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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 8/29/2025.
No prior art is being applied because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “estimating, for a predetermined time interval, an average speed of the electric motor based on the determined drive currents; determining that the average speed of the electric motor either falls below a first predetermined limiting value or remains below the first predetermined limiting value during the predetermined time interval; after determining that the speed of the electric motor either falls below the first predetermined limiting value or remains below the first predetermined limiting value for the predetermined time interval, detecting blockage of the fan without directly detecting a rotation speed of the fan and sending a warning message” as recited in Claims 10 and 16, as is currently presented, in the combination, and as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 directed towards the previous 101 rejections,
Applicant argues Thales, but the Examiner respectfully notes that Thales does not apply because certain claim features are mathematical calculations, and not merely using mathematical calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(c) explicitly states “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” As such, no specific formula must be claimed to invoke a mathematical concept, and the mere use of the term “determining” or reasonable synonyms thereof would reasonable be a mathematical concepts when such concept reasonably includes some form of calculation. A computer is a computing device, and computations involve calculations or math, and thus actions performed by a computer are reasonably a mathematical calculation.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably explain why the claimed estimation, determination, and detection features would only involve mathematical concepts as opposed to being a mathematical concept. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the above estimating, determining, and detecting features are themselves mathematical calculations because each feature is a mathematical calculation, such as the estimating feature.
Applicant then argues that the feature of “after determining that the speed of the electric motor either falls below the first predetermined limiting value or remains below the first predetermined limiting value for the predetermined time interval, detecting blockage of the fan without directly detecting a rotation speed of the fan and sending a warning message” is a practical application because it permits detection of a blocked fan without the conventional use of a tachometer. However, what applicant is arguing is at most a benefit, and a benefit is not a practical application. A practical application is defined to one that amounts of significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, a structural feature that relies upon an abstract idea to meaningfully use the abstract idea for a practical purpose would reasonably be a practical application. However, merely because the abstract idea is beneficial in some manner, is not reasonably a practical application, and applicant cites no case law supporting the argument that a benefit would be considered a practical application.
As best understood, when applicant claims “detecting blockage of the fan,” applicant is referring to a mathematical determination by a processing device. Applicant does not use such language in the disclosure, but as best understood, any detecting of a blockage would actually be a determination by a processing device. A determination of a blockage, regardless of what it would or would not require, or any benefit thereof, is an abstract idea because it is itself a mathematical calculation made by a processing device. Furthermore, as was explained in the previous 101 rejection, the mere outputting of a warning signal or message does not reasonably amount to significantly more, because the mere displaying or outputting of information has been held to be insufficient extra-solution activity. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-12, 14-18, 30, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
As to Claims 10 and 16,
Step 1: The claims are directed towards a process (Claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims) or a machine (Claim 16 and subsequent dependent claims).
Step 2A, Prong One: The claim(s) recite(s) in Claim 10, “determining, at each of the plurality of time points, a drive current provided by the DC/DC converter to an electric motor configured to drive the fan based on the measured voltage drop, estimating, for a predetermined time interval, an average speed of the electric motor based on the determined drive currents, determining that the average speed of the electric motor either falls below a first predetermined limiting value or remains below the first predetermined limiting value during the predetermined time interval, after determining that the speed of the electric motor either falls below the first predetermined limiting value or remains below the first predetermined limiting value for the predetermined time interval, detecting blockage of the fan without directly detecting a rotation speed of the fan” on lines 6-17; and in Claim 16, “determine, at each of the plurality of time points, a drive current provided by the DC/DC converter to the electric motor based on the measured voltage drop, estimating, for a predetermined time interval, an average speed of the electric motor based on the determined drive currents, determine that the average speed of the electric motor either falls below a first predetermined limiting value or remains below the first predetermined limiting value during the predetermined time interval, after determining that the speed of the electric motor either falls below the first predetermined limiting value or remains below the first predetermined limiting value for the predetermined time interval, detecting blockage of the fan” on lines 8-17. These features are directed towards an abstract idea as they are directed towards a mathematical concept, such as mathematical relationships and calculations. As best understood, detecting blockage of the fan is actually a mathematical calculation used by the processing device to identify whether a blockage has occurred. All above noted features are directed to mathematical calculations as all, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, are calculations and not merely involving calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only phrase that relies upon this abstract idea is similar to those concepts that have been held to not be sufficient to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant recites “after determining that the average speed of the electric motor either falls below the first predetermined limiting value or remains below the first predetermined limiting value during the predetermined time interval, sending a warning message” as found in the second to last paragraph of both Claims 10 and 16. Such a feature is not considered to be a practical application of the abstract idea or amount of significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regard to a warning message, such a message amounts to the mere displaying of determined information or merely outputting a signal, and as explained in MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), selecting information for collection, analysis, and display, has been held to be insufficient extra-solution activity. Similarly, mere outputting a signal has been held to be insufficient extra solution activity. Applicant’s warning message is similar to that of displaying data or outputting information and has been held to be insufficient extra-solution activity, and therefore does not reasonably present the type of practical application required to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: The claim does not involve a practical application as explained above. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Claim 10 recites “measuring, at a plurality of time points, a voltage drop across a capacitor of an RC element, wherein the RC element is connected in parallel with a coil of a DC/DC converter and comprises a series connection of the capacitor and a resistor” on lines 3-5.
This claim also recites “an electric motor configured to drive the fan” on line 7, but such a recitation is part of the abstract idea, and therefore not reasonably an additional element. That stated, only to the extent that such a feature is deemed an additional element, the Examiner respectfully notes that this element is a conventional element for the reasons explained below.
DE 19729238, a reference of record, discloses a DC motor (electric motor) and the determination of the speed of the motor (see the abstract and title). Such a motor is reasonably capable of driving a fan as all that is required of the motor is the ability to rotate a fan, which the disclosed motor is reasonable capable of implementing.
DE 69698645, a reference of record, also discloses a DC motor and the determination of the speed of the DC motor (Abstract). Such a motor is reasonably capable of driving a fan as all that is required of the motor is the ability to rotate a fan, which the disclosed motor is reasonable capable of implementing.
Ebert (DE 10040440 A1), a reference of record, discloses A method and device for detecting blockage of a fan, comprising: an electronically commutated electric motor configured to drive the fan (Paragraph [0008]).
Applicant in the amended specification, explains in the background section that “For example, if two vehicle electrical networks using different voltages, for example a 12 V network and a 48 V network, are connected via a DC/DC converter, it is typically necessary at least in some operation situations to cool them. It is preferably to be recognized robustly here whether the fan is functional” on lines 2-5 of paragraph 1 of page 1. Applicant further discloses the use of fans in similar environments in the last two paragraphs of page 1. Applicant then discloses “The document US 7 304 470 B2 proposes carrying out an analog differentiation and filtering of voltages, which drop at a shunt resistor connected in series to a fan. The resulting signal is converted into a digital pulse signal and supplied to a frequency counter module to ascertain a rotational velocity of the fan” on the last four lines of page 1, along with “The differentiation and pulse forming described in the prior art of voltages dropping at shunt resistors results in a relatively large circuit expenditure, on the one hand. On the other hand, a strong sensitivity of the measurement to high-frequency interference signals results from the flank detection or the evaluation of differentiated signals. These can occur in particular if a DC/DC converter having high switching frequency is used to supply the fan” on the first five lines of page 2.
Applicant further explains “As schematically shown in Fig. 2, the electric motor 14 of the fan 11 is supplied via the DC/DC converter 2, which is thus used as a driver circuit 15 for the electric motor 14. It is known that corresponding DC/DC converters 2 or driver circuits 15 can have outputs 16, which provide a voltage which is proportional to a current provided by the DC/DC converter 2 or the driver circuits 15. This can be achieved, for example, by a shunt resistor connected in series, over which a corresponding voltage drops. However, an RC element is preferably connected in parallel to an active coil of the DC/DC converter 2, at the capacitor of which a corresponding voltage drops. This procedure is known in principle in the prior art and will therefore not be explained in more detail” (emphasis added) on the third to last line of page 7 to the sixth line of page 8.
Lastly, applicant makes clear in the disclosure that when applicant refers to an RC element, applicant is referring to a capacitor and a resistor connected in series where applicant states “For example, connecting an RC element, thus a series circuit of resistor and capacitor, in parallel to a coil used in the context of the DC/DC conversion, is known in DC/DC converters” (emphasis added) on lines 3-5 of the second paragraph of page 4.
In the above admission, applicant is reasonably explaining what a person of ordinary skill in the art would know, namely that DC/DC converters, as part of a motor vehicle, can be connected to a corresponding fan motor, and that the output of the DC/DC converter can be provided by placing an RC element in parallel with a coil of the DC/DC converter, and where a voltage drop across the capacitor which is the voltage. Applicant also explains that, in the prior art, it is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, without further detail necessary, to either monitor plural voltage drops across a shunt resistor or to use the voltage drop across a capacitor of an RC circuit.
This is stated to be an admission because applicant discloses the above features other in the background section of the application, or expressly makes statements such as “This procedure is known in principle in the prior art and will therefore not be explained in more detail” as seen above. Such a statement reasonably means that his feature is conventional because applicant is stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the above procedure and that no further detail is required.
As such, applicant has reasonably disclosed that it was well known in the art to measure, at a plurality of time points, a voltage drop across a capacitor of an RC element, the RC element connected in parallel with a coil of a DC/DC converter and comprising a series connection of the capacitor and a resistor. While the prior art admissions are spread throughout the disclosure, the overall disclosure is that in one instance, it was well known to measure voltage drops across a shunt resistor to determine the speed (velocity) of a fan (see the last paragraph of page 1), connecting a series RC circuit in parallel to a coil of a DC/DC converter was known (lines 3-5 of the second paragraph of page 4), and that instead of a shunt resistor connected to a DC/DC converter that drives and corresponds to, and thus must include a motor of a fan, that a voltage drop across the capacitor of the series RC circuit connected in parallel to a coil of the DC/DC converter can be used (the last three lines of page 7 and lines one through six of page 8).
Claim 16 additionally adds an electrically commutated electric motor which is configured to drive a fan, and a processing unit which is configured to perform the same measurement recited in Claim 10, but such features were also well known in the art. This is evidenced by paragraph four of page one of applicant’s disclosure, paragraphs [0002] and [0021] of US 2020/0232471, and paragraph [0004] and Figure 3 of US 2005/0118029, lines 8-11 of column 3 of US 5,534,854, lines 5-10 of US 5,524,168, paragraph [0002] of the English machine translation of DE 10040440A1, and because applicant discloses that the type of motor that the known DC/DC converter provides a drive signal to is an electrically commutated electric motor on lines 7-10 of page 8. This is in addition to the references already cited above.
Note further that the other references of record are also asserted as evidence with regard to the above noted claim features.
As such, the above noted additional elements amount to insufficient extra-solution activity as they are conventional features, and the newly added claim feature of sending a warning message and switching to emergency operation does not reasonably amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons explained above.
Claims 10 and 16 are therefore directed towards an abstract idea (mathematical relationships and calculations), and therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Because this claim does not claim any feature that amounts to more than the abstract idea, or a practical application of the abstract idea, these claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to Claim 11,
This claim merely recites more details about the abstract idea of determining the speed, and therefore does not overcome the 101 rejection as it is itself directed to an abstract idea.
As to Claim 12,
These claims do not recite any new structure or practical application and instead merely serve to further define the speed determination or manner in which the already well known components are selected.
As to Claim 14,
The analog-to-digital converter recited in this claim is a well-known feature as evidenced by the conversion into a digital signal disclosed on the last four lines of page 1, as well as Figure 3 of US 2005/0118029 and paragraph [0021] of US 2020/0232471.
As to Claim 15,
Applicant adds a component which is cooled and a processing unit configured to determine the speed or a parameter dependent on the speed, but such devices were well known in the art as evidenced by paragraph one of page one of applicant’s disclosure, paragraphs [0002] and [0021] of US 2020/0232471, and paragraph [0004] and Figure 3 of US 2005/0118029. As to the fan cooling a component (such as a DC/DC converter, rectified, or an inverter), the references cited above and below further demonstrate why this concept is conventional and therefore does not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 16-18 and 30,
These claims are similar to those address above, or do not recite any new structural features or a practical application of the abstract idea.
As to Claim 31,
This feature only further limits a feature that is both conditional and has been demonstrated to be conventional as explained above. This feature is not reasonably a practical application because it does not reasonably apply the abstract idea as claimed.
As to Claim 33,
This feature only further limits a feature that is both conditional and has been demonstrated to be conventional as explained above. This feature is not reasonably a practical application because it does not reasonably apply the abstract idea as claimed.
As to Claims 11-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 30, 31, and 33,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 10-12, 14-18, 30, 31, and 33 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 10 and 16,
The phrase “estimating, for a predetermined time interval, an average speed of the electric motor based on the determined drive currents” on lines 9-10 of Claim 10 and lines 10-11 of Claim 16 introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant does not reasonably estimating an average speed as claimed. The only disclosure related to this claim feature is that found on lines 29-31 of page 3, which discloses “ To obtain a less noisy speed signal, for example, averaging, a media selection, or the like can be carried out for the measured time intervals or the determined frequencies.” However, applicant never states or discloses that a “media selection” is an average speed. There is no reasonably disclosure explaining what a media selection is in the context of the disclosure. For example, applicant could be referring to taking an average of sensor signals. While these sensor signals may be representative of speed, averaging sensor signals is not the same as obtaining an average speed. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant performs any averaging. The Examiner is not raising an issue as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could average values together, but is instead raising an issue regarding what values are actually being averaged. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey support for the above claim feature because it does not reasonably establish what is being averaged to make clear that it is an average speed being obtained. Averaging sensor values prior to obtaining a speed, for example, could still reasonably provide an overall less noisy speed signal without computing or estimating an average speed.
2) Even should it be held that applicant does disclose obtaining an average speed, the original disclosure at most would be conveying that the system performs a mathematical computation to average values together to obtain an average. This is stated because there is no disclosure for “estimating” such an average, where the term “estimating” encompasses claim scope not originally contemplated, as this term goes beyond mere averaging. The definition of the term “estimate” is “To calculate approximately (the amount, extent, magnitude, position, or value of something)” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=estimating. However, calculating an “approximate” value is not the same as computing a value, as it includes values that are not necessarily an “average,” but rather values that are close to an average. Such a feature is not originally disclosed, and thus introduces new matter.
The phrase “determining that the average speed of the electric motor either falls below a first predetermined limiting value or remains below the first predetermined limiting value during the predetermined” on lines 11-13 of Claim 10 and lines 12-14 of Claim 16 introduces new matter.
The original disclosure does not state that any average speed is ever compared to or determined to be above or below any threshold. The above cited section from page 3 makes no mention of any use of averaging in the claimed manner, nor does the original disclosure reasonably convey such a feature. Lines 19-21 of page 3 do state “For example, the limiting value can be selected so that the current measured value falls below it if the amperage of the drive current drops below 10%, below 30%, below 50%, or below 70% of an average amperage.” However, an average amperage is not an average speed, and instead only refers to the amperage of the drive current itself. The original disclosure never states that an average speed is obtained and then related to any threshold. Such a feature is also not inherent or implied because it is not necessary for the disclosure. Additionally, lines 29-31 of page 3 do not reasonably imply such a feature because these lines could refer to a mere averaging of sensor signals. Even if these lines did refer to the obtaining of an average speed, this can reasonably refer to a final average speed, and not one that is later used in relation to any threshold. In short, such a feature is not necessarily present in the original disclosure, and therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “detecting blockage of the fan without directly detecting a rotation speed of the fan” on lines 16-17 introduces new matter.
Applicant does not original disclose such a feature, nor does applicant reasonably convey what an indirect detection of a rotation speed would and would not constitute to reasonably establish possession of this claim feature. First, applicant does not reasonably convey whether “detecting” is intended to mean the type of function normally associated with a sensor (detector), or if applicant is equating detecting with determining, such that processing device can detect a value based upon other values. Second, applicant does not reasonably convey how any such detecting would not require detecting a rotation speed of the fan. Applicant expressly discloses obtaining current measured values 18,19 from a current signal (21) that, as best understood, is a directly related to any motor/fan rotation.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “determining the speed of the electric motor further comprises: evaluating which of the drive currents reach or fall below a second predetermined limiting value” on lines 1-4 introduces new matter.
1) Applicant is no longer relying upon a speed of the motor, and is instead relying upon an estimated speed. Applicant does not originally disclose the determined average speed includes evaluating which of the drive currents reach or fall below a second predetermined limiting value as claimed. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain what an average would require beyond the averaging of values, and it is not originally disclosed to include the above feature. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
2) Claim 10 recites the estimation of an average speed, and not a determination of such a speed. A determination is not the same thing as an estimation, and to the extent that these features are distinctly recited, this combination of estimating and determining introduce new matter as applicant does not distinctly disclose both an estimation of an average speed and a determination of a speed.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “determining the speed of the electric motor further comprises: evaluating those of the plurality of time points corresponding to those of the drive currents so determined which reach or fall below a second predetermined limiting value” on lines 1-4 introduces new matter.
1) Applicant is no longer relying upon a speed of the motor, and is instead relying upon an estimated speed. Applicant does not originally disclose the determined average speed includes evaluating those of the plurality of time points corresponding to those of the drive currents so determined which reach or fall below a second predetermined limiting value as claimed. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain what an average would require beyond the averaging of values, and it is not originally disclosed to include the above feature. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
2) Claim 10 recites the estimation of an average speed, and not a determination of such a speed. A determination is not the same thing as an estimation, and to the extent that these features are distinctly recited, this combination of estimating and determining introduce new matter as applicant does not distinctly disclose both an estimation of an average speed and a determination of a speed.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “a processing unit configured to determine the speed or a parameter dependent on the speed” on lines 3-4 introduces new matter.
1) Applicant is no longer relying upon a speed of the motor, and is instead relying upon an estimated speed. Applicant does not originally disclose the claimed estimated average speed and a determining of the speed or parameter dependent on the speed as claimed. The combination of a determination of a parameter dependent on speed or an actual determination of a speed in combination with an estimation of an average speed, was not originally disclosed.
2) Claim 10 recites the estimation of an average speed, and not a determination of such a speed. A determination is not the same thing as an estimation, and to the extent that these features are distinctly recited, this combination of estimating and determining introduce new matter as applicant does not distinctly disclose both an estimation of an average speed and a determination of a speed.
As to Claim 18,
The phrase “the processing unit is further configured to provide diagnostic information to an external diagnostic unit based on the determined speed” on lines 1-3 introduces new matter.
1) Applicant is no longer relying upon a speed of the motor, and is instead relying upon an estimated speed. Applicant does not originally disclose the claimed estimated average speed and a determination of a speed as claimed. The combination of a determination of a speed in combination with an estimation of an average speed, was not originally disclosed. To that extent, applicant does not originally disclose an estimation of an average speed in combination with the ability to provide diagnostic information to an external diagnostic unit based on the determined speed. The original disclosure is silent as to what follows any average obtained, and thus the above combination introduces new matter.
2) Claim 16 recites the estimation of an average speed, and not a determination of such a speed. A determination is not the same thing as an estimation, and to the extent that these features are distinctly recited, this combination of estimating and determining introduce new matter as applicant does not distinctly disclose both an estimation of an average speed and a determination of a speed.
As to Claim 30,
The phrase “determining the speed of the electric motor further comprises: evaluating time intervals corresponding to those of the drive currents so determined which reach or fall below a second predetermined limiting value” on lines 1-4 introduces new matter.
1) Applicant is no longer relying upon a speed of the motor, and is instead relying upon an estimated speed. Applicant does not originally disclose the determined average speed includes evaluating time intervals corresponding to those of the drive currents so determined which reach or fall below a second predetermined limiting value as claimed. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain what an average would require beyond the averaging of values, and it is not originally disclosed to include the above feature. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
2) Claim 10 recites the estimation of an average speed, and not a determination of such a speed. A determination is not the same thing as an estimation, and to the extent that these features are distinctly recited, this combination of estimating and determining introduce new matter as applicant does not distinctly disclose both an estimation of an average speed and a determination of a speed.
As to Claim 31,
The phrase “in the emergency operation, the energy transfer through the DC/DC converter is completely blocked” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter.
Applicant is now limiting the claims to an embodiment relying upon an average speed, but such an embodiment is not originally disclosed to have any emergency operation or to perform the above claim feature during such an operation when an average is estimated as relied upon in Claim 10. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 33,
The phrase “in the emergency operation, the energy transfer through the DC/DC converter is completely blocked” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter.
Applicant is now limiting the claims to an embodiment relying upon an average speed, but such an embodiment is not originally disclosed to have any emergency operation or to perform the above claim feature during such an operation when an average is estimated as relied upon in Claim 16. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claims 11-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 30, 31, and 33,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for 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 10-12, 14-18, 30, 31, and 33 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.
As to Claims 10 and 16,
The phrase “estimating, for a predetermined time interval, an average speed of the electric motor based on the determined drive currents” on lines 9-10 of Claim 10 and lines 10-11 of Claim 16 is indefinite.
1) It is unclear, in light of the disclosure, what would and would not constitute an estimate of an average speed. Applicant does not original disclosure “estimating” such a speed, and the full metes and bounds, and thus scope, of what would and would not constitute an estimating is unclear. Applicant does originally disclose the use of an average, but an average is not an estimate as it is not an approximation. Instead, it is an exact determination of a particular value, namely an average. It is therefore unclear whether the above phrase includes approximations or if any estimated value must be exact.
The phrase “detecting blockage of the fan” on line 16 of Claim 10 and line 17 of Claim 16 is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the blockage is “detected.” Detecting is performed by a detector or sensor, whereas a processing device performs calculations or determinations. While it is understood that a processing device can determine that a blockage has occurred, reciting that such a blockage is “detected” renders the claim feature indefinite because it is unclear what meaning should be ascribed to this term. No actual detector or sensor is utilized to “detect” blockage, making the scope of this claim feature unclear.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “detecting blockage of the fan without directly detecting a rotation speed of the fan” on lines 16-17 is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the above detecting is performed without directly detecting a rotation speed of the fan. While applicant does not use a sensor per se to obtain a rotation speed, applicant does “detect” a rotation speed as such a speed is directly related to the drive current in the motor/fan. Any use of this drive current is therefore reasonably directly related to the rotation speed, making it unclear what would an would not constitute a lack of “directly detecting” a rotation speed of the fan.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “determining the speed of the electric motor further comprises: evaluating which of the drive currents reach or fall below a second predetermined limiting value” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
Applicant has amended Claim 10 to now recite an estimating of an average speed. However, an estimated average speed is not the same as determining a speed as claimed. It is therefore unclear what the relationship is between the above determination in relation to the previously claimed estimation, and it is unclear if applicant is referring to the average speed previously claimed.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “determining the speed of the electric motor further comprises: evaluating those of the plurality of time points corresponding to those of the drive currents so determined which reach or fall below a second predetermined limiting value” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
Applicant has amended Claim 10 to now recite an estimating of an average speed. However, an estimated average speed is not the same as determining a speed as claimed. It is therefore unclear what the relationship is between the above determination in relation to the previously claimed estimation, and it is unclear if applicant is referring to the average speed previously claimed.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “a processing unit configured to determine the speed or a parameter dependent on the speed” on lines 3-4 is indefinite.
Applicant has amended Claim 10 to now recite an estimating of an average speed. However, an estimated average speed is not the same as determining a speed as claimed. It is therefore unclear what the relationship is between the above determination in relation to the previously claimed estimation, and it is unclear if applicant is referring to the average speed previously claimed.
As to Claim 18,
The phrase “the processing unit is further configured to provide diagnostic information to an external diagnostic unit based on the determined speed” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
Applicant has amended Claim 16 to now recite an estimating of an average speed. However, an estimated average speed is not the same as determining a speed as claimed. It is therefore unclear what the relationship is between the above determination in relation to the previously claimed estimation, and it is unclear if applicant is referring to the average speed previously claimed. Lastly, it is unclear what determined speed this phrase is referencing as Claim 16 recites an estimate average speed, and not a determined speed.
As to Claim 30,
The phrase “determining the speed of the electric motor further comprises: evaluating time intervals corresponding to those of the drive currents so determined which reach or fall below a second predetermined limiting value” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
Applicant has amended Claim 10 to now recite an estimating of an average speed. However, an estimated average speed is not the same as determining a speed as claimed. It is therefore unclear what the relationship is between the above determination in relation to the previously claimed estimation, and it is unclear if applicant is referring to the average speed previously claimed.
As to Claim 31,
The phrase “in the emergency operation, the energy transfer through the DC/DC converter is completely blocked” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
Claim 10 no longer recites an emergency operation as applicant has removed this feature from Claim 10. It is therefore unclear what emergency operation the above phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how such an operation relates to any of the previously recited claim features.
As to Claim 33,
The phrase “in the emergency operation, the energy transfer through the DC/DC converter is completely blocked” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
Claim 16 no longer recites an emergency operation as applicant has removed this feature from Claim 16. It is therefore unclear what emergency operation the above phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how such an operation relates to any of the previously recited claim features
As to Claims 11-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 30, 31, and 33,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858