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 .
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Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.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 The response to this Non-Final Office Action requires a cancellation of the withdrawn claims.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 timing of a communication device without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited information does not improve the functionality of the MCU, but rather uses a computer to perform an abstract mathematical comparison of judging whether to communicate based on timing at which noise occurs. 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, conventional activities in the art such as comparing a time value to a threshold value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 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.
Claim 1, it is not clear what a communication between an MCU and an IC has anything to do with a “control device”, the claim seems incomplete. What are the MCU and IC controlling? Where does the noise occur and why does noise have anything to do with a communication between components? What “factor” is the claim referring to?
Claim 2, what does the timing of a motor stop signal outputted by an ECU have anything do with the communication between the MCU and IC?
Claims 5 and 6 recite a communication method including the same algorithm described in claims 1 and 2 which is found to be unclear and indefinite.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 must be rewritten to include clear limitations; the control device and communication method recited in the pending claims contain missing information that makes understanding the recited invention extremely confusing. Prior art will be applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: The meaning of “MCU”, “IC”, and “ECU” must be part of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 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 have been rejected under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112(b). A rejection will be provided based on the examiner’s best interpretation of the claimed subject matter.
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 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, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Publication 20150270796 describes a different motor system comprising a plurality of electronic devices for controlling communication between a motor and a master controller.
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