DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 6/21/2026. Claims 1, 3-9 are presented for examination.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 4 and 5 contain very small and blurry text which is difficult to read. 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.
Applicant is directed towards 37 CFR § 1.84 - Standards for drawings:
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. ( 1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 3-9 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The following is to be considered exemplary of the issues at hand:
Claim 1, line 7 recites “each node”. However it is unclear if this is referring to the “arranging nodes in each area of a machine to be solved” or “predetermined number of nodes” the.
Claim 1, line 11 recites “conducting an additional processing”, when there was no previously recited ‘processing’ step.
Claim 1, line 11 recites “the nodes at an interface and boundary”. It is unclear if this is referring to the “predetermined number of nodes” or the “arranging nodes in each area of a machine to be solved”.
Claim 1, line 14 recites “each node”. It is unclear if this is referring to the “predetermined number of nodes” or the “arranging nodes in each area of a machine to be solved” or the “nodes at an interface and boundary”.
Claim 1, line 15, “each discrete node” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 1, line 15 recites plural “the algebraic equations” which should be “the algebraic equation of each node”.
Claim 1, line 17 recites a semi-colon in the middle of step 7. It is unclear why there is a semi-colon and if it should be a separate step. It appears to be unrelated to the previous limitation of step 7.
Claim 1, lines 20-24 recite “wherein in the step 1, nodes are distributed in every solution region of machine, at the interface between two regions and boundary sub regions to be solved comprise a stator, a slot, an air gap, and a permanent magnet (PM); due to a fact that a rotor core of a SPM machine is generally unsaturated, a Neumann boundary is allowed to be applied to an out surface of a rotor; and there is no need to solve a rotor core region in order to improve a computational efficiency”. The entirety of this limitation is unclear and generally narrative, indefinite and written in conversational English, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. It is also unclear what “allowed to be applied” means and it is unknown if this limitation is required by the claim.
Claims 3-9 recite semi-colons randomly in the middle of the claim limitations. It is unclear if they should be wherein clauses, or commas, or something else entirely.
Claim 3, lines 4-5 recites “the same sub region” which lacks antecedent support.
Claim 5, line 3 recites “each sub region” which was previously “boundary sub regions”. Consistency in terminology is required.
Claims 6, 8 and 9 recites “… allowed to be…” It unclear what “allowed to be” means; it is unknown if this limitation is required by the claims.
Claim 9 recites “a solid cylindrical”, which should be “a solid cylinder”.
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1 and 3-8, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 1 claims a method. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A 2D meshless method for analyzing a surface mounted permanent magnet (SPM) synchronous machine, comprising the following steps:
step 1: arranging nodes in each area of a machine to be solved (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
step 2: choosing any node as a central node, and searching a predetermined number of nodes closest to the central node to form a support region (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
step 3: constructing a residual function based on a Taylor expansion and weighted least squares method, and approximating derivative values of each node as a linear combination of function values of each node in the support region (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi);
step 4: converting a partial differential equation satisfied by each node in the support region into algebraic equations (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation - MPEP
2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi);
step 5: conducting an additional processing for the nodes at an interface and boundary, wherein the nodes at the interface need to meet continuity conditions, while the nodes at the boundary need to meet corresponding boundary conditions (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi);
step 6: according to step 4 and step 5, each node obtaining an algebraic equation, wherein a vector potential of each discrete node is obtained by solving the algebraic equations (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi); and
step 7: based on the vector potential of each discrete node solved in step 6, obtaining a flux density distribution and magnetic lines (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi); according to electromagnetic calculation constraints of the machine, obtaining electromagnetic parameters comprising a back electromotive force and an electromagnetic torque;
wherein in the step 1, nodes are distributed in every solution region of machine, at the interface between two regions and boundary sub regions to be solved comprise a stator, a slot, an air gap, and a permanent magnet (PM): due to a fact that a rotor core of a SPM machine is generally unsaturated, a Neumann boundary is allowed to be applied to an out surface of a rotor; and there is no need to solve a rotor core region in order to improve a computational efficiency (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation - MPEP
2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. 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 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas.
The limitations as analyzed also include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves arranging, choosing, and searching nodes. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “according to electromagnetic calculation constraints of the machine, obtaining electromagnetic parameters comprising a back electromotive force and an electromagnetic torque” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “according to electromagnetic calculation constraints of the machine, obtaining electromagnetic parameters comprising a back electromotive force and an electromagnetic torque” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting and data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 3-8, see below for detail.
Claims 3-8 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. 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 (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. The limitations as analyzed also include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. Accordingly, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Due to the extensive rejections due to indefiniteness under 35 USC 112, an assessment of allowable subject matter cannot be made at this time. Any indication of allowable subject matter is being held in abeyance pending the response to the rejections under 35 USC 112 and 101.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
“Structural Strength Evaluation and Comparison of Laminated Ferromagnetic Pole Structures in Magnetic Gears, Using 3D-FEM: objective was to design and implement a prototype of a magnetic gear. Investigated the structural resistance of the laminated ferromagnetic structures. The first ascertainment that comes out from these research, is that as predicted, the beam equivalent theory is valid for torsional efforts, as long as the contact pressure is enough to insure no/small slips inside the model. This was approved by comparing a completely homogeneous beam and the equivalent beams composed by gradually increased number of sections. The structural evaluations have been implemented using 3D Finite Element Method (3D-FEM) by the means of ComsolTMand AbaqusTM.
US 2022/0043950 A1: provide a parametric equivalent magnetic network modeling method for multi-objective optimization of permanent magnet motor. It mainly includes dynamic mesh permeance subdivision of disordered magnetic flux lines region in the motor, permeance equivalence of magnetic circuit in regular magnetic flux lines region, and establishment and solution of magnetic network matrix equation. The sensitivity analyses of multiple structural variables and the response surface model are completed by using the parametric equivalent magnetic network model. The optimal parameter combination is determined by using the multi-objective optimization algorithm to realize the fast multi-objective optimization of permanent magnet motor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights