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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 includes a limitation of “controlling the to generate positive torque for the first electric machine.” Claim 9 does not, however, specify what is being controlled to generate the positive torque. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 4 and 6 do not include descriptive text labels beside the numbers to indicate what is happening at the respective steps of the claimed process. 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janik, et al., US 2022/0081091 A1, in view of Marquis, et al., US 2021/0114706 A1.
As per Claim 1, Janik teaches a propulsion arrangement for a marine vessel (¶ 46; propulsion system 122 of Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a first hybrid driveline and a second hybrid driveline (¶¶ 46-47; a “hybrid diesel power generation system”), wherein each hybrid driveline comprises:
an electric machine (¶ 49; as in a “diesel electric tug boat”), a combustion engine comprising an engine management system, the combustion engine is coupled to the electric machine (¶ 52), and a hybrid power control unit (¶¶ 51-52); and
wherein a first electric machine is connected to a battery pack via a first breaker and a first electric motor drive (¶ 62), a second electric machine is connected to the battery pack via a second breaker and a second electric motor drive (¶ 65);
the propulsion arrangement further comprises: a third and fourth breakers (¶ 84) and a third and fourth electric motor drives (¶ 92); and wherein
the first electric machine is connected to the third electric motor drive via the third breaker, the second electric machine is connected to the fourth electric motor drive via the fourth breaker (¶¶ 69-71), and the third and fourth electric motor drives are connected to each other such that the first and second hybrid drivelines are connected to each other at the electric machines side via the third and fourth breakers and the third and fourth electric motor drives (¶¶ 87-89).
Janik does not expressly teach that the first and second hybrid power control unit are configured to receive a command from a central control system of the marine vessel and generate control signals to configure an operation mode of the propulsion arrangement. Marquis teaches that the first and second hybrid power control unit are configured to receive a command from a central control system of the marine vessel and generate control signals to configure an operation mode of the propulsion arrangement (¶¶ 38-39). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the driveline arrangement of Janik with the mode controller of Marquis, in order to allow an engine and a generator of a ship to power the ship’s electrical grid.
As per Claim 2, Janik teaches that the operation mode of the propulsion arrangement is configured by setting the first, second third and fourth breakers in closed or open position, and controlling the operations of the third and fourth electric motor drives (¶¶ 58-59).
As per Claim 3, Janik teaches that the first and second hybrid power control unit are configured to set the third and fourth breakers in closed position (¶¶ 88, 98), and set the first and second breakers to open position such that the first and second hybrid drivelines are connected to each other enabling power flow between the first and second hybrid drivelines (¶¶ 69-70).
As per Claim 4, Janik teaches that the propulsion arrangement is configured to run the first combustion engine and keep the second combustion engine in standby (¶¶ 118-119; in “’standby,’ or ‘manual’” mode), and that the third electric motor drive is set to generate negative torque by the first hybrid power control unit and the fourth electric motor drive is set to generate positive torque for the second electric machine by the second hybrid power control unit (¶¶ 27-28).
As per Claim 5, Janik teaches that the propulsion arrangement is configured to run the second combustion engine and keep the first combustion engine in standby (¶¶ 118-119; in “’standby,’ or ‘manual’” mode), and that the third electric motor drive is set to generate positive torque for the first electric machine by the first hybrid power control unit and the fourth electric motor drive is set to generate negative torque by the second hybrid power control unit (¶¶ 29-30).
As per Claim 6, Janik teaches a computer-implemented method (¶¶ 36-37) for controlling operation of the propulsion arrangement in a marine vessel (¶ 46; propulsion system 122 of Figures 1 and 2), wherein the propulsion arrangement comprises a first and a second hybrid drivelines (¶¶ 46-47; a “hybrid diesel power generation system”) comprising a first and second electric machines (¶ 49; as in a “diesel electric tug boat”), a first and a second combustion engines (¶¶ 51-52), a first and a second hybrid power control units (¶¶ 52, 55), wherein the first and second electric machines are connected to a battery pack via a first and second breakers respectively (¶ 62), and the first and a second hybrid drivelines are connected at the side of the first and second electric machines via a third and a fourth breakers and a third and a fourth electric motor drives (¶¶ 84, 92).
Janik does not expressly teach: receiving a command from a central control system of the marine vessel, wherein the command is an operation mode configuration command; and generating control signals to control the operation mode of the propulsion arrangement based on the command. Marquis teaches:
receiving a command from a central control system of the marine vessel, wherein the command is an operation mode configuration command (¶¶ 38-39); and
generating control signals to control the operation mode of the propulsion arrangement based on the command (¶¶ 45-47).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 7, Janik does not expressly teach that the command is a cross-over function operation mode, and wherein generating control signals comprises: generating control signals to set the first breaker in open position and set the third breaker in closed position; generating control signals to set the second breaker to open position and set the fourth breaker in closed position; and generating control signals to control the operations of the third and fourth electric motor drives such that power flow occurs between the first and second hybrid drivelines. Marquis teaches that the command is a cross-over function operation mode (¶ 5; “split operating mode”), and wherein generating control signals comprises:
generating control signals to set the first breaker in open position and set the third breaker in closed position (¶¶ 46-47);
generating control signals to set the second breaker to open position and set the fourth breaker in closed position (¶ 48; as “second power source shaft” of Figures 1 and 2 rotates); and
generating control signals to control the operations of the third and fourth electric motor drives such that power flow occurs between the first and second hybrid drivelines (¶ 50; as “motor-generator 20 may also receive power from either, or both, the second genset 52 or the electrical storage device 54” as in Figures 1 and 2).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 8, Janik teaches that generating control signals to control the operations of the third and fourth electro-mechanical drives comprises:
running the first combustion engine and keeping the second combustion engine in standby (¶¶ 118-119; in “’standby,’ or ‘manual’” mode);
controlling the third electric motor drive to generate negative torque (¶ 27; by “selecting a torque profile”); and
controlling the fourth electric motor drive to generate positive torque for the second electric machine (¶¶ 27-28).
As per Claim 9, Janik teaches that generating control signals to control the operations of the third and fourth electro-mechanical drives comprises:
running the second combustion engine and keeping the first combustion engine in standby (¶¶ 118-119; in “’standby,’ or ‘manual’” mode);
controlling the to generate positive torque for the first electric machine (¶ 27; by “selecting a torque profile”); and
controlling the fourth electric motor drive to generate negative torque (¶¶ 27-28).
As per Claim 10, Janik teaches that the first hybrid driveline is a Port driveline (¶ 105), and that the second hybrid driveline is a Starboard driveline (¶ 109).
As per Claim 11, Janik teaches a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the method according to claim 6 (¶¶ 35-38).
As per Claim 12, Janik teaches a marine vessel comprising a computer system according to claim 11 (¶¶ 9-10).
As per Claim 13, Janik teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 6 (¶ 11).
As per Claim 14, Janik teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 6 (¶¶ 10, 28, 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights