DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 16-17, 20, 22-24, 26-39, and 41 are canceled.
3. Claims 1-15, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 40 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-15, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions;
at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
acquiring, based on a sensor, a plurality of pulses associated with movement of a rotor within a plurality of time periods, the rotor being operably connected with the sensor;
determining, based on a specific pulse associated with the movement of the rotor within a previous time period and an actual pulse count associated with the movement of the rotor within a target time period, an ideal time period for determining a speed of the rotor in the target time period;
determining, based on at least one of the ideal time period or the actual pulse count within the target time period, an ideal pulse count within the ideal time period; and
determining the speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the ideal time period and the ideal pulse count.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls 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 claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider 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 limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: at least one storage device including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: acquiring, based on a sensor, a plurality of pulses associated with movement of a rotor within a plurality of time periods, the rotor being operably connected with the sensor. The limitations “at least one storage device including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of storing and processing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Further, the limitation “acquiring, based on a sensor, a plurality of pulses associated with movement of a rotor within a plurality of time periods, the rotor being operably connected with the sensor” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor gathering data and storing/processing data using a generic computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Zhu et al. CN 106932604 A (hereinafter, Zhu), ([0004], [0017], Fig. 2), and Takata et al. US 4975642, (hereinafter, Takata), (Figs. 1, 2, column 3, lines 35-50). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14, 19, 21, and 25, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 15, recites additional element of “outputting the speed of the rotor at an end time point within the target time period”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as outputting information using a computer components) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Zhu (Fig. 2), and Takata (Fig. 2). Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 18, recites the limitations “ at least one storage device including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: acquiring a first speed of a rotor in a target time period based on first operation data of the rotor acquired by a sensor in the target time period, the rotor being operably connected with the sensor; determining a second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on second operation data of the rotor in a first previous time period before the target time period; and determining a target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first speed of the rotor in the target time period and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period.”
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider 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 limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: at least one storage device including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: acquiring a first speed of a rotor in a target time period based on first operation data of the rotor acquired by a sensor in the target time period, the rotor being operably connected with the sensor. The limitations “at least one storage device including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of storing and processing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Further, the limitation “acquiring a first speed of a rotor in a target time period based on first operation data of the rotor acquired by a sensor in the target time period, the rotor being operably connected with the sensor” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering or collecting data using sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor gathering data and storing/processing data using a generic computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Zhu et al. CN 106932604 A (hereinafter, Zhu), ([0004], [0017], Fig. 2), and Takata et al. US 4975642, (hereinafter, Takata), (Figs. 1, 2, column 3, lines 35-50). Therefore, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 40, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 18 as explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 8-15, 18, 19, 25, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. CN 106932604 A (hereinafter, Zhu), in view of Takata et al. US 4975642, cited in IDS (hereinafter, Takata).
9. Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a system, comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device ([0019]), wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
acquiring, based on a sensor, a plurality of pulses associated with movement of a rotor within a plurality of time periods ([0035]);
determining, based on a specific pulse associated with the movement of the rotor within a previous time period and an actual pulse count associated with the movement of the rotor within a target time period, an ideal time period for determining a speed of the rotor in the target time period ([0045], [0054]-[0057], Fig. 2);
determining, based on at least one of the ideal time period or the actual pulse count within the target time period, an ideal pulse count within the ideal time period ([0059], Fig. 2); and
determining the speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the ideal time period and the ideal pulse count ([0042], [0045], [0059], Fig. 2).
Zhu does not disclose:
the rotor being operably connected with the sensor.
However, Takata discloses:
the rotor being operably connected with the sensor (column 3, lines 35-48, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu to use the rotor being operably connected with the sensor as taught by Takata. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to collect data associated with the rotor accurately (Takata, column 2, lines 5-15, column 3, lines 35-50).
10. Regarding claim 2, Zhu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the determining, based on the specific pulse associated with the movement of the rotor within the previous time period and the at least one pulse associated with the movement of the rotor within the target time period as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses the ideal time period includes: determining a start time point of the ideal time period based on the specific pulse within the previous time period ([0018], [0045], [0054], Fig. 2) ; and
determining an end time point of the ideal time period based on the actual pulse count within the target time period ([0013], [0018], [0054], Fig. 2).
11. Regarding claim 3, Zhu discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the determining the end time point of the ideal time period based on the actual pulse count within the target time period as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses generating a first determination result by determining whether the actual pulse count within the target time period exceeds zero; and determining the end time point of the ideal time period based on the first determination result ([0013], [0018], [0054], Fig. 2).
12. Regarding claim 4, Zhu discloses a system of claim 3, wherein the determining the end time point of the ideal time period based on the first determination result as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses determining that the actual pulse count within the target time period exceeds zero ([0018], [0035], [0059], Fig. 2), and designating an end time point of the target time period as the end time point of the ideal time period ([0013], [0018], [0054], Fig. 2).
Zhu does not disclose:
in response to determining that the actual pulse count within the target time period is equal to zero, designating an end time point of the target time period as the end time point of the ideal time period.
However, Takata discloses:
in response to determining that the actual pulse count within the target time period is equal to zero, designating an end time point of the target time period as the end time point of the ideal time period (column 4, lines 16-64, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu to use in response to determining that the actual pulse count within the target time period is equal to zero, designating an end time point of the target time period as the end time point of the ideal time period as taught by Takata. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the rotor speed with improved accuracy (Takata, column 2, lines 5-10).
13. Regarding claim 8, Zhu discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the specific pulse associated with the movement of the rotor within the previous time period as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses a last pulse within the previous time period, and the start time point includes a time point when the last pulse within the previous time period generates ([0013], [0018], [0054], Fig. 2).
14. Regarding claim 9, Zhu discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the determining the end time point of the ideal time period based on the first determination result as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses in response to determining that the actual pulse count within the target time period exceeds zero, designating a time point when a last pulse within the target time period generates as the end time point of the ideal time period ([0018], [0059], Fig. 2).
15. Regarding claim 10, Zhu discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the determining, based on at least one of the ideal time period or the actual pulse count within the target time period, the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses in response to determining that the actual pulse count within the target time period exceeds zero, designating the actual pulse count within the target time period as the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period ([0018], [0035], [0059], Fig. 2).
16. Regarding claim 11, Zhu discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the specific pulse associated with the movement of the rotor within the previous time period as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses a first pulse within the previous time period, and the start time point of the ideal time period includes a time point when the first pulse within the previous time period generates ([0018], [0045], [0054], Fig. 2).
17. Regarding claim 12, Zhu discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the determining the end time point of the ideal time period based on the first determination result as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses in response to determining that the actual pulse count within the target time period exceeds zero, designating a time point when a first pulse within the target time period generates as the end time point of the ideal time period ([0018], [0035], [0059], Fig. 2).
18. Regarding claim 13, Zhu discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the determining, based on at least one of the ideal time period or the actual pulse count within the target time period, the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses in response to determining that the actual pulse count within the target time period exceeds zero, designating an actual pulse count within the ideal time period as the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period ([0018], [0035], [0059], Fig. 2).
19. Regarding claim 14, Zhu in view of Takata disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the determining the speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the ideal time period and the ideal pulse count as disclosed above.
Zhu does not disclose:
determining a ratio of the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period to the time length of the ideal time period; and determining the speed of the rotor based on the ratio.
However, Takata discloses:
determining a ratio of the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period to the time length of the ideal time period; and determining the speed of the rotor based on the ratio (column 4, lines 16-30, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu to use determining a ratio of the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period to the time length of the ideal time period; and determining the speed of the rotor based on the ratio as taught by Takata. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the rotor speed with improved accuracy (Takata, column 2, lines 5-10).
20. Regarding claim 15, Zhu in view of Takata disclose the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Zhu does not disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations further including: outputting the speed of the rotor at an end time point within the target time period.
However, Takata discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations further including: outputting the speed of the rotor at an end time point within the target time period. (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu to use wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations further including: outputting the speed of the rotor at an end time point within the target time period. as taught by Takata. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to display speed of the rotor to a user (Takata, Fig. 2).
21. Regarding claim 18, Zhu discloses a system, comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device ([0019]), wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
acquiring a first speed of a rotor in a target time period based on first operation data of the rotor acquired by a sensor in the target time period ([0035], [0045], [0059], Figs. 1, 2).
Zhu does not disclose:
the rotor being operably connected with the sensor, and determining a second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on second operation data of the rotor in a first previous time period before the target time period; and determining a target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first speed of the rotor in the target time period and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period.
However, Takata discloses:
the rotor being operably connected with the sensor (column 3, lines 35-48, Fig. 1);
determining a second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on second operation data of the rotor in a first previous time period before the target time period (column 4, lines 16-67, column 5, lines 1-48, Fig. 2); and
determining a target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first speed of the rotor in the target time period and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period (column 4, lines 16-67, column 5, lines 1-48, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu to use the rotor being operably connected with the sensor, and determining a second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on second operation data of the rotor in a first previous time period before the target time period; and determining a target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first speed of the rotor in the target time period and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period as taught by Takata. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the rotor speed with improved accuracy (Takata, column 2, lines 5-10).
22. Regarding claim 40, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 18.
23. Regarding claim 19, Zhu in view of Takata disclose the system of claim 18 as disclosed above.
Zhu does not disclose:
wherein the second operation data includes at least one of an acceleration of the rotor in the first previous time period or a target speed of the rotor in the first previous time period, and the determining the second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the second operation data of the rotor in the first previous time period includes: determining a speed variation of the rotor within the target time period based on the acceleration of the rotor in the first previous time period and a time length of the target time period; and determining the second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the speed variation of the rotor within the target time period and the target speed of the rotor in the first previous time period.
However, Takata discloses:
wherein the second operation data includes at least one of an acceleration of the rotor in the first previous time period or a target speed of the rotor in the first previous time period, and the determining the second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the second operation data of the rotor in the first previous time period (column 4, lines 16-67, column 5, lines 1-48, Fig. 2); includes:
determining a speed variation of the rotor within the target time period based on the acceleration of the rotor in the first previous time period and a time length of the target time period (column 4, lines 16-67, column 5, lines 30-48, Fig. 2); and
determining the second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the speed variation of the rotor within the target time period and the target speed of the rotor in the first previous time period (column 4, lines 16-67, column 5, lines 1-48, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu to use wherein the second operation data includes at least one of an acceleration of the rotor in the first previous time period or a target speed of the rotor in the first previous time period, and the determining the second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the second operation data of the rotor in the first previous time period includes: determining a speed variation of the rotor within the target time period based on the acceleration of the rotor in the first previous time period and a time length of the target time period; and determining the second speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the speed variation of the rotor within the target time period and the target speed of the rotor in the first previous time period as taught by Takata. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the rotor speed with improved accuracy (Takata, column 2, lines 5-10).
24. Regarding claim 25, Zhu in view of Takata disclose the system of claim 18 as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses wherein the first speed in the target time period is determined by: determining, based on a specific pulse associated with the movement of the rotor within a third previous time period and an actual pulse count associated with the rotor within the target time period, an ideal time period for determining the first speed of the rotor in the target time period ([0045], [0054]-[0057], Fig. 2);
determining, based on at least one of the ideal time period or an actual pulse count within the target time period, an ideal pulse count within the ideal time period ([0059], Fig. 2); and
determining the first speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the ideal time period and the ideal pulse count ([0042], [0045], [0059], Fig. 2).
25. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Takata, in view of Wu et al. 20200161994 (hereinafter, Wu).
26. Regarding claim 5, Zhu in view of Takata disclose the system of claim 4, wherein the determining, based on at least one of the ideal time period or the actual pulse count within the target time period, the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses disclose generating a second determination result by determining whether a time length of the ideal time period is [exceed zero]; and determining the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period based on the second determination result ([0018], [0035], [0059], Fig. 2). See also Takata (Fig. 2).
Zhu in view of Takata does not disclose:
determining whether a time length is longer than a time threshold.
However, Ni discloses:
determining whether a time length is longer than a time threshold (Abstract, [0067], [0073], [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu in view of Takata to use determining whether a time length is longer than a time threshold as taught by Ni. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control the performance of the rotor efficiently (Ni, [0130]).
27. Regarding claim 6, Zhu in view of Takata disclose the system of claim 5, wherein the determining the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period based on the second determination result as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses disclose in response to determining that the time length of the ideal time period is [a given time], designating the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period as zero ([0018], [0035], [0059], Fig. 2). See also Takata (Fig. 2).
Zhu in view of Takata does not disclose:
determining time period is longer than the time threshold.
However, Ni discloses:
determining time period is longer than the time threshold (Abstract, [0067], [0073], [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu in view of Takata to use determining time period is longer than the time threshold as taught by Ni. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control the performance of the rotor efficiently (Ni, [0130]).
28. Regarding claim 7, Zhu in view of Takata disclose the system of claim 5, wherein the determining the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period based on the second determination result as disclosed above.
Zhu further discloses disclose in response to determining that the time length of the ideal time period is smaller than [a given period], designating the ideal pulse count within the ideal time period as one ([0018], [0035], [0059], Fig. 2). See also Takata (Fig. 2).
Zhu in view of Takata does not disclose:
determining time period is smaller than or equal to the time threshold.
However, Ni discloses:
determining time period is smaller than or equal to the time threshold (Abstract, [0067], [0073], [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu in view of Takata to use determining time period is smaller than or equal to the time threshold as taught by Ni. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control the performance of the rotor efficiently (Ni, [0130]).
29. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Takata, in view of Wu et al. CN 112986605 A (hereinafter, Wu).
30. Regarding claim 21, Zhu in view of Takata disclose the system of claim 18, wherein the determining the target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first speed of the rotor in the target time period and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period as disclosed above.
Zhu does not disclose:
determining a first weight to the first speed of the rotor in the target time period and a second weight to the second speed of the rotor in the target time period; and determining the target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first weight, the second weight, the first speed of the rotor in the target time period, and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period.
However, Takata discloses:
determining the first speed of the rotor in the target time period and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period (column 4, lines 16-67, column 5, lines 1-48, Fig. 2); and
determining the target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first speed of the rotor in the target time period, and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period (column 4, lines 16-67, column 5, lines 1-48, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu to use determining the first speed of the rotor in the target time period and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period and determining the target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first speed of the rotor in the target time period, and the second speed of the rotor in the target time period as taught by Takata. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the rotor speed with improved accuracy (Takata, column 2, lines 5-10).
Zhu in view of Takata does not disclose:
determining a first weight to the first speed of the rotor and a second weight to the second speed of the rotor; and determining the target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first weight, the second weight.
However, Wu discloses:
determining a first weight to the first speed of the rotor and a second weight to the second speed of the rotor; and determining the target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first weight, the second weight (Abstract, and pages 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zhu in view of Takata to use determining a first weight to the first speed of the rotor and a second weight to the second speed of the rotor; and determining the target speed of the rotor in the target time period based on the first weight, the second weight as taught by Wu. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to control the performance of the rotor (Wu, page 5).
Conclusion
31. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights