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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 2 shows multiple graphs without labeling the graphs individually. The graphs need to be labeled Fig.2A, Fig. 2B, and Fig. 2C. The group of graphs needs to include a title describing what the graphs represent and the x-axis/y-axis of each graph must be labeled to show exactly what parameters (and their units) are being illustrated. Updated description of each figure drawing must be included under the “DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS” section of the specification.
Fig. 4 has the same issue as Fig. 2, since it illustrates multiple applications (Motor control 1, Motor control 2, and Power factor control) within the same labeled; the individual control schemes should be labeled Fig. 4A, Fig. 4B, and Fig. 4C. Updated description of each figure drawing must be included under the “DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS” section of the specification.
In reference to Fig. 6, it supposedly illustrate a computer-readable medium which includes a method 614. However, the “method” steps have not been included in the empty boxes.
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.” 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.
Claim 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. The original documents do not include how any of the recited limitations can be accomplished. The original specification only repeats the same broad language included in the claims.
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.
An introductory preamble such as “A system” and “A method” is technically acceptable to establish an open-ended apparatus claim or a method claim. However, starting a claim in this manner creates a severe clarity issue.
Claims 1 and 15, a claim must clearly point out the boundaries of applicant’s invention. Without a descriptive preamble, one cannot determine the operational context or intended environment of the “system” or “method”.
What is protection waveform data?
Are you trying to claim “any” parameter (data) that could be used in a graph (waveform)?
What is considered a trigger? Is applicant trying to claim any “triggers” for any “system”, since the claim does not establish what the trigger or system represent?
What is a measured system characteristic waveform? What is a fault interrupt? Is applicant trying to claim a comparison of two waveforms and based on said comparison, a fault condition is determined? The claim does not include how the comparison is used to determine anything (faults).
Is applicant trying to say that based on a fault condition being detected, an interrupt signal will be generated?
In reference to claim 2, no antecedent basis for “the fault condition”. What elements of a “waveform” are used to determine a fault condition? How do you determine if a waveform exceeds another waveform, is the amplitude, frequency, phase, shape/form, noise levels, harmonic content, or transient behavior being evaluated?
In reference to claims 3, 11, and 16, the listed access parameters make no sense. What are start address, end address, step size, step direction, or update period describing?
In reference to claims 4, 12, and 17, is applicant trying to claim “computer code”? What element includes terminals? Is the recited comparator different from the comparator recited in claim 1?
In reference to claim 5, how is a fault condition violated and how is the predetermined time period selected?
In reference to claims 6, 13, and 18, how do you generate portions of a waveform based on direction of movement?
In reference to claims 7, 14, and 19, this claim does not clarify anything about the “access parameters” recited in claim 3. Therefore, it unclear how a sub-set of those “access parameters” can be determined. What does applicant mean by “trigger event”.
Claims 8 and 20, how does an arbiter manage any request by any part of “the system”.
Claims 9-10, the same issues described in the rejection claim 1 above apply herein.
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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts and mental processes/data manipulation without significantly more.
In reference to claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps directed to receiving data (measured characteristics), storing data (signal waveforms), retrieving data (from memory), comparing data (based on measured data and signal waveforms), and generating a result (based on the comparison). Collecting, analyzing, and displaying data are well-known established abstract ideas that be performed mentally or with standard mathematical tools. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim relies on generic computer-implemented components (memory and waveform generator). Since the preamble does not specify any industrial environment for the recited “system”, the claim simply uses generic hardware as tools to execute a mathematical algorithm. No improvement of any computer hardware or known system has been recited. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing and comparing electrical signals are considered conventional, routine, and generic activities in computer systems. The structural components are described at a high level of generality, they are just used to implement the mathematical comparison.
In reference to claim 9, simply providing a more descriptive preamble does not cure the 35 USC 101 subject matter eligibility problems. The core of this claim remains identical to claim 1. The recited “microcontroller” is completely conventional and generic; it functions exactly as intended (storing and processing signals). The claim still includes an abstract software algorithm running in a generic off-the-shelf microcontroller, reciting a microcontroller does not transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible physical invention.
In reference to claim 10, the claim is still directed to the abstract idea of mathematical manipulation and data analysis. The claim only specifies that the data being collected and compared is “motor phase current”; this information does not add anything that would convert the recited invention as being patent eligible. The claim also lacks inventive concept because a “motor controller” is a conventional industrial hardware. Using conventional components to process specific data (motor data) does not provide “significant more” to the claim.
In reference to claim 15, the structural form of the claim (a method or an apparatus) does not alter the 35 USC 101 eligibility analysis. The claim does not recite any real-world transformation or action that improves any industrial process.
Claims 2-8, 11-14, and 16-20 are also rejected since they do not add any meaningful information that would convert the recited abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11, 15-16, and 18-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le et al (US Patent 8896251).
All pending claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101, 112(a), and 112(b). As described in great detail above, the claims do not include a clear description of what applicant believes his invention to be. Prior art has been applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 1, Le et al teaches a “system” 102 comprising a memory for storing reference waveforms (reference to a memory means for storing information in described in col. 8 lines 34-45); a comparator waveform generator 150a/150b for accessing a reference waveform based on trigger parameters related, for example, to output motor current or voltage, a voltage across a capacitor bank detected by sensor 145, an inverter 132 connected to a motor 105, wherein the reference waveform is compared to a waveform representing feedback or detected information. The generators 150a/150b generate a fault signal based on the comparison between the two waveforms and disable the “system” 102 temporarily if faults or error are identified (as described in col. 4 lines 17-67 and col. Col. 8 lines 24-45).
Claim 2, Le et al describes identifying a fault when the measured output waveform is greater than a reference waveform (see for example col. 4 lines 58-67).
Claims 3, 11, and 16, there is no information, in the claim, related to the “set of access parameters”, are they related to the “system”, reference information, or measured information. Le et al teaches using a memory means (see col. 8 lines 34-45) for storing reference information used by generators 150a/150b to determine a fault in the system; using look-up tables, profiles, curves, or diagrams to store said that information is considered a design choice and is not given any patentable weight.
Claim 8, Le et al teaches two separate generators 150a/150b for generating reference waveforms and waveforms from measured information, wherein independent generators would be accessed based on what components need to be controlled (either rectifier 130 or inverter 132 for example).
Claim 9, Le et al describes, in addition to the components listed above in the rejection of claim 1, an “industrial controller” comprising a motor controller including a power electronic device 102 (system of claim 1).
Claim 10, Le et al describes power electronic device 102 for controlling a motor 105, wherein output motor current is measured and compared to reference information to determine if the motor system is experiencing a fault (see for example the description given in col. 5 lines 1-45).
Claim 15, the method of operation recited in the claim in addressed in the rejection of claims 1 and 9.
Claims 18-20, the information stored in memory (reference waveform) is accessed every time the motor is operated, forward direction when a power grid 101 is supplying power a motor 105 or reverse direction when motor 105 is supplying power to the grid (see for example col. 3 lines 15-25). Generators 150a/150b will be activated to control operation of either a rectifier 130 or an inverter 132; the movement of power (forward or reverse) determines what component will be controlled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 4-7, 12-14, and 17 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le et al (US Patent 8896251) and Lewis (US Patent 4642461).
Claims 4, 12, and 17, although preference electrical components to perform a given function is not given any patentable weight, Lewis will be introduced to show that multiplexers and digital-to-analog converters are commonly used in programmable motor controllers.
Lewis teaches a motor speed controller comprising a microcontroller 200 comprising a multiplexer 234 for selecting an input terminal for receiving measured characteristics from a motor 210; and a digital-to-analog converters 50 for receiving digital control signals from microcontroller 200 and converting said digital signals to analog control signals used by the motor, wherein the detected motor position and compared to reference position in order to correct any differences between the detected information and the stored information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use multiplexers and converters in the generator (DSP) of Le et al, since digital-to-analog converters are commonly used to provide smooth and precise analog voltages/currents signals that can accurately control speed, position, and torque in motor systems.
Claim 5, Le et al teaches generators 150a/150b as digital signal processors.
Claim 6-7 and 13-14, the information stored in memory (reference waveform) is accessed every time the motor is operated, forward direction when a power grid 101 is supplying power a motor 105 or reverse direction when motor 105 is supplying power to the grid (see for example col. 3 lines 15-25). Generators 150a/150b will be activated to control operation of either a rectifier 130 or an inverter 132; the movement of power (forward or reverse) determines what component will be controlled.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 describe different systems and methods for operating a system, wherein the system includes a graphical representation of a series of parameters that can used to determine a fault condition in a system.
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