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 Amendment
The amendment filed 6/24/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The original documents do not describe claim 1, new steps (e) related to a CPU comparing a detected output current with a predetermined threshold, (f) related to a CPU determining whether a detected output current corresponds to a transient current variation or a short-circuit condition according to a duration during which the detected output current exceeds a predetermined threshold, (g) related to maintaining output of PWM control signals to the inverting circuitry when the CPU determines that the detected output current corresponds to the transient current variation, and (h) related to interrupting the three-phase AC power output supplied to the motor when the CPU determines that the detected output current corresponds to the short-circuit condition. The original specification only describes the MCU is able to distinguish a short circuit from a false short circuit according to variations of the output current and makes suitable disposing of deciding whether power supplying is continued (see paragraph 0043).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The changes made to the claims have introduced issues under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b), since the new recited subject matter is either not described in the original specification or unclear based on the original description of the invention. The statutory type double patenting rejection of claim 1 (based on patented claim 9) is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 6/24/26. However, all the added subject matter to claim 1 is not supported by the original description of the invention. Applicant must cancel the new added information to claim 1. Additionally, the new limitations create problems with 35 USC 112(b) because it is unclear how each of the recited method steps can be accomplished.
Even though the double patenting rejection of claim is withdrawn, the non-obvious double patenting rejection of now claims 1-20 will still apply. The Terminal disclaimer filed on 9/20/25 has been approved. Therefore, the non-obvious double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 is herein withdrawn.
The examiner pointed out in the Non-Final Office Action dated 3/17/26 that although claims 2-20 depend from method claim 1, they do not further limit the “process” recited in independent claim 1. Claims 2-20 do not recite how the recited structural components are used to control the motor. A series of method steps were added to claim 1 with the amendment filed on 6/24/26, however no changes were made to claims 2-20 to further limit the process recited in claim 1 as mentioned by the examiner in the section labeled “Response to Arguments” of the last Office Action. A new rejection under 35 USC 112(d) will be added in this Final Office Action.
In reference to the drawings submitted with the amendment dated 6/24/26, the reference characters in figures 3 and 5-7 continue to be too small. It is impossible to distinguish each of the used reference characters. The submitted figure drawings are not approved.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because they do not correct the issues described in all previous Office Actions as well as the Notice to File Corrected Application Papers dated 2/10/25. Figures 3 and 5-7 are not acceptable, they must be corrected.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. Claims 1-20 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. New method steps e-h are not described in the original description of applicant’s invention. These steps must be deleted.
6. Claims 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 recites inputting the variable resistances of the first, second, and third wires of a constant current power source to a CPU, wherein the CPU determines a failure in an accelerator line and in a brake line based on the inputted resistances and a computation algorithm A= B + C. However, the specification does not provide “how” the CPU performs said assessment. The specification, paragraphs 0031-0032, only says that a combination of hardware and software will be used. Also, the original description is silent about any comparison done by the CPU between a detected output current and a threshold current, any determination that the output current corresponds to either a transient situation or a short-circuit situation, or any situation where PWM control signals from the CPU to an inverter are either maintained or interrupted.
7. Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites a CPU receiving variable resistance values of a plurality of wires from a current source, wherein the CPU determines failures in an accelerator line and a brake line based on the received resistances and the use of the computation algorithm A= B + C. However, the claim does not describe what A, B, or C represent in the algorithm or how the values of the resistances can be used to determine the failures of two different components, the accelerator and the brake lines, without reciting the way said resistances are analyzed. Additionally, what does it mean to input variable resistances for “quantification and calculation” or “qualification and calculation”? The use of “qualification”, “quantification”, and “calculation” in the claim makes no sense. Also, how does the CPU determine whether the detected output current corresponds to a transient current or a short-circuit current according to a duration during which the detected output current exceeds a predetermined threshold current? What steps or calculations are made to either maintain an output PWM control signal which will be applied to an inverter or interrupt AC power to the motor.
Claims 2-20, it is unclear how the recited structural limitations are used to control operation of a motor. The claims recite a series of electrical components, but they do not specific the purpose of said structural components. It seems these components should be part of an apparatus claim instead of a method claim since they do not provide any algorithm for controlling operation any motor.
8. Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2-20 depend from method claim 1, however they do not include any steps which are part of an algorithm for controlling operation of a motor. Claims 2-20 only recite a series of structural components unrelated to the manner in which a motor is operated or controlled. In order to overcome this rejection, applicant needs to amend the claims to recite a relationship between the recited structural components and a method step for controlling operation of a motor. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
9. Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The meaning of abbreviation CPU, CAN, MCU, DSP, and PWM must be part of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
10. The claims have been rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) for containing subject matter which was not described in way that allows a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. Additionally, applicant has not pointed out, in the claims, how each of the recited method steps are performed. Therefore, prior art cannot be applied to the amended claims, since the invention is unclear.
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights