invention they should be removed from the definition of the dependent claims.
The subject matter of claims 7 and 11 is unclear because the term "connectable" does not define whether such a connection is established by additional elements, like switches, which are not defined, or whether it refers to a certain capability of the winding to be themselves connectable, which is not defined either. In fact, the present formulation leaves also unclear whether such a connection is established, or it merely refers to an optional capability of the intended elements (as stated above), which results in that the features introduced by "connectable" have to be regarded as entirely optional without defining the scope of these claims.
The subject matter of claim 11 is unclear because claim 7 defines that "each electric switching device is connectable to a winding of the electric motor", that is one switch to at least one winding, while claim 11 redefines such a feature by defining that "each winding is connectable to two switches", that is, two switches to one winding, which redefines the already defined features of claim 7 and results in a clarity objection. Such an objection applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding dependent claims (see for example, claim 13).
The subject matter of claim 25 is unclear because since the elements of the invention are not properly defined (as stated above) it is unclear "what" executes the different steps of the method. In order to overcome the present clarity objection, claim 25 should be reformulated as referring back to claim 1 and to the different elements of the power inverter executing the corresponding different steps of the method.
Dependent claims are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schantz et al. (US 5,481,194) hereafter D1.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner, the document D1 discloses a power inverter for an electric drive train of a vehicle (D1: abstract; column 2, lines 35-45; Fig. 2), comprising: a first electrical path connectable to a high voltage source and a low voltage source (D1: Fig. 2 in combination with Fig. 4; wherein Fig. 2 discloses the implementation of a high voltage line of 320V and Fig. 4 discloses the implementation of a fault detection circuit 115 that is power supplied with the low voltage source 42 but it is also connectable to the 320V from power distribution module 20; the first electrical path is anticipated by an electrical path of the fault detection circuit 115, as depicted in detail in Fig. 5, for example, by a signal path of the BIT 110 element providing the reference value, that will be used to compare with the sensed value of the power supply of 320V; see also that the detection circuit 115 is depicted in Fig. 5 indicating that the voltage sensor is connected to power supply 114; see the detail of the voltage sensor, as depicted in Fig. 6, showing that it receives the 320V DC voltage at the voltage dividers 109 and 111 while the voltage drop detection and the comparison is carried out by the operational amplifiers supplied with low voltage values); a second electrical path that is connectable to the first electrical path and also capable of being electrically isolated from the first electrical path (D1: Fig. 6, for example, any electrical path associated to the high voltage of 320V applied to terminals 4', on Fig. 6, and referred as terminals 114' in column 8, lines 1-10, of the description; in particular, the chassis ground of the high-voltage side can be regarded as anticipating the second electrical path); and a test unit configured to determine an indication of a potential difference between the first and second electrical paths (D1: Fig. 5, fault detection circuit 115 in Fig. 4, as depicted in detail in Fig. 5, wherein the sensor is depicted in detail in Fig. 6 ); the power inverter being configured to have two modes of operation: an operational mode in which the first electrical path is connected to the high voltage source and the power inverter is configured to provide current to an electric motor of the vehicle (this feature relates to the normal operation of the driver of D1 depicted in Fig. 2); and a test mode in which the first electrical path is connected to the low voltage source and the test unit is configured to determine, from the indication of the potential difference between the first and second electrical paths, whether there is a fault in an electrical connection in the vehicle (D1: Fig. 6; column 8, lines 1-14, disclosing that the comparison is carried out by detecting the mismatch between chassis ground, in the high-voltage side, and the circuit analog reference, in the low voltage side).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood by the Examiner, the document D1 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the high voltage electric energy store is configured to supply a voltage of greater than 60 V [320V], and/or wherein the low voltage source is configured to supply a voltage of less than 60 V [12-20V].
Regarding claim 25, as best understood by the Examiner, the document D1 as disclosed above for rejection of claim 1 discloses all the elements of a method of controlling a power inverter in an electric drive train of a vehicle, the power inverter comprising a first electrical path connectable to a high voltage source and a low voltage source, a second electrical path that is connectable to the first electrical path and also capable of being electrically isolated from the first electrical path, the method comprising: connecting the first electrical path to the low voltage source; determining an indication of a potential difference between the first and second electrical paths; and determining, from the indication of the potential difference between the first and second paths, whether there is a fault in an electrical connection in the vehicle.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11-13, 15-16, 19-20 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukui (US 2020/0307383 A1), hereafter D3.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner, the document D3, in the same technical field, also discloses a power inverter for an electric drive train of a vehicle (D3: abstract, paragraph [0002], and paragraph [0006] explicitly referring to the inverter; Fig. 1) comprising: a first electrical path connectable to a high voltage source and a low voltage source (D3: 40 high voltage source, also see in Fig. 1, the line 52/53 connected to the L2 low-voltage-side; see also that line 52 is connectable to line 55 via the switch 21L; see, also, for example, paragraph [0030] and [0038]-[0040]); a second electrical path that is connectable to the first electrical path and also capable of being electrically isolated from the first electrical path (D3: see in Fig. 1, the line 54 connectable and disconnectable to the line 52/53 via the switch 21L and the switch 21U); and a test unit configured to determine an indication of a potential difference between the first and second electrical paths (D3: Fig. 1, detection element 111); the power inverter being configured to have two modes of operation: an operational mode in which the first electrical path is connected to the high voltage source and the power inverter is configured to provide current to an electric motor of the vehicle (this feature relates to the normal operation of the driver of D3 depicted in Fig. 1); and a test mode in which the first electrical path is connected to the low voltage source and the test unit is configured to determine, from the indication of the potential difference between the first and second electrical paths, whether there is a fault in an electrical connection in the vehicle (D3: see the last sentence of paragraph [0056] : "For example, the detection part 111 may detect a short circuit failure on the basis of a potential difference between both ends of the low-voltage-side switch 21L").
Regarding claim 3, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the power inverter is configured to, if the test unit determines, in the test mode, that there is not a fault in an electrical connection in the vehicle, connect the first electrical path to the high voltage source [via 41].
Regarding claim 4, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 and ¶0053, ¶0084, ¶0094 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the test unit 111 is configured to determine, from the indication of the potential difference [¶0056] between the first 55 and second electrical paths 53, whether the first and second electrical paths are electrically isolated [OFF state of 21L] from each other, and optionally wherein the fault is an isolation fault [OFF state of 21L] between one or more components of the vehicle powered by the high voltage source and one or more components of the vehicle powered by the low voltage source.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 and ¶0055-0056 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the test unit comprises a current sensor [implicit to value of current] and wherein the test unit is configured to determine an indication of a potential difference between the first and second electrical paths by measuring current flow in one or both of the first and second electrical paths.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 and ¶0055-0056 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electric motor comprises multiple windings [implicit to three phase AC motors, ¶0027] and wherein the power inverter comprises multiple electric switching devices [phase switch for each phase] each connectable to a winding of the electric motor.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 7, wherein each winding of the motor is connectable to a respective first switch [UH1 as an example] and a respective second switch [UL1 as an example] of the multiple electric switching devices.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 11, wherein the multiple electric switching devices comprise a first subset of switches [switches H1 as shown as an example] and a second subset of switches [switches L1 as shown as an example].
Regarding claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 12, wherein for a respective winding of the motor, the respective first switch [UH1] is one of the first subset of switches and the respective second switch [UL1] is one of the second subset of switches, and/or wherein the pair of switches [UH1, UL1 as an example] comprises one switch of the first subset of switches and one switch of the second subset of switches.
14. (canceled)
Regarding claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 13, wherein the one switch [UH1] of the first subset of switches is connected to a first winding of the electric motor and the one switch [VL1] of the second subset of switches is connected to a second winding of the electric motor.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1-2 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 15, wherein the fault is a fault in one or more of the first winding and the second winding [implicit to 110, see fig. 2].
Regarding claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 7, wherein the power inverter is configured to, if the test unit determines the presence of a fault [S140] in one or more windings of the motor, prevent the connection [step S150, fig. 2] of the first electrical pathway to the high voltage electric energy store.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 discloses the power inverter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the power inverter comprises multiple gate drivers [Drivers for H1, L1], each gate driver being configured to drive a respective electric switching device of the multiple electric switching devices, and/or wherein the test unit comprises a sensor configured to measure the potential difference between the first and second electrical paths [¶0056].
Regarding claim 24, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 at fig. 1 and Abstract discloses a vehicle comprising
Regarding claim 25, as best understood by the Examiner, the document D3 as disclosed above for rejection of claim 1 discloses all the elements of a method of controlling a power inverter in an electric drive train of a vehicle, the power inverter comprising a first electrical path connectable to a high voltage source and a low voltage source, a second electrical path that is connectable to the first electrical path and also capable of being electrically isolated from the first electrical path, the method comprising: connecting the first electrical path to the low voltage source; determining an indication of a potential difference between the first and second electrical paths; and determining, from the indication of the potential difference between the first and second paths, whether there is a fault in an electrical connection in the vehicle.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D3 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pfeilschifter et al. (DE 102021200414 A1 (Pub. 07/21/2021) for English translation used US 2023/0356596 A1), hereafter D2.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood by the Examiner, D3 discloses all the elements except for the power inverter as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the test mode, the first electrical path is not connected to the high voltage source. D2 in similar environment of insulation fault detection discloses that the voltage difference between the first NL and second electrical paths M allows detecting a fault in an electrical connection in the vehicle (see Abstract). The subject matter of claim 2 is not new because D2 also discloses that, in the test mode, the first electrical path is not connected to the high voltage source (D2: see that claim 1 and ¶0006-0007, ¶0027 defines that the first low-voltage branch and the high-voltage branch are galvanically isolated). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use teaching of D2 to modify D3, in order to determine fault-free operation (see Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art has been found that meets the limitations of claim 8 calling for a power inverter for an electric drive train of a vehicle, comprising: wherein in the test mode, each of the multiple electric switching devices is in an open configuration, or wherein the power inverter is configured to, in the test mode: close a pair of the multiple electric switching devices; determine an indication of a potential difference between the first and second electrical paths; and determine, from the indication of the potential difference between the first and second electrical paths, the presence of a fault in one or more windings of the electric motor. Dependent claims 10 and 17-18 will also be allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1968. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/PARESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
March 4, 2026