2020005591 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2021)

Atieva, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 30, 2021

2020005591 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/194,533 02/28/2014 Yifan TANG 0210-095002 1722 53666 7590 12/30/2021 BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP Mark Bellermann P.O. Box 1077 Middletown, MD 21769 EXAMINER JOSEPH, DEVON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2846 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@brakehughes.com uspto@brakehughes.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YIFAN TANG ____________ Appeal 2020-005591 Application 14/194,533 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, JULIA HEANEY, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13 and 16–21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Atieva, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 The Examiner states claims 14 and 15 are allowable but for their dependence from a rejected claim. Final Act. 12. Appeal 2020-005591 Application 14/194,533 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention relates to induction motor control. Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Claim 1 reads as follows: 1. An induction motor controller, comprising: a controller, configured to couple to one or more sensors and to an induction motor having a stator and a rotor, the controller having a first module and a second module coupled to each other, the second module configured to couple, via an inverter, to the induction motor; the first module receives a commanded torque and derives a commanded stator voltage vector, in a rotor flux reference frame, via a rotor flux communicated as feedback in a rotor flux regulator loop and a torque communicated as feedback in a torque regulator loop, wherein the commanded stator voltage vector and the rotor flux reference frame rotate relative to a phase voltage reference frame for the induction motor, the first module including a rotor current limiter that decreases a maximum rotor current in response to an increased motor temperature; and the second module transforms the commanded stator voltage vector from the rotor flux reference frame to the phase voltage reference frame to produce controls for the inverter that generates AC (alternating current) power for the induction motor. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key recitation in dispute). Claim 8 recites an induction motor controller including a controller configured to, inter alia, produce a commanded stator voltage projected onto a quadrature axis in a rotor flux reference frame. Claim 19 recites a method including, inter alia, generating a quadrature axis projection of a commanded stator voltage vector expressed in a rotor flux reference frame. Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1, 8, or 19. Appeal 2020-005591 Application 14/194,533 3 REJECTION Claims 1–13 and 16–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jansen,3 Lipo,4 and Yamada.5 OPINION Each independent claim on appeal includes recitation of a “commanded stator voltage vector” that is expressed relative to a rotor flux reference frame. As explained in the Specification, rotor flux refers to “[t]he changing flux that the rotor sees as a result of difference in rotation speed from the stator flux.” Spec. ¶ 2. Rotor flux reference frame refers to “a rotating coordinate system that rotates synchronously with the rotor flux.” Id. ¶ 3. A dispositive issue in this case is whether the Examiner identifies evidence in the prior art of an induction motor control which includes, inter alia, use of the recited commanded stator voltage vector expressed relative to a rotor flux reference frame. The sole ground of rejection on appeal as applied to each rejected claim is premised on the Examiner’s finding that Lipo discloses a control module that “derives a commanded stator voltage vector, (vqse) in a rotor flux reference frame.” Final Act. 3 (citing Lipo 10:11–39, Fig. 9). Lipo generally relates to measuring air gap flux by measuring voltages across stator coils in a synchronous or induction machine. Lipo 2:9–17. Lipo’s Figure 9 is a block diagram of a motor control system. Id. 3:32. The variable, vqse, shown in Lipo’s Figure 9 and characterized by the Examiner as 3 US 5,585,709, issued December 17, 1996. 4 US 4,724,373, issued February 9, 1988. 5 US 2012/0242272 A1, published September 27, 2012. Appeal 2020-005591 Application 14/194,533 4 the recited commanded stator voltage vector, is identified in Lipo as an “error voltage” obtained by performing a “proportional plus integral operation” on an error signal obtained by subtracting a “measured torque Te” from a “reference torque signal Te*.” Id. 10:33–46. The Examiner does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Lipo’s error voltage to be a commanded stator voltage vector as recited in claim 1. Nor does the Examiner point to evidence in Lipo or elsewhere in the relied-upon prior art to support that Lipo’s error voltage would have been expressed relative to a rotor flux reference frame. Appellant argues that Lipo fails to teach use of a rotor flux reference frame. Appeal Br. 8–9. The Examiner does not point to evidence or technical reasoning in the Final Action or Answer sufficient to support the finding that Lipo teaches use of the recited commanded stator voltage vector expressed relative to a rotor flux reference frame—i.e. a coordinate system which rotates synchronously with the rotor flux. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection is not sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–13 and 16–21 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–13, 16–21 103 Jansen, Lipo, Yamada 1–13, 16–21 REVERSED