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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Amendment and argument filed on 01/27/2026 are considered. Independent claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claims 3 and 8 are cancelled. A minor informality is noted in the amended claims 1 and 6.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C 101:
Applicant argues “As described in the pars [0034] and [0044] of specification as filed, in response to the PMSM 112 operates at a first speed (e.g., a low speed), a low-speed compensation mechanism can be implemented by increasing the second weight value W2 corresponding to the motor model 204, which improves the signal-to-noise ratio and thereby enables more accurate estimation of a rotor speed and a rotor angle of the PMSM 112. In addition, when the PMSM 112 operates at a second speed greater than the first speed (i.e., a high speed), increasing the first weight value W1 corresponding to the speed observer 202 can reflect electrical and/or mechanical frequency-related interference sources, while also enabling more accurate estimation of the rotor speed and the rotor angle of the PMSM 112. Thus, under Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 includes additional element(s) that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as from the claim language does not recite any specific additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The amended independent claims provide adjusting the weighting value (i.e., mathematical values), the weight values are increased based on the operating speed (high or low). The added limitation is viewed to be reciting a judicial exception of mathematically adjusting the values. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 6 and their dependent claims do not integrate into practical application of the invention.
Claim Rejection U.S.C 103: Further search and consideration found a prior art Fukumura et al US 20220329190 A1 teaching the limitation “wherein in response to the PWSM being operating at a first speed, the second weighting value is increased in response to the PWSM being operating at a second speed, the first weighting value is increased: and the first speed is less than the second speed.” The claims are addressed accordingly in claim rejection 35 U.S.C 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 6 recite, PWSM in claim limitations. Examiner views it as a typographical error. Please correct it to PMSM.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 4-7, 9,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A Method for estimating a rotor angle and a rotor speed of a permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM), comprising:
receiving a d-axis voltage driving signal of the PMSM, and obtaining a first estimated rotor speed of the PMSM according to the d-axis voltage driving signal;
receiving a speed command, and obtaining a second estimated rotor speed of the PMSM according to the speed command;
performing a weighting adjustment operation upon the first estimated rotor speed and the second estimated rotor speed to obtain a third estimated rotor speed for estimating the rotor speed of the PMSM; and
performing an integration operation upon the third estimated rotor speed to obtain an estimated rotor angle for estimating the rotor angle of the PMSM.
wherein a first weighting value corresponds to the first estimated rotor speed, a second weighting value corresponds to the second estimated rotor speed, and the method further comprises:
dynamically adjusting the first weighting value and the second weighting value according to the rotor speed of the PMSM;
wherein in response to the PWSM being operating at a first speed, the second weighting value is increased in response to the PWSM being operating at a second speed, the first weighting value is increased: and
the first speed is less than the second speed.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (process).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of obtaining a first estimated rotor speed of the PMSM according to the d-axis voltage driving signal (is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process or mathematical relationship);
receiving a speed command, and obtaining a second estimated rotor speed of the PMSM according to the speed command (is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process or mathematical relationship);
performing a weighting adjustment operation upon the first estimated rotor speed and the second estimated rotor speed to obtain a third estimated rotor speed for estimating the rotor speed of the PMSM (is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical relationship); and
performing an integration operation upon the third estimated rotor speed to obtain an estimated rotor angle for estimating the rotor angle of the PMSM (is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical relationship).
wherein a first weighting value corresponds to the first estimated rotor speed, a second weighting value corresponds to the second estimated rotor speed (is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical relationship),
and the method further comprises:
dynamically adjusting the first weighting value and the second weighting value according to the rotor speed of the PMSM (is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical relationship).;
wherein in response to the PWSM being operating at a first speed, the second weighting value is increased in response to the PWSM being operating at a second speed, the first weighting value is increased (is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical relationship).: and
the first speed is less than the second speed (is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical relationship).
These mathematical and mental steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 6.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, The additional element in the preamble of “A method for estimating…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “receiving a d-axis voltage driving signal of the PMSM” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data (voltage) and not really performing any kind of measurement to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 6, the additional elements/steps are a speed observer, a motor model, a weighting control circuit and an integrator circuit. The additional elements/steps are recited in generality and represent extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A system for estimating…”is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “a speed observer, arranged to receive a d-axis voltage driving signal of the PMSM” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data (voltage) and not really performing any kind of measurement to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to claim 1 and 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 20220368255 A1) herein after “Takahashi” in view of Ye et al (CN 116800151 A) herein after “Ye”, Tsuchimoto et al (US 20200119674 A1) herein after “Tsuchimoto” and Fukumura et al (US 20220329190 A1) herein after “Fukumura”.
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a method for estimating a rotor angle and a rotor speed of a permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM), comprising:
receiving a d-axis voltage driving signal of the PMSM (para [0047] The dq-axis current controller 7 adjusts a d-axis voltage command), and obtaining a first estimated rotor speed of the PMSM according to the d-axis voltage driving signal (para [0037] Specifically, the position/speed specifying unit 5 estimates the magnetic pole position θ.sub.e and the rotational speed ω.sub.e on the basis of the voltage command 12 output from the dq-axis current controller 7).
receiving a speed command, and obtaining a second estimated rotor speed of the PMSM according to the speed command (para [0043] The adder 21 adds up the speed command ω.sub.1* and the speed droop amount Δω, and outputs a second speed command ω.sub.2* that is an added result.);
Examiner views the second speed command directs on obtaining second speed of a rotor.
Takahashi does not clearly teach performing a weighting adjustment operation upon the first estimated rotor speed and the second estimated rotor speed to obtain a third estimated rotor speed for estimating the rotor speed of the PMSM; and
performing an integration operation upon the third estimated rotor speed to obtain an estimated rotor angle for estimating the rotor angle of the PMSM;
wherein a first weighting value corresponds to the first estimated rotor speed, a second weighting value corresponds to the second estimated rotor speed, and the method further comprises:
dynamically adjusting the first weighting value and the second weighting value according to the rotor speed of the PMSM;
wherein in response to the PWSM being operating at a first speed, the second weighting value is increased in response to the PWSM being operating at a second speed, the first weighting value is increased: and
the first speed is less than the second speed.
Ye teaches performing a weighting adjustment operation upon the first estimated rotor speed and the second estimated rotor speed to obtain a third estimated rotor speed for estimating the rotor speed of the PMSM (page. 14 line. 33. Fig. 8. the weight coefficient W1 of the first rotating speed and the weight coefficient W2 of the second rotating speed… and obtaining the rotor rotation speed [omega] of the motor 1300 based on the first rotation speed, the second rotation speed, and the weight coefficients W1 and W2.
And See equation 3 in Page 15. (ωe = ω0 *W1 + ω active *W2 (3)) … omega zero represents a first rotational speed, and omega active represents a second rotational speed.)
ωe is considered to be a third estimated rotor speed that is obtained after weighting first and second rotor speed.
Ye teaches wherein a first weighting value corresponds the first estimated rotor speed, a second weighting value corresponds to the second estimated rotor speed (see above in Claim 1 Ye (page. 14 line. 33) teaches coefficient w1 corresponds to first speed and w2 corresponds to second rotor speed),
Ye teaches dynamically adjusting the first weighting value and the second weighting value according to the rotor speed of the PMSM (page 15, line 5. The control device 1200 may assign different weight coefficients to the calculated two rotor positions or rotational speeds, respectively, based on the characteristic value. For example, in the transition region, the weight coefficient W1 decreases linearly from 1 to 0 and the weight coefficient W2 increases linearly from 0 to 1 as the characteristic value such as voltage utilization increases.).
Examiner views the increasing or decreasing the weight value W1 from 0 to 1, and W2 from 1 to 0 for each rotor speed in a transient region, as dynamically adjusting the first weighting value and the second weighting value according to the rotor speed of the PMSM.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Ye into Takahashi for the purpose of updating the first and second rotor speed with weighting coefficient, so that a desired speed of the rotor can be obtained.
However, Ye and Takahashi does not clearly teach performing an integration operation upon the third estimated rotor speed to obtain an estimated rotor angle for estimating the rotor angle of the PMSM.
wherein in response to the PWSM being operating at a first speed, the second weighting value is increased in response to the PWSM being operating at a second speed, the first weighting value is increased: and
the first speed is less than the second speed.
Tsuchimoto teaches performing an integration operation upon the third estimated rotor speed to obtain an estimated rotor angle for estimating the rotor angle of the PMSM (para [0119] the angle signal θ is calculated by integrating the estimated speed ω through use of Expression (39).).
Examiner views Tsuchimoto suggestion is used in integrating third rotor speed to estimate rotor angle.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Tsuchimoto into Takahashi for the purpose of calculating an integration of estimated rotor speed so that the rotor angle can be estimated.
The combination of Takahashi, Ye and Tsuchimoto does not clearly teach wherein in response to the PWSM being operating at a first speed, the second weighting value is increased in response to the PWSM being operating at a second speed, the first weighting value is increased: and
the first speed is less than the second speed.
Fukumura teaches wherein in response to the PWSM being operating at a first speed, the second weighting value is increased, in response to the PWSM being operating at a second speed, the first weighting value is increased: and
the first speed is less than the second speed.
Para [0032] Mathematical Expression 3
{circumflex over (T)}=(1−α)T.sub.1+αT.sub.2 (3)
Para [0048] (According to Expression (3), at a low motor rotational speed, the weighting coefficient α is adjusted to be small and a torque estimation utilizing the features of the cross product method can be performed, and at a high motor rotational speed, the weighting coefficient α is adjusted to be large and a torque estimation utilizing the features of the energy method can be performed.).
Here examiner views for motor (PMSM) at low speed (first speed) the first weight coefficient α value is small (i.e., second weight coefficient value 1-α is larger). At higher speed (second speed) the first weight coefficient value α is larger.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Fukumura into Takahashi for the purpose of adjusting weight values based on the motor speed, so that the motor speed and torque can be accurately predicted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takahashi, Ye, Tsuchimoto and Fukumura teaches the method of claim 1, Ye teaches wherein the step of performing the weighting adjustment operation upon the first estimated rotor speed and the second estimated rotor speed to obtain the third estimated rotor speed for estimating the rotor speed of the PMSM comprises:
multiplying the first weighting value and the first estimated rotor speed to generate a first multiplication result; multiplying the second weighting value and the second estimated rotor speed to generate a second multiplication result; and combining the first multiplication result and the second multiplication result to generate the third estimated rotor speed See equation 3 in Page 15 (ωe = ω0 ×W1 + ω active ×W2 (3)) … omega zero represents a first rotational speed, and omega active represents a second rotational speed.)
ωe is considered to be a third estimated rotor speed.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Ye into Takahashi for the purpose of calculating multiplication of the estimated rotors speed by their coefficients and adding the multiplicated result so that the third rotor speed can be estimated.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Takahashi, Ye, Tsuchimoto and Fukumura teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the step of performing the weighting adjustment operation upon the first estimated rotor speed and the second estimated rotor speed to obtain the third estimated rotor speed for estimating the rotor speed of the PMSM is performed in response to the rotor speed of PMSM being smaller than a cutoff rotor speed (Page 7, line 24. FIG. 2 shows a schematic block diagram of a control device 1200 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 2, the detection section 1210 may provide the detected rotor position 0 and the rotor rotational speed w to the control section 1220. The rotational speed command (ref) and the detected rotational speed (w) of the rotor are differencing at the differencing module (1221-1) of the control unit (1220), and the difference between the two is supplied to the speed control module (1222). The speed control module 1221 processes the rotational speed difference, such as PI adjustment, and provides the processed signal to the current reference calculation module 1223 to obtain a desired current command.);
Here examiner views the coefficients or weights are adjusted in the motor control to get an adjusted speed (i.e., third speed) by using a PI adjustment or control in response to a change in the desired speed of the rotor (i.e., the rotor speed being smaller than a cutoff rotor speed).
Examiner views the above PI adjustment were implemented for weighting adjustment operation on the first estimated rotor speed and the second estimated rotor speed to obtain the third estimated rotor speed.
and the method further comprises in response to the rotor speed of PMSM being not smaller than the cutoff rotor speed, setting the first estimated rotor speed as the third estimated rotor speed (In above PI adjustment, examiner considers a no change in rotor speed (i.e., no error in rotor speed), as rotor speed not being smaller than cutoff rotor speed. So, when there is no error in the rotor speed the PI adjustment provides a desired startup command rotor speed (i.e., first estimated rotor speed)). Examiner views the applicant calls/sets the first rotor speed as the third estimated rotor speed.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Ye into Takahashi for the purpose of adjusting estimated rotors speed by their coefficients using a PI controller so that the rotor speed error can be minimized and obtain a desired speed of the rotor.
Claims 6, 7 and 10 are rejected as claims 1, 2 and 5 respectively having same limitations.
Claim(s) 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The combination of Takahashi, Ye, Tsuchimoto and Fukumura in view of Bo et al (CN 111578449 A) herein after “Bo”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takahashi, Ye, Tsuchimoto and Fukumura teaches the method of claim 2, Ye teaches wherein a sum of the first weighting value and the second weighting value is equal to 1 (Please see page 15, line 5 and Fig. 8. In transient state the first rotor speed weight W1 goes from 0 to 1 and the second rotor speed weight W2 goes from 1 to 0. Therefore, the sum of the first and second weight is equal to 1), and
the combination does not clearly teach the method further comprises: setting each of the first weighting value and the second weighting value as 0.5.
Bo teaches the method further comprises: setting each of the first weighting value and the second weighting value as 0.5 (Page 12, line 3. Preferably, the first absolute weighting coefficient a is 0.5, and the value of the relative weighting coefficient b is 0.5)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Bo into Takahashi for the purpose of adjusting estimated rotors speed by their coefficients value as 0.5 so as to obtain a desired speed of the rotor.
Claim 9 is rejected as claim 4 having same limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi et al (US 20240198761 A1) teach fan motor control.
Taniguch et al (US 20190199260 A1) teaches inverter control and motor drive system.
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 SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights