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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Adding conventional hardware elements such as micro controller unit and/or integrated circuit as channels for data does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Adding the final wherein clause merely links or connects the selection of the preferred timing to an external signal (stop command) is considered an insignificant post-solution limitation. Outputting a stop signal from a generic computer does not change the abstract nature of the “timing”.
The claim must show an improvement to the control device, which includes the micro controller unit and the integrated circuit, itself. The claim does not disclose “how” the control device is modified to accomplish the “timing” of the communication, or what the novel design of the control device is, or what non-generic steps are performed to handle the “noise”. The claim only states the desired functional result of “avoiding overlap”.
The claims recite purely functional limitations. The limitation added in the last wherein clause describes a result to be achieved instead of including the structural configuration of the control device that achieves the preferred result. Claim 1 does not specify the structures or algorithm required to establish the optimal “timing” that does not overlap with the “timing” at which noise occurs.
The boundaries of the claims are unclear. The limitation directed to “judging” the timing that does not overlap with a timing at which noise occurs due to a “factor related to the motor. What specific “factors” are taken into consideration? The limitations is too open-ended, since the factor is other than communication. The term “factor” is extremely broad and undefined: no one would know by reading the claims or the written description of the invention what physical events or operations would infringe the claim boundary.
The new amendment to the claims creates issues with 35 USC 112a, since the specification (paragraph 0036) describes an electronic control unit (ECU) 30 outputting or transmitting a “stop command” to the MCU due to the sensing of an abnormality. The stop command is sent from the MCU 12 to the integrated circuit 13 (pre-driver) that controls ON/OFF of a plurality of transistors found in bridge 14 that operates AC motor 20. However, the claims seem to suggest the “communication timing judgement portion” of the MCU 12 judges that the preferred timing for communication between the MCU 12 and the IC 13 is a “timing’ that does not overlap with timing at which noise occurs as a result of driving the motor, wherein said non-overlapping timing is a timing at which a stop command is input from the ECU to the MCU. The current claims give the impression the MCU and the IC only communicate when a “stop command” is outputted by the ECU, however the specification clearly points out the MCU and IC communicate at various times (see paragraph 0037).
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/2/26. The response to this Final Office Action requires a cancellation of the withdrawn claims.
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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, especially a mathematical algorithm. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for managing communication “timing” between generic hardware elements micro controller unit and integrated circuit of a control device without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited information does not improve the functionality of any of the recited structural components (control device, micro controller unit, integrated circuit, or electronic control circuit) but rather uses generic computer elements to perform an abstract mathematical comparison of “judging” when structural components should communicate based on preferred “timing”, wherein the preferred timing is a timing where noise does not occur. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they represent routine and conventional activities performed by generic elements that do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
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.
6. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure does not support only communicating after a stop command has been outputted from an electronic control unit to the micro controller unit.
7. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 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 amendment to independent claims 1 and 5 describes a preferred timing for communication between the micro controller unit and the integrated circuit, wherein is a timing at which a stop command of the motor is input from an electronic control unit to “the communication timing judgement portion” of the micro controller unit. The original documents do not provide any specific description of what the “communication timing judgement portion” or the “communication portion” of a micro controller unit could possibly be. The specification only supports hardware elements such as MCU (micro controller unit), IC (integrated circuit), ECU (electronic control unit), and other digital elements for performing the recited functions. Therefore, describing the micro controller unit as having portions performing specific functions is not descriptive of what applicant regards as his invention. Applicant must describe what the different “portions” of the recited digital elements are in order to overcome this rejection.
8. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 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.
Please refer to the section labeled “Response to Arguments” above for a detailed description of the specific limitations that are considered unclear.
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) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leehey et al (US Patent 7719214).
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are continuing to be rejected under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112. An art rejection can only be provided to the invention as it is best understood by the examiner.
Claims 1 and 5, Leehey et al teaches a communication method and a control device comprising a microcontroller unit 710, an integrated circuit 730, an output power stage 735, and a motor 115, wherein the communication between circuit components and the motor is interrupted based on disturbances (abnormality) detected in the system due to a series of factors as described for example in col. 2 lines 15-28.
Leehey et al does not particularly describe the disturbances is related directly to “noise”, however intermittent overcurrent conditions can be caused by electromagnetic interference EMI and high-frequency switching noise which is common in variable frequency drives in motor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to interpret the overcurrent detected in the motor system of Leehey et al being caused by electromagnetic noise since as Leehey et al points out the use of electromagnetic filter 502 is needed to protect the motor system from overcurrent-induced damage by suppressing high-frequency noise that cause erratic behavior.
Claims 2 and 6, claim 2 depend from claim 1. However, claim 1 has not established the meaning of the abbreviation “ECU”. Therefore, prior art will be applied with the understanding that ECU means “electronic control unit” as described in claim 1. Leehey et al teaches an electronic control unit 105 for outputting a motor stop signal to the microcontroller unit 710 and integrated circuit 730 based on feedback data.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 2846
Prosecution Insights