DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/9/2026 has been entered.
Claims 15-33 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 4/9/2026.
Claims 15-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejection for Claim(s) 15-30, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Fu, Hong, et al. "Hybrid automata of an integrated motor-transmission powertrain for automatic gear shift." Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2011., in view of US 20020091984 A1 by Malik, Robi et al. is WITHDRAWN.
This action is made Non-Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.15:
PNG
media_image1.png
556
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) The claim as a whole is directed to removing predetermined transitions from the block diagram-based state machine (state diagram hereafter). Whether that state diagram represents an electric motor or another discrete system does not change that the state diagram is an abstract idea. Defining “technical component” as electric motor is simply field of use. Removal of transitions based on preset rules is abstract idea and can be mentally performed with pencil and paper/computer as a tool (like in MATLAB® or Simulink®). Verification of state diagram is a mental step (see claim 33) because it is just validating that preset rules were followed when transitions between states are set. The state diagram modification never results in better algorithm to control electric motor and therefore does not improve the technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a),(h)). See US Patent No. 10,831,956 as a counter example where the verified automaton is used for further design and manufacture of the circuit. Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Rejection under 35 USC is withdrawn. See narrow reasons of withdrawal over current prior art, and further relevant prior art (also cited on PTO-892).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 15-33 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 15, 26 and 30:
Step 1: the claims 15, 26 and 30 are drawn to a method and system and presumable statutory program product respectively, and examined further as presumably falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Taking claim 15 as exemplary claim where the limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial exception identification. Similar rationale is applicable to claims 26 and 30 and they would also be rejected likewise.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
15. (New) A method for computer-implemented generation of a state machine from a simulated technical component in a block-based simulation model, wherein the state machine comprising electric motor of an industrial automation system, where the simulated technical component is a block in the block-based simulation model and comprises a plurality of variables, the method comprising:
running a simulation1, by one or more processors, of the electric motor based on the simulation model;
selecting, by the one or more processors, one or more variables from the plurality of variables, wherein each variable of the plurality of variables comprises a value range with variable values configured to be assigned to the respective variable during the running of the simulation of the technical component;
generating, by one or more processors, for each selected variable, a plurality of discrete states, wherein each state comprises a subset of values from the value range of the respective selected variable;
generating, by one or more processors, an automaton for each selected variable, wherein a respective automaton is represented by the discrete states of the respective selected variable, and
generating one or more transitions from one discrete state to another discrete state of the respective selected variable,
wherein a respective transition is referenced by a label and is associated with a trigger condition defining a change of the respective selected variable resulting in the respective transition;
generating, by one or more processors, a first product automaton from the automatons of all selected variables, wherein the first product automaton comprises a plurality of vector states representing all combinations of discrete states of the selected variables and a plurality of vector transitions for all transitions of single variables, each vector transition corresponding to a transition from one discrete state to another discrete state of a single variable in a respective vector state, where the discrete states of the other variables in the respective vector state remain unchanged, wherein the label and the trigger condition of the respective vector transition correspond to the label and the trigger condition of the transition to which the respective vector transition corresponds; and
removing, by one or more processors, vector transitions from the first product automaton that cannot comply with one or more predefined rules describing physical laws underlying a behavior of the simulated electric motor of the industrial automation system, wherein the physical laws comprise: (1) when the voltage variable is in a zero-voltage state, then transition of the torque variable from a zero-torque state to a non-zero-torque state is impossible; (2) when the voltage variable is in the zero-voltage state, then transition of the speed variable from a zero-speed state to a non-zero-speed state is impossible; and (3) when the voltage variable is in a non-zero- voltage state, then transition of the torque variable from the non-zero-torque state to the zero-torque state is impossible;
generating, by one or more processors, the state machine, wherein the first product automaton not containing the removed superfluous vector transitions is a second product automaton which is the generated state machine, wherein the second product automaton is reduced in size such that less computational resources are needed when processing the second product automaton compared to the simulation model;
and formally verifying, by the one or more processors, the behavior of the simulated electric motor using the generated state machine.
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: The generation of /representation of state machine can be done with pencil and paper (and with use of computer as tool). The specification that the state machine is for an electric motor does make the state machine a non-abstract idea. The specification of blocks and variables and their respective assignment can also be done with pencil and paper. Therefore the computer implemented preamble recites mental process (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(A) and (C)/(D)).
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: Here the simulation model is understood as block-based simulation which can be simply a state machine and going through its transitions can be mentally performed.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical concept: The simulation model is understood as mathematical model as disclosed in specification ¶[0037]. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: Selecting variables (opinion/judgement) is a mental step based on observation (what variables are available) and can be done with pencil and paper. Selecting ranges of variables for the simulation is a mental step without any details how this process is performed specifically by a processor.
Use of processor to select is ancillary2 because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)3.
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: generating subset of values for each variable is considered as mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(A) and (C)/(D) (relying on specification’s description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally "‘using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts’"); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be "performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper"). ).
Also see Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B if this step is subsequent to range data gathering for each variable.
In this step also, Use of processor to select is ancillary because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) .
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: The process of generating automaton representing states, their transitions, trigger conditions and resulting change in variables can all be presented by each state in the state diagram, which can be done with pencil and paper, and therefore is a mental step. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(A) and (C)/(D).
In this step also, Use of processor to select is ancillary because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) .
Abstract Idea/Mathematical concept: If generating the automaton is considered as mathematical representation, then this limitation also recites mathematical relationships between states, and their transitions (See Specification Fig.3) and therefore are considered as abstract idea (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)).
Abstract Idea/Mental Process/Mathematical Concept: Combining automaton for each state to form a first automaton is also mental step that can be done with pencil and paper (e.g. computer presentation of whole state machine, with variable definition, state definition, trigger and associated transitions). This may also be rejected as mathematical concept representing the state transitions in a state machine. See specification Fig. 3-4.
In this step also, Use of processor to select is ancillary because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) .
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: removal of The removal of abstract information is as best opinion/judgement/ evaluation based on observed information (rule/transitions) can be performed mentally
The removal further premised on physical laws (like (1)(-(3)) can still be done by human with pencil and paper editing a state machine/block based diagram, by removing transitions that violate the rules/physical laws.
Abstract Idea: The resulting second product automaton is also an abstract concept. Comparison can also be considered as mental step/mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(A) and (C)/(D).
Generation of state machine on a processor is considered as use of computer as a tool, to express state machine on it. State machine is an abstract concept to represent state change based on the transitions, representing any system.
In this step also, Use of processor to select is ancillary because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) .
Abstract Idea: Formal verification as claimed broadly can be mental step of making sure all states and transitions are accounted for. No details of what behaviour is verified or how it verified (formally) is claimed. Further verifying an abstract concept like state machine remains an abstract idea.
Also See Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
In accordance with this step, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
15. (New) A method for computer-implemented generation of a state machine from a simulated technical component in a block-based simulation model, wherein the state machine comprising electric motor of an industrial automation system, where the simulated technical component is a block in the block-based simulation model and comprises a plurality of variables, the method comprising:
running a simulation, by one or more processors, of the electric motor based on the simulation model;
selecting, by the one or more processors, one or more variables from the plurality of variables, wherein each variable of the plurality of variables comprises a value range with variable values configured to be assigned to the respective variable during the running of the simulation of the technical component;
generating, by one or more processors, for each selected variable, a plurality of discrete states, wherein each state comprises a subset of values from the value range of the respective selected variable;
generating, by one or more processors, an automaton for each selected variable, wherein a respective automaton is represented by the discrete states of the respective selected variable, and
generating one or more transitions from one discrete state to another discrete state of the respective selected variable,
wherein a respective transition is referenced by a label and is associated with a trigger condition defining a change of the respective selected variable resulting in the respective transition;
generating, by one or more processors, a first product automaton from the automatons of all selected variables, wherein the first product automaton comprises a plurality of vector states representing all combinations of discrete states of the selected variables and a plurality of vector transitions for all transitions of single variables, each vector transition corresponding to a transition from one discrete state to another discrete state of a single variable in a respective vector state, where the discrete states of the other variables in the respective vector state remain unchanged, wherein the label and the trigger condition of the respective vector transition correspond to the label and the trigger condition of the transition to which the respective vector transition corresponds; and
removing, by one or more processors, vector transitions from the first product automaton that cannot comply with one or more predefined rules describing physical laws underlying a behavior of the simulated electric motor of the industrial automation system, wherein the physical laws comprise: (1) when the voltage variable is in a zero-voltage state, then transition of the torque variable from a zero-torque state to a non-zero-torque state is impossible; (2) when the voltage variable is in the zero-voltage state, then transition of the speed variable from a zero-speed state to a non-zero-speed state is impossible; and (3) when the voltage variable is in a non-zero- voltage state, then transition of the torque variable from the non-zero-torque state to the zero-torque state is impossible;
generating, by one or more processors, the state machine, wherein the first product automaton not containing the removed superfluous vector transitions is a second product automaton which is the generated state machine, wherein the second product automaton is reduced in size such that less computational resources are needed when processing the second product automaton compared to the simulation model;
and formally verifying, by the one or more processors, the behavior of the simulated electric motor using the generated state machine.
Under MPEP 2106.05(h) generation of state machine for electric motor of an industrial automation system is at best a field of use of the judicial exception.
Further see Step 2A Prong 1 rejection as above.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g)/(f)(2) Use of processor as a tool to perform an abstract concept does not integrate judicial exception into practical application.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case the this is mere data gathering for selected variables at best.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
As per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1): the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Here no details of how the formally verifying the behavior of the simulated electric motor using the generated state machine, is achieved.
As per MPEP 2106.05(h): Further simply changing simulated technical system to simulated electric motor is at best field of use which does not integrate the state machine model into practical application (none claimed) or improves on the functioning of actual electric motor.
The one of more processor is generically recited where the processor/computer is used as a tool and do not amount to additional element (only recitation in summary of invention section ¶[0027]).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. Besides the technical component the claim does not elude to any additional elements. The field of use of this judicial exception in the field of simulating technical component does not improve the functioning of the technical component. The claim 15 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 16-18 & 27-29 further add to abstract idea/mental step where the user input is used to perform selecting/generating steps. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 19-21 & 25 further add to abstract idea/mental step where validation/modification is performed and can be performed with pencil and paper/mathematical concept for comparing (validation). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B). Changing the technical component to electric motor, which are both modeled as state machine (abstract idea) does not integrate the state machine into practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)) or improve the functioning of the application (electric motor) (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claims 22-23 further add to the abstract idea/mental step where merging is performed and can be performed with pencil and paper to generate third automaton (abstract concept), further based on user input. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 24 further adds steps (i)-(iii) to the abstract idea/mental step where transitions are merged and can be performed with pencil and paper to generate merged vector states (abstract concept), further based on user input. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 31 and 32 further represent changes to abstract concept of state machine diagram and are considered as further contributing to the abstract idea which can be performed with pencil and paper, as a judgement/opinion (e.g. OR operator for multiple transition condition) based on observation (multiple transition conditions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 33 (New) recites "... wherein the formally verifying of the behavior of the simulated electric motor comprises identifying an erroneous behavior and an error recovery in the simulated electric motor using the generated state machine....". The step of identifying an erroneous behavior [in a state machine] can be considered as abstract idea/mental step where the identifying erroneous behavior can be identifying unintended state transition. Similarly an error recovery in the simulated electric motor using the generated state machine can be done as mental step where the erroneous behavior like unintended state transition can be removed to perform error recovery. The state machine is the simulated electric motor, so nothing is improved in the simulated electric motor itself. No details of the simulated electric motor other than it is represented by the state machine is claimed/or appears to be present in the specification (see specification Fig.2-5). Therefore this limitation is rejected under Step 2A Prong 1.
----- This page is left blank after this line -----
Mapping of previously used prior art combination of Fu in view of Malik and How it does not teach some aspects
NPL by Fu, Hong, et al. "Hybrid automata of an integrated motor-transmission powertrain for automatic gear shift." Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2011., in view of US 20020091984 A1 by Malik, Robi et al.
Regarding Claim 15, 26 and 30
Fu teaches (Claim 15) A method for computer-implemented generation of a state machine from a simulated technical component in a block-based simulation model (Fu: Abstract & Fig.5) , wherein the state machine comprising a technical component (Fu: Abstract Technical component is integrated motor transmission powertrain) , where the simulated electric motor of an industrial automation system (Fu : Abstract & Introduction where electric vehicles along with their powertrain including a motor is modeled -Fig.2-3) is a block in the block-based simulation model (Fu : §I Col.2 "... The detailed hybrid dynamics of the motor, the gearbox, and then the integrated powertrain are presented in Section III. In Section IV, simulations based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow models are performed...." as block based simulation tools) and comprises a plurality of variables (Fu: §II Equation (1) variable U discrete valued control inputs and X the state space) , electric motor (Fu : Abstract & Introduction where electric vehicles along with their powertrain including a motor is modeled -Fig.2-3) ,
(Claim 26) Malik and Fu teach An apparatus for computer-implemented generation of a state machine from a simulated electric motor of an industrial automation system (Fu : Abstract & Introduction where electric vehicles along with their powertrain is modeled -Fig.2-3) in a block-based simulation model, wherein the state machine comprises a electric motor (Fu : Abstract & Introduction where electric vehicles along with their powertrain including a motor is modeled -Fig.2-3) electric motor (Fu : Abstract & Introduction where electric vehicles along with their powertrain including a motor is modeled -Fig.2-3) (Malik: Fig.8 showing the computer apparatus and Fu: As mapped above for claim 15 showing MATLAB/Simulink) , where the apparatus comprises: one or more processors (Malik : Fig.8 & [0131] "... The processor, after properly reducing the automaton, displays the same via a display interface in graphical form. The plants and the process controller are interconnected via a system bus, and a computer memory device is diagrammatically indicated as a designated disk device....") configured to:/
(Claim 30) Malik and Fu teach A non-transitory machine readable carrier comprising a computer program product with program code wherein the program code, when executed on a computer (Malik: Fig.8 showing the computer apparatus; [0089]-[0094] showing the computer program code/medium and Fu: As mapped above for claim 15), causes the computer to:/the method comprising:
running a simulation, by one or more processors, of the electric motor based on the simulation model (Fu: §IV & "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow. A permanent magnet synchronous motor
(PMSM) with direct torque controller (DTC) is applied such that the performance is closer to the actual situation. The parameters of the PMSM are shown in Table I....");
selecting, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor), one or more variables from the plurality of variables (Fu: §II Equation (1) variable U discrete valued control inputs and X the state space) wherein each variable of the plurality of variables comprises a value range with variable values configured to be assigned to the respective variable during the running of the simulation of the electric motor of an industrial automation system (Fu : Abstract & Introduction where electric vehicles along with their powertrain is modeled -Fig.2-3; Fig.6-7 showing range of Torquye and speed variables affecting the electric motor states during upshift and downshift) (Fu : §III Pg.4605 Eqn. (4) showing variable Tm with discrete value range:
PNG
media_image2.png
220
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The motor torque (Tm) has a value range +/-Tlim with intermediate values of Tm* and 0 in other states, as seen from the equation (4) above. Tm also belongs to continuous set of variables which is discretized as seen on Pg. 4605 Col.2
PNG
media_image3.png
152
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Showing Tm belongs to input set U. U is defined as continuous variable as seen on Pg.4505:
PNG
media_image4.png
242
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
) based on the block-based simulation model (Fu: e.g. Fig.3 showing block based simulation, where each block represents a state of the motor automaton);
generating, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor), for each selected variable, a plurality of discrete states (Fu: §III Eqn. (3) qm discrete states in Qm) , wherein each state comprises a subset of values from the value range of the respective selected variable (Fu: §III Eqn. (4) where the subset of of values of Tm are associated with each state in Qm) ;
generating, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor) , an automaton for each selected variable, wherein a respective automaton is represented by the discrete states of the respective selected variable (Fu: Fig.3 showing automaton for ach state meng, mto, mspd
PNG
media_image5.png
298
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) , and
generating, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor), one or more transitions from one discrete state to another discrete state of the respective selected variable (Fu: Tm changes from state to state; §III, Fig.3-4) , wherein a respective transition is referenced by a label and is associated with a trigger condition defining a change of the respective selected variable resulting in the respective transition (Fu: trigger ig and wm causes state change in Fig.3 & 4 and in combine automaton showing labels Sij in Fig.5 ; §III, Fig.3-4) ;
generating, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor), a first product automaton from the automatons of all selected variables, wherein the first product automaton comprises a plurality of vector states representing all combinations of discrete states of the selected variables and a plurality of vector transitions for all transitions of single variables, each vector transition corresponding to a transition from one discrete state to another discrete state of a single variable in a respective vector state, where the discrete states of the other variables in the respective vector state remain unchanged (Fu: Pg. 4608 Col.2 "... It is seen that the profile of Tgs, i.e. the gearbox output torque, is similar with the one in the internal combustion engine driven vehicle [17]-[18]. However, it has a better performance because the values before and after the shift are nearly invariant in order to ensure the same acceleration....") , wherein the label and the trigger condition of the respective vector transition correspond to the label and the trigger condition of the transition to which the respective vector transition corresponds (Fu: §III and Fig.5
PNG
media_image6.png
467
744
media_image6.png
Greyscale
) ;
Fu does not explicitly teach removing superfluous vector transitions from the first product automaton based on predefined rules applying to the simulation model, …, the first product automaton not containing the removed vector transitions is a second product automaton which is the generated state machine, wherein the product automaton is reduced in size such that less computational recourses are needed when processing the product automaton compared to the simulation model.
Malik teaches removing superfluous vector transitions from the first product automaton (Malik : [0053] "... The idea consists in deleting specific state components Q.sub.i which are irrelevant for determining whether the considered event .sigma. must be allowed or prohibited...."; [0057]) based on predefined rules applying to the simulation model (Malik: [0052]-[0054] rules as in relevance in [0054]); and
generating, by one or more processors (Malik: Fig.8 & [0131] , [0089]showing generation of state machine on a computer) the state machine (Malik: Fig.8, Fig.1-2) , wherein the first product automaton not containing the removed vector transitions is a second product automaton which is the generated state machine (Malik: [0058] second automaton G” from first automaton G/G’) , wherein the product automaton is reduced in size such that less computational recourses are needed when processing the product automaton compared to the simulation model (Malik: [0058]-[0059]).
Fu and Malik do not teach describing physical laws underlying a behavior of the simulated electric motor of the industrial automation system, wherein the physical laws comprise: (1) when the voltage variable is in a zero-voltage state, then transition of the torque variable from a zero-torque state to a non-zero-torque state is impossible; (2) when the voltage variable is in the zero-voltage state, then transition of the speed variable from a zero-speed state to a non-zero-speed state is impossible; and (3) when the voltage variable is in a non-zero- voltage state, then transition of the torque variable from the non-zero-torque state to the zero-torque state is impossible.
Relevant Prior Art of Record
Following prior art teach various aspects of removing transitions from state diagram but none specifically disclose the 3 rules above. The scope of the independent claim is limited to the 3 negative limitations that are used to remove the state transitions.
US 20030083858 A1, US 20060113954 A1, US 20200050533 A1, US 6059837 A
US 20070016395 A1, US 10831956 B2, US 10108536 B2, US 20050010907 A1. Detailed reasons mapping these references are withheld until final allowable version of claims is presented.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Friday, July 10, 2026
1 Specification [0037] [0048] & Fig.2 showing block-based state diagram with states and transitions. Following different states based on transitions/conditions is understood as running the simulation.
2 Specification [0027] (in Summary of Invention) shows generic use of processor where the rest of the disclosure (Detailed description, drawings etc.) does not recite any specific implementation to perform the functions. [0027] states "... [0027] Besides the above method, the disclosure refers to an apparatus configured to perform the computer-implemented method or one or more embodiments of this method. In other words, the apparatus includes one or more processors configured to perform acts a) to e) and optionally perform acts of certain embodiments disclosed herein....".
3 MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states: “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”. In view of the above a review of specification only mentions processor in [0027]
Prosecution Insights