DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-7, filed as preliminary amendment, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Uematsu (JP 2020-159993A)
As Per claim 7, Uematsu discloses, a vehicle ( “the ECU 10 and the motor 80 can be efficiently arranged in a vehicle having a limited mounting space.”, Page 4, 3rd para, Fig.1) comprising: the electric power steering device ( via electric power steering device 8, Fig.1, page 3, 2nd para) and a notification unit ( via the notification unit 73) configured to notify of an occurrence of a failure when the abnormality detection unit confirms the failure (page 8, 3rd para), Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Hidaka eta l. (USP 2020/0252012) in view of Nakamura et al. ( USP 2022/0224275).
As Per Claim 1, Hidaka et al. ( Hidaka) discloses, a motor control device ( a motor controlling device 100, Fig.1) comprising: an inverter circuit ( via an inverter circuit 10) (Fig.1) configured to supply power to a motor ( via motor 2) [0033], Fig.1)
having a winding wire of a plurality of phases, ( U, V, W) the inverter circuit (10) including a plurality of high-potential-side switching elements ( high-side three first switching elements 11 (11u,11v, 11w) [0033],(Fig.1) and a plurality of low-potential-side switching elements ( low-side three second switching elements 12 (12u,12v,12w)) [0033], Fig.1) that are provided corresponding to each phase of the plurality of phases, (U,V,W)\ and a plurality of current sensors (13,u,13v,13w) (Shunt resistors 13) that are each connected to the plurality of low-potential-side switching elements; (12u,12v,12w) [0034], [0035], [0038], Fig.1); a power control unit (20, [0033]) configured to control the plurality of high-potential-side switching elements (11u,11v,11w) and the plurality of low-potential-side switching elements based on a duty value; (12u,12v,12w), [0033-0034], Fig.1) and an abnormality detection unit configured to detect an abnormality ( decision section 24 being set with a control mode for abnormality decision control , [0048], Fig.1 ) by comparing a sum of current values (Iu,Iv,Iw) of the plurality of phases detected by using the plurality of current sensors ( shunt resistor 13 u,13v,13w Fig.1) when the plurality of low-potential-side switching elements (12u,12v,12w) are in a conductive state,
with a first threshold value and to determine a failure based on the number of
times the abnormality is detected;([0048-0049], [0051], [0055]).
However, Hidaka does not explicitly teach, wherein the abnormality detection unit
compares the sum of the current values with the first threshold value, for each first cycle that is a current value detection cycle, and, when the abnormality is detected by comparing the sum of the current values with the first threshold value, the abnormality detection unit causes the power control unit to generate a limited duty value that limits the duty value to be less than or equal to a predetermined upper limit value such that a time during which all of the plurality of low-potential-side switching elements are in the conductive state is greater than or equal to a time required for detecting the current value and to perform duty limit processing that is processing of controlling the plurality of high-potential-side switching elements and the plurality of low-potential-side switching elements based on the limited duty value.
In an analogous art, Nakamura et al. (Nakamura) discloses, rotary electric machine control device , wherein, vehicle control unit 60 comprises an abnormality determination unit 65,wherein the abnormality detection unit (65, Fig.2) compares the sum of the current values( Iu,Iv,Iw) with the first threshold value, for each first cycle (Ti) that is a current value detection cycle, [0032-0035] and, when the abnormality is detected by comparing the sum of the current values (Iu,Iv,Iw) with the first threshold value, ( “In S104, the abnormality determination unit 65 determines whether or not an absolute value of the three-phase summation determination value Is is larger than the overcurrent determination threshold Is_th”, [0067], also see [0068]); the abnormality detection unit (65) causes the power control unit (60) to generate a limited duty value ( DutyU Lim, DutyV Lim, DutyW Lim) that limits the duty value to be less than or equal to a predetermined upper limit value such that a time during which all of the plurality of low-potential-side switching elements (24u,25v,26w) ( [0031-0035]) are in the conductive state is greater than or equal to a time required for detecting the current value and to perform duty limit processing that is processing of controlling the plurality of high-potential-side switching elements (21u, 22v, 23w) and the plurality of low-potential-side switching elements (24u,25v,26w)) based on the limited duty value. (DutyU Lim, DutyV Lim, DutyW Lim), (“When an abnormality is detected by the abnormality determination based on the current detection values Iu_det, Iv_det, and Iw_det of the phases at the all-off appearance timing, the energization control unit 61 sets the target duty to be equal to or less than the all-off threshold switching duty, and limits the energization of the coils 811 to 813 by the three-phase modulation”., [0084], Figs.2, 9-10). [0079-0084], Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hidaka and Nakamura before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hidaka, to include teachings ( ECU 15) of Nakamura and configure with the system ( and motor ) of Hidaka in order to detecting abnormality based on summation of currents of all phases, and switching the target duty to the threshold switching duty or more and limiting energization of the motor coil by the three-phase modulation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is continually setting small current (i.e., detection of abnormality can be continued appropriately).
As per Claim 2, Hidaka as modified by Nakamura teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Hidaka in view of Nakamura teaches, wherein the abnormality detection unit performs failure determination for each second cycle that is longer than the first cycle, and releases the duty limit processing when the abnormality is not continuously detected in the failure determination for each second cycle ( Nakamura : [0081-0084]).
As per Claim 3, Hidaka as modified by Nakamura teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Hidaka in view of Nakamura teaches, wherein the power control unit generates the limited duty value by matching the duty value larger than the upper limit value with the upper limit value, in the duty limit processing. ( Nakamura : [0081-0084]).
As per Claim 4, Hidaka as modified by Nakamura teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Hidaka in view of Nakamura teaches, wherein the power control unit generates the limited duty value by multiplying an amplitude of the duty value by a coefficient such that a maximum value of the limited duty value is less than or equal to the upper limit value, in the duty limit processing. (Nakamura : 0081-0084]).
As Per Claim 6, Nakamura et al. (Nakamura) discloses, an electric power steering device (via an electric power steering apparatus 8 , Fig.1)[0026] comprising: a motor control device (10), [0025]), the motor (via motor 80, Fig.1) configured to assist steering of a steering wheel (steering wheel 91) [0026]); and a torque sensor ( a torque sensor 94) configured to detect a steering torque (via configured to detect steering torque Ts) caused by steering of the steering wheel, wherein the motor control device controls driving of the motor according to the steering torque detected by the torque sensor. See [0025-0028], Figs. 1,2).
However, Nakamura does not explicitly disclose the motor control device of claim 1.
However, Hidaka discloses the motor control device of claim 1. ( a motor controlling device 100, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nakamura and Hidaka before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Nakamura to include the teachings (control system ) of Hidaka to effect the abnormality decision for each abnormality detection cycle, effecting abnormality decision continuously, so that the load on the control system can be reduced ([0024-0025]). Motivation to combine the two teachings is, frequency reduction, load reduction.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 5 is 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 MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
