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 .
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 5, 6, 8, and 10 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 5 recites the limitation "the voltage " in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, it is not clear as to whether the claim is an independent claim. It appears the claim should be independent and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Applicant should recite all of the features of claim 1 to be included in claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, it is not clear as to whether the claim is an independent claim. It appears the claim should be independent and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Applicant should recite all of the features of claim 8 to be included in claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, it is not clear as to whether the claim is an independent claim. It appears the claim should be independent and includes all the limitations of claims 5, 8, and 9. Applicant should recite all of the features of claim 10 to be included in claims 5, 8, and 9.
Appropriate clarification 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory software per se.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se.
Applicant has claimed “[a] computer program comprising program code instructions for carrying out all the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1 when said program is executed on a computer” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer program comprising program code instructions“ includes a software module comprising a transitory propagating signal for performing the claimed, and thus, these features recite software per se, which is non-statutory software per se. Further, in the recitation of “a computer program comprising program code instructions, when the program is executed on a computer” the limitation of “the program is executed on a computer” recited as a condition precedent, wherein the program code instructions being executed by the computing device is not positively recited as necessarily being performed in the claim, and for this reason, the computing device is outside the scope of the claim. As a result, these claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non- statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-5 are directed to a method, claim 7 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which there is recorded a program, claims 8-9 are directed to a brushless DC electric machine comprising control means for implementing each of the steps of a method for controlling an electric machine, and claim 10 is directed to motor vehicle comprising an electric machine. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for adapting to the tolerances of a system comprising at least one position sensor and a rotary target wherein, when the target rotates, the sensor(s) detects a predefined singularity on the target at an instant Ti, comprising:
acquisition of a series of n+1 instants T0 to TN corresponding to a rotation R of the target,
determination of theoretical values Theoi corresponding to an instant of passing of an ith rising front for each instant Ti while considering that the time corresponds to the time that the target takes to effect the rotation R, taking account of any acceleration there might be during the rotation R and as a function of a position of the predefined singularities on an ideal target produced without tolerance, determined as follows:
Theoi=T0+i/N (TN−T0+ACC),
where i is the singularity i considered, N is the number of singularities considered for one revolution of the rotary target, and ACC is a variable that takes account of the acceleration of the target, determined as follows:
(i−N)*(T(N+1)−TN−T1+T0)/2, conversion of the time difference between Theoi and Ti into an angular difference Ai for a corresponding singularity of the target detected by a sensor, and memory-storage of the angular differences Ai for each singularity of the target.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“acquisition of a series of n+1 instants T0 to TN corresponding to a rotation R of the target” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“determination of theoretical values Theoi corresponding to an instant of passing of an ith rising front for each instant Ti while considering that the time corresponds to the time that the target takes to effect the rotation R, taking account of any acceleration there might be during the rotation R and as a function of a position of the predefined singularities on an ideal target produced without tolerance” is directed to math because the step involves core concepts from Kinematics, Dynamics, Calculus (Derivatives/Integrals), Trigonometry, and Differential Equations, used in physics and engineering to model motion, forces, acceleration, and precise geometric relationships in rotating systems, especially when dealing with sensor data (like edge detection) and imperfections (tolerances).
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "determination of theoretical values Theoi corresponding to an instant of passing of an ith rising front for each instant Ti while considering that the time corresponds to the time that the target takes to effect the rotation R, taking account of any acceleration there might be during the rotation R and as a function of a position of the predefined singularities on an ideal target produced without tolerance” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for adapting to the tolerances of a system comprising at least one position sensor and a rotary target wherein, when the target rotates, the sensor(s) detects a predefined singularity on the target at an instant Ti” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“acquisition of a series of n+1 instants T0 to TN corresponding to a rotation R of the target” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determination of theoretical values Theoi corresponding to an instant of passing of an ith rising front for each instant Ti while considering that the time corresponds to the time that the target takes to effect the rotation R, taking account of any acceleration there might be during the rotation R and as a function of a position of the predefined singularities on an ideal target produced without tolerance” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for adapting to the tolerances of a system comprising at least one position sensor and a rotary target wherein, when the target rotates, the sensor(s) detects a predefined singularity on the target at an instant Ti” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“acquisition of a series of n+1 instants T0 to TN corresponding to a rotation R of the target” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determination of theoretical values Theoi corresponding to an instant of passing of an ith rising front for each instant Ti while considering that the time corresponds to the time that the target takes to effect the rotation R, taking account of any acceleration there might be during the rotation R and as a function of a position of the predefined singularities on an ideal target produced without tolerance” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea similar to claim 1. The additional elements (i.e., A method for controlling a brushless DC electric machine comprising a rotor and a stator, wherein a set of three Hall-effect sensors is positioned facing a target exhibiting at least one pair of magnetic poles and wherein each transition of a sensor from one magnetic pole to another occurs at an instant Ti) are recited at a high level of generality, necessary, routine, or conventional to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. When considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See Alice Corp. and 2014 Interim Guidance.
Claim 7 cites a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which there is recorded a program. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 8 is similar to claim 5 but recites a brushless DC electric machine comprising a stator comprising windings able to be subjected to an operating voltage, a rotor producing a magnetic field, comprising three Hall-effect sensors facing a target comprising at least one pair of magnetic poles, and said electric machine comprises control means for implementing each of the steps of a method for controlling an electric machine . These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 8 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 8.
Claim 10 recites a motor vehicle comprising an electric machine. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 8 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 10.
Dependent claims 2-4 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-8 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gouzenes et al. (US 11,585,682).
Regarding claim 1, Gouzenes et al. disclose a method for adapting to the tolerances of a system comprising at least one position sensor and a rotating target, wherein, when the target is rotating, the sensor(s) detect(s) a predefined singularity on the target at an instant Ti, the method comprising the following steps (Col.4, lines 30-50):
acquiring a sequence of n+1 instants T0 to TN corresponding to one rotation R of the target (Col.4, lines 30-34),
determining theoretical values Theo_i corresponding to the instant at which an ith rising edge is passed (Col.1, lines 42-45), for each instant Ti, it being assumed that the time (Tn - T0) corresponds to the time taken by the target to make the rotation R, taking into account any acceleration during the rotation R and as a function of a position of the predefined singularities on an ideal target produced with zero tolerance (Col.1, line 67-Col.2, line 3, Col.4, line 30-34),
converting the time difference between Theoi and Ti into an angular difference Ai for a corresponding singularity of the target detected by a sensor (Col.4, lines 35-46), and
storing in a memory the angular differences Ai for each singularity of the target (Col.4, line 27-29).
The subject matter of claim 1 thus differs from this known method in that the theoretical values Theoi are determined according to the following determination: Theoi = T0 + i/N (TN - T0 + ACC), where
i is the singularity i considered, N is the number of singularities considered for one rotation of the rotating target, and ACC is a variable which takes into account the acceleration of the target, corresponding to the following determination: (i−N)*(T(N+1)−TN−T1+T0)/2. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the theoretical values Theoi, since it has been held that discovering the theoretical values Theoi value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Gouzenes et al. disclose the method is implemented only when the rotational speed of the target exceeds a predetermined limit speed (e.g. Col.1, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 3, Gouzenes et al. disclose the method is implemented only when the rotational speed of the target is substantially stable, which is to say if the acceleration (positive, or negative in the case of a deceleration) of the target is comprised within a predetermined range (e.g. Col.4, lines 51-58).
Regarding claim 4, Gouzenes et al. disclose wherein the rotation R of the target corresponds to a full revolution, namely 360° (e.g. Col.1, line 64-66).
Regarding claim 6, Gouzenes et al. disclose a computer program, comprising program code instructions for carrying out all the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1 when said program is executed on a computer (e.g. Col.1, lines 38-42: the engine management computer).
Regarding claim 7, Gouzenes et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which there is recorded a program (e.g. Col.1, lines 38-42: the engine management computer).
Claim(s) 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scotson et al. (US 2004/0251894 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Scotson et al. disclose a method for monitoring a brushless DC electric machine (paragraphs 2 and 64), comprising a rotor (2) and a stator (3), in which a set of three Hall-effect sensors (5) is arranged opposite a target (4) that has at least one pair of magnetic poles (figure 1; paragraphs 62-63), and in which each transition from one magnetic pole to another for a sensor takes place at an instant T_i (paragraph 64), the method comprising the following steps:
acquiring a sequence of n+1 instants T_O to T_N corresponding to one rotation R of the target (4) (paragraph 65; figure 4),
determining theoretical values Theo_i for each instant Ti or angles corresponding to these theoretical values (see discussion above), it being assumed that the time corresponds to the time taken by the target (4) to make the rotation R (paragraphs 65-66 and 72), taking into account any acceleration, then assumed constant, during the rotation R (for example paragraph 8) and as a function of a position of the predefined singularities on an ideal target produced without tolerance (for example paragraph 32),
converting the time difference between Theo_i and T_i into an angular difference A_i for a corresponding singularity of the target (4) detected by a sensor (5) (paragraphs 64-73; see discussion above), and
storing in a memory the angular differences A_i for each singularity of the target (paragraphs 32-35, 69 and 73).
The subject matter of claim 5 thus differs from this known method in that:
in flux-weakening mode, the voltage in each phase of the machine is controlled while taking account of the angular differences stored in memory.
the determination of the theoretical values Theo_i following determination: Theo_i = T_O + i/N (T_N - T_O + ACC), where i is the singularity i considered, N is the number of singularities considered for one rotation of the rotating target, and ACC is a variable which takes into account the acceleration of the target, corresponding to the following determination: (i - N)*(T_(N+1) - T_N - T_l + T_O) / 2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to provide the theoretical values Theoi, since it has been held that discovering the theoretical values Theoi value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
However, Scotson et al. teach corrected angular position, and therefore the angular differences stored in memory, for monitoring the electric machine; the fact that this taking into account also applies in a fluxing mode is an obvious extension of the teaching of Scotson et al. when implementing the monitoring of the electric machine. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to provide in flux-weakening mode, the voltage in each phase of the machine is controlled while taking account of the angular differences stored in memory.
Regarding claim 8, Scotson et al. disclose a brushless DC electric machine (paragraphs 2 and 64) comprising a stator (3) comprising windings able to be subjected to an operating voltage, a rotor producing a magnetic field, comprising three Hall-effect sensors (5) facing a target (4) comprising at least one pair of magnetic poles (figure 1; paragraphs 62-63).
Regarding claim 9, Scotson et al. disclose a fourth Hall-effect sensor for determining a reference position for the rotor of the machine (paragraphs 6, 63).
Regarding claim 10, Scotson et al. disclose a motor vehicle comprising an electric machine (paragraph 2).
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yashan et al. (US 2020/0378802 A1) disclose a sensor system for determining at least one rotation characteristic of an element rotating around at least one rotation axis, the sensor system comprising: at least one sensor wheel which is connectable to the rotating element, the sensor wheel having a sensor wheel profile; at least one position sensor; at least one phase sensor; at least one digital interface; and at least one incremental interface; wherein the sensor system is configured to output at least one absolute position signal generated using the position sensor via the digital interface and to output at least one incremental signal generated using the phase sensor via the incremental interface.
Granig et al. (US 2010/0050731 A1) disclose an angular position measurement system comprising: a continuous angular position sensor configured to provide a first signal representative of a continuous angular position of a rotating shaft; an incremental angular position sensor configured to provide a second signal representative of incremental angular positions of the rotating shaft; and a controller configured to calibrate the first signal based on the second signal to provide a third signal representative of a calibrated continuous angular position of the rotating shaft.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857