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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claim Objections Claim 18 is objected to because it is a duplicate of claim 17. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20 , each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims 1 and 10 —including : measuring data representative of the velocity response of the system, fitting the measured data with a model function by applying a curve fitting algorithm, wherein a number of fitting parameters coincides with the mechanical system parameters of the system . These limitations taken together qualify as an abstract idea because they recite the collection and mathematical manipulation of intangible data (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) . It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic , LLC , 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—statistical analysis of investment data , similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as statistical analysis of mechanical system data; Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, which also characterizes the invention; University of Florida Research Foundation v. GE Company , 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)—collecting, analyzing, manipulating data, which also characterizes the invention ). These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. , 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer."). MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment or field-of-use in which to carry out the judicial exception ( electric motor system comprising an electric motor and a frequency converter or drive; applying a linear ramp of electrical torque corresponding to a current slope h to the system —all recited at a high level of generality). A pplying a linear ramp of electrical torque corresponding to a current slope h to the system can also be viewed as only functioning as a data gathering activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The only purpose of the applying step is to create the source of data from which the abstract measurements are gathered and later mathematically manipulated. See also Parker v. Flook , 437 U.S. 584 (1978) (ineligible claims reciting a mathematical algorithm combined with extra-solution activity) The remaining claim element s only gather and manipulate abstract data elements into another form. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities . Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted). MPEP 2106 Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment or field-of-use , along with elements only used for data gathering purposes ). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional elements ( electric motor system comprising an electric motor and a frequency converter or drive; applying a linear ramp of electrical torque corresponding to a current slope h to the system —see published Specification ¶¶ 0020, 46 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional implementation. Dependent Claims Step 2A: The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea (i.e., they only add more mathematical calculations) without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same additional elements to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims. Dependent Claims Step 2B: The dependent claims merely use the same additional elements as the independent claims to implement the abstract idea. They only add more mathematical calculations and do not contain any new additional elements to be analyzed here. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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, 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. Claims 1 -2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streder , et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0216487 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892) in view of Gilbert, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0238469 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) and Quintana , U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 10,690,556 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) . As per claim 1, Streder teaches a method comprising the steps of : applying a ramp of electrical torque corresponding to a current slope h to the system (¶¶ 0014-15; see also Fig. 4) , measuring data representative of the velocity response of the system (¶¶ 0018-19) , fitting the measured data with a model function by applying a curve fitting algorithm (¶¶ 0019-20, 30) . Streder does not explicitly teach the ramp is linear; which is taught by Gilbert (¶ 0048; see also Fig. 3—310). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely a substitution of the linear ramp in Gilbert for the nonlinear ramp in Streder . Both are shown in the art of torque measurement as inputs to analyze a mechanical system. The only difference is the type of ramp itself. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that this substitution could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results. Streder does not explicitly teach a number of fitting parameters coincides with the mechanical system parameters of the system ; which is taught by Quintana (col. 13, lines 28-43; col. 15, lines 1-34). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Quintana —namely, to ensure that the algorithm is appropriate for the particular system and environment where the measurements are taken. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of torque measurement. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results. As per claim 2 , Streder in view of Gilbert and Quintana teaches claim 1 as above. Gilbert further teaches the ramp is a linear ramp (see above). Quintana further teaches the ramp of electrical torque is applied by ramping an input current from zero to a motor specific maximum (col. 18, lines 19-23). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely a combination of old elements in the art of torque measurement. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results. As per claim 10 , Streder in view of Gilbert and Quintana teaches an electric motor system comprising an electric motor and a frequency converter or drive ( Streder ¶ 0013-14) , wherein the electric motor system is provided for carrying out the method according to claim 1 (see citations and obviousness rationale above) . Conclusion Claims 3-7 and 11-20 recite calculations that could not be located within the prior art. As such, no prior art rejection has been issued. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Abler, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,656,768 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to measuring mechanical parameters of an electric motor system. Van Rens , U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0003618 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to measuring mechanical parameters of an electric motor system. Fisher, Jr., et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/010 7 899 (Reference F of the attached PTO-892) relates to measuring mechanical parameters of an electric motor system. Suh, et . al, Development and application of motor-equipped reaction torque sensor with adjustable measurement range and sensitivity , Applied Sciences , Vol. 10 , No . 24 , 2020 , 8770 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) relates to measuring mechanical parameters of an electric motor system. Son, et al., Novel method of deriving torque and speed curve of the permanent magnet synchronous motor using initial state finite element analysis , IEEE Transactions on Magnetics , Vol. 58 , No . 8 , Mar. 2022 , pgs. 1-6 (Reference V of the attached PTO-892) relates to measuring mechanical parameters of an electric motor system. H iguchi , et al., An improved digital measurement system of torque-speed curve plotting for motors , IEICE TRANSACTIONS (1976-1990) , Vol. 71 , No . 7 , 1988 , pgs. 709-717 (Reference W of the attached PTO-892) relates to measuring mechanical parameters of an electric motor system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1366 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00-6:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shannon Campbell can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5587 . 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. /DANIEL VETTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628