DETAILED ACTION
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 claims
Claims 1 and 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claims 2-6, 8, 11-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 and 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1:
1. A device assembly comprising:
a device;
a measuring instrument coupled to said device, said measuring instrument configured to generate data; and
a controller communicatively coupled to said measuring instrument, said controller configured to perform a state estimation calculation based on the data to calculate a state estimate of said device for a time.
Analysis Steps for claim 1:
Step 1: Is claim 1 claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 recites a device assembly which is within one of the 4 statutory categories the process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2a) Prong One: Does claim 1 recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites “perform a state estimation calculation based on the data to calculate a state estimate of said device for a time” may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea.
Step 2a) Prong Two: Does claim 1 recite additional element that integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “a device; a measuring instrument coupled to said device, said measuring instrument configured to generate data” which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The measuring instrument coupled to the device is merely generally measurement data collection of the device which is insignificant pre-solution activity, that is having the measuring instrument coupled to said device to generate data which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
No, claim 1 recites additional elements “a controller communicatively coupled to said measuring instrument” which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application because the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The controller communicatively coupled to said measuring instrument is merely for generally measurement data transmission of the device which is insignificant pre-solution activity, that is having the measuring instrument coupled to said device to generate data which does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
Step 2b): Does claim 1 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, when considering claim 1 as a whole, having the measuring instrument coupled to the device is merely generally measurement data collection of the device and having the controller communicatively coupled to the measuring instrument do not amount to significantly more than judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
PNG
media_image1.png
949
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein said measuring instrument is a temperature measuring instrument (e.g. it is merely generally temperature measurement data collection of the device which is insignificant pre-solution activity), said device assembly further comprising a current measuring instrument coupled to said device (e.g. it is merely generally current measurement data collection of the device which is insignificant pre-solution activity), said current measuring instrument configured to generate current data (e.g. it is merely generally current measurement data collection of the device which is insignificant pre-solution activity), wherein said controller is configured to perform the state estimation calculation further based on the current data to calculate the state estimate of said device for the time (e.g. It may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein said device is a motor, wherein said current measuring instrument is configured to generate the current data based on current input into said motor (e.g. it is merely generally current measurement data collection of the device which is insignificant pre-solution activity).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein said device comprises a printed circuit board, wherein said measuring instrument is coupled to said printed circuit board of said device (e.g. it is merely for connecting the measurement instrument to the device which is insignificant pre-solution activity).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein the time is a second time, wherein said measuring instrument is configured to generate the data at a first time before the second time (e.g. it is merely generally measurement data collection of the device which is insignificant pre-solution activity).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein said controller is further configured to determine whether said device is at risk at the time based on the state estimate by determining whether the state estimate exceeds a predetermined threshold state estimate, wherein said device is at risk when said controller determines the state estimate exceeds the threshold state estimate (e.g. it may be mental determined by comparisons with threshold values which is abstract idea).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein the data is second data generated after first data, wherein the state estimation calculation is a second state estimation calculation performed after a first state estimation calculation (e.g. It may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea), wherein said controller is further configured to perform the first state estimation calculation based on the first data to calculate a first state estimate of said device for a first time, wherein said controller is configured to perform the second state estimation calculation further based on the first state estimate (e.g. It may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein the time is a third time, wherein the state estimate is a third state estimate, wherein said controller is further configured to calculate a first state estimate of said device for a first time (e.g. It may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea), wherein said controller is further configured to calculate a second state estimate of said device for a second time based on the first state estimate, wherein said controller is configured to perform the third state estimate further based on the second state estimate (e.g. It may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein said controller is configured to perform the state estimation calculation by using a Kalman Filter (e.g. It may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein the state estimate is a state of health estimate (e.g. it is a result of the person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen which may be a post-solution activity by specifying a name for the result of the estimate).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein said measuring instrument is a first measuring instrument, wherein said data is first data, wherein said first measuring instrument is further configured to generate second data (e.g. it is merely generally measurement data collection which is insignificant pre-solution activity), said device assembly further comprising a second measuring instrument configured to generate third data (e.g. it is merely generally measurement data collection which is insignificant pre-solution activity), wherein said controller is further configured to merge the second and third data to produce merged data (e.g. It may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen to merge data; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein the state estimation calculation is a first state estimation calculation, wherein said controller is configured to merge the second and the third data by performing a second state estimation calculation using a Kalman Filter (e.g. It may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, wherein the state estimation calculation is a first state estimation calculation, wherein the state estimate is a first state estimate, wherein said controller is further configured to perform a second state estimation calculation based on the merged data (e.g. It may be done by mental through paper and pen such that a person may perform this mathematical calculation through paper and pen; therefore, mathematical calculation is abstract idea).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, further comprising a system-in-package including said first measuring instrument, said second measuring instrument, and said controller (e.g. it is insignificant general solution activity merely protecting the first measuring instrument, the second measuring instrument, and the controller in a package).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is analogously rejected as in claim 1, further comprising a system-in-package including said measuring instrument and said controller (e.g. it is insignificant general solution activity merely protecting the measuring instrument and the controller in a package).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atarashi (US 6,700,400).
Regarding independent claim 1, Atarashi teaches a device assembly (fig. 2, control apparatus 10) comprising:
a device (e.g. figs. 2-3, motor 11);
a measuring instrument (e.g. figs. 2-3, detecting unit 26 includes rotor temperature sensor 44, winding temperature sensor 45) coupled to said device (e.g. figs. 2-3, detecting unit 26 includes rotor temperature sensor 44, winding temperature sensor 45 which couples to motor 11 as shown in fig. 3),
said measuring instrument configured to generate data (e.g. figs. 2-3, detecting unit 26 includes rotor temperature sensor 44 generate temperature data Tmag, and winding temperature sensor 45 temperature data T1, …,Tn); and
a controller (e.g. figs. 2-3, calculating unit 27 which controls communication with memory 28 and display 29) communicatively coupled to said measuring instrument (e.g. figs. 2-3, calculating unit 27 coupled to detecting unit 26 includes rotor temperature sensor 44 and winding temperature sensor 45 to receive corresponding temperature data Tmag and temperature data T1, …,Tn),
said controller configured to perform a state estimation calculation based on the data to calculate a state estimate of said device for a time (e.g. figs. 2-3 and 8, Ke generated by Ke calculating unit 53 based on temperature Tmag, and induced voltage E is voltage state of the motor 11 which is calculated based on Ke according to equation 9 as described in column 24: lines 5-13, for a time when temperature Tmag is increased or decrease according to fig. 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
1390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Atarashi teaches wherein the time is a second time (e.g. fig. 3, column 25: lines 42-44, T2 is a detected temperature at a second time), wherein said measuring instrument is configured to generate the data at a first time before the second time (e.g. fig. 3, column ***, the detecting unit 26 generates T1 is a detected temperature at a first time before the second time when T2 is detected).
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 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.
Claims 2-3, 8, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atarashi (US 6,700,400), and further in view of Liu (CN 101264737 A).
Regarding claim 2, Atarashi is silent with regard to wherein said controller is further configured to (i) determine whether said device is at risk at the time based on the state estimate, and (ii) generate a fault signal to trigger said device to modify operation in response to determining said device is at risk.
Liu teaches (i) determine whether said device is at risk at a time based on a state estimate (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, motor is at overheated risk based on an overheated temperature estimate), and (ii) generate a fault signal to trigger said device to modify operation in response to determining said device is at risk (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, the motor stops running in response to the motor is at overheated risk, and fault signal is generated to activate software off to stop running the motor).
It would produce a predictive result of having the controller to implement the teaching of Liu above to ensure that a life expectance of the device by stopping the device when the device is overheated (e.g. Liu, fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Atarashi by applying the teaching of Liu to explicitly have wherein said controller is further configured to (i) determine whether said device is at risk at the time based on the state estimate, and (ii) generate a fault signal to trigger said device to modify operation in response to determining said device is at risk, for the purpose of ensuring the life expectance of the device by stopping the device when the device is overheated (e.g. Liu, fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section).
Regarding claim 3, combination of Atarashi and Liu teaches wherein said device is configured to modify operation by shutting down (e.g. Liu, fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, the motor stops running as a result of the software off).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Atarashi and Liu teaches wherein said controller is further configured to determine whether said device is at risk at the time based on the state estimate (e.g. Liu, e.g. Liu, fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, motor is at overheated risk based on an overheated state) by determining whether the state estimate exceeds a predetermined threshold state estimate (e.g. Liu, last paragraph of Description section, when the motor is overheated, temperature detected by temperature sensor is send to DSP program implementing software off, it is obvious and logical to compare a maximum temperature as a predetermined threshold temperature with the detected temperature to determine a motor overheated condition because the motor functions under a maximum temperature that the motor is designed to operates, if the motor runs at a temperature greater than the maximum temperature, the motor is overheated), wherein said device is at risk (e.g. Liu, e.g. Liu, fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, motor is at overheated risk when the motor is overheated) when said controller determines the state estimate exceeds the threshold state estimate (e.g. Liu, e.g. Liu, last paragraph of Description section, when the motor is overheated, temperature detected by temperature sensor is send to DSP program implementing software off, it is obvious and logical to compare a maximum temperature as a predetermined threshold temperature with the detected temperature to determine a motor overheated condition because the motor functions under a maximum temperature that the motor is designed to operates, if the motor runs at a temperature greater than the maximum temperature, the motor is overheated).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is analogously rejected as in claim 2 where combination of Atarashi and Liu teaches wherein the state estimate is a state of health estimate (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, motor is at overheated risk based on an overheated temperature estimate, and the overheated temperature estimate is a health estimate).
Regarding independent claim 18, Atarashi a device assembly (fig. 2, control apparatus 10) comprising:
a device (e.g. figs. 2-3, motor 11);
a plurality of measuring instruments configured to generate data (e.g. figs. 2-3, abstract, rotation sensor 41, torque sensor 42, position sensor 43, rotor temperature sensor 44, winding temperature 45, phase voltage detector 46, and phase current detectors 47 are configure to generate corresponding measurement data);
a fusion controller communicatively coupled to said plurality of measuring instruments (e.g. figs. 2-3, abstract, feedback control unit 23 coupled to rotation sensor 41, torque sensor 42, position sensor 43, rotor temperature sensor 44, winding temperature sensor 45, phase voltage detector 46, and phase current detectors 47 via calculating unit 27), wherein said fusion controller is configured to merge the data (e.g. figs. 2-3, feedback control unit merges two Id data to a merged current data ΔIq and merges two Iq data to obtain a merged current data ΔId);
a temperature measurement controller (e.g. figs. 2-3, abstract, calculating unit 27 associated with detecting unit 26 having the rotor temperature sensor 44 and the winding temperature 45) communicatively coupled to said fusion controller (e.g. figs. 2-3, calculating unit 27 associated with detecting unit 26 coupled to feedback control unit 23),
However, Atarashi is silent with regard to
wherein said temperature measurement controller is configured to: (i) perform a state estimation calculation based on the merged data to calculate a state estimate of said device for a time, (ii) determine whether said device is at risk at the time based on the state estimate, and (iii) generate a fault signal in response to determining said device is at risk; and
a device controller configured to trigger said device to modify operation in response to determining said device is at risk.
Liu teaches (i) perform a state estimation calculation based on current data to calculate a state estimate of said device for a time (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, an overheated temperature estimation state is calculated based on current to calculate an overheated temperature estimate of a motor for a time that required to estimate the temperature), (ii) determine whether said device is at risk at the time based on the state estimate (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, motor is at overheated risk based on a temperature estimate for a time that required to estimate the temperature), and (iii) generate a fault signal in response to determining said device is at risk (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, the motor stops running in response to the motor is at overheated risk, and fault signal is generated to activate software off to stop running the motor); and
a device controller configured to trigger said device to modify operation in response to determining said device is at risk (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, the motor stops running in response to the motor is at overheated risk, and fault signal is generated to activate software off to stop running the motor by a DSP controller).
It would produce a predictive result of having the corresponding temperature measurement controller and a device controller to implement the teaching of Liu above to ensure that a life expectance of the device by stopping the device when the device is overheated (e.g. Liu, fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Atarashi by applying the teaching of Liu to explicitly have wherein said temperature measurement controller is configured to: (i) perform a state estimation calculation based on the merged data to calculate a state estimate of said device for a time, (ii) determine whether said device is at risk at the time based on the state estimate, and (iii) generate a fault signal in response to determining said device is at risk; and a device controller configured to trigger said device to modify operation in response to determining said device is at risk, for the purpose of ensuring the life expectance of the device by stopping the device when the device is overheated (e.g. Liu, fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section).
Regarding independent claim 20, Atarashi teaches a temperature measurement apparatus (e.g. fig. 3, abstract, constant detecting apparatus 15 comprising a detecting unit 16 having rotor temperature sensor 44, winding temperature sensor 45) comprising:
an estimation engine (e.g. figs. 3, abstract, calculating unit 27 performs estimation calculation) to:
obtain temperature data from a temperature measuring instrument of a device (e.g. figs. 2-3, obtain temperature data from rotor temperature sensor 44, winding temperature sensor 45).
However, Atarashi is silent with regard to
perform a state estimation calculation based on the temperature data to calculate a state estimate of the device for a time; and
a fault identifier to:
determine whether the device is at risk of overheating at the time based on the state estimate, and
generate a fault signal to trigger the device to adjust operation in response to determining the device is at risk of overheating.
Liu teaches perform a state estimation calculation based on temperature data to calculate a state estimate of the device for a time (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, an overheated temperature estimation state is calculated based on temperature, and the temperature is based current, to calculate an overheated temperature estimate of a motor for a time that required to estimate the temperature).
a fault identifier (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, DSP controller) to:
determine whether the device is at risk of overheating at the time based on the state estimate (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, motor is at overheated risk based on a temperature estimate for a time that required to estimate the temperature), and
generate a fault signal to trigger the device to adjust operation in response to determining the device is at risk of overheating (e.g. fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section, the motor stops running in response to the motor is at overheated risk, and fault signal is generated to activate software off to stop running the motor).
It would produce a predictive result of having the corresponding estimation engine and a fault identifier controller to implement the teaching of Liu above to ensure that a life expectance of the device by stopping the device when the device is overheated (e.g. Liu, fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Atarashi by applying the teaching of Liu to explicitly have estimation engine configured to perform a state estimation calculation based on the temperature data to calculate a state estimate of the device for a time; and a fault identifier to: determine whether the device is at risk of overheating at the time based on the state estimate, and generate a fault signal to trigger the device to adjust operation in response to determining the device is at risk of overheating, for the purpose of ensuring the life expectance of the device by stopping the device when the device is overheated (e.g. Liu, fig. 1, last paragraph of Description section).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atarashi (US 6,700,400), and further in view of Senoo (US 2013/0028292).
Regarding claim 4, Atarashi teaches wherein said measuring instrument is a temperature measuring instrument (e.g. Atarashi, figs. 2-3, detecting unit 26 includes rotor temperature sensor 44 generate temperature data Tmag, and winding temperature sensor 45 temperature data T1, …,Tn), said device assembly further comprising a current measuring instrument coupled to said device (e.g. Atarashi, figs. 2-3, rotor temperature sensor 44 coupled to motor 11), said current measuring instrument configured to generate current data (e.g. Atarashi, figs. 2-3, abstract, phase current detectors 47 generates current data).
Atarashi is silent with regard to wherein said controller is configured to perform the state estimation calculation further based on the current data to calculate the state estimate of said device for the time.
Senoo a controller is configured to perform a state estimation calculation further based on current data (e.g. fig. 2, abstract, detect current value to estimate rotor temperature).
It would produce a predictive result of using detected current value to estimate motor temperature to calculate the state estimate of a device for a time as rejected in claim 1 above, Atarashi teaches using detected temperature data to calculate the state estimate of a device for the time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Atarashi by applying the teaching of Senoo to explicitly have wherein said controller is configured to perform the state estimation calculation further based on the current data to calculate the state estimate of said device for the time, for the purpose of obtaining an additional temperature estimation for further comparison and/or enabling secondary temperature estimation in an event when temperature detector is not working.
Regarding claim 5, combination of Atarashi and Senoo teaches wherein said device is a motor (e.g. Atarashi, figs. 2-3, motor 11), wherein said current measuring instrument is configured to generate the current data based on current input into said motor (e.g. Atarashi, figs. 2-3, abstract, phase current detectors 47 generates current data based on corresponding input current of U phase and input current of W phase into the motor 11).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atarashi (US 6,700,400), and further in view of Uematsu et al. (US 2013/0069579).
Regarding claim 6, Atarashi is silent with regard to wherein said device comprises a printed circuit board, wherein said measuring instrument is coupled to said printed circuit board of said device.
Uematsu teaches a device comprises a printed circuit board, wherein a measuring instrument is coupled to said printed circuit board of said device (e.g. fig. 1, [0037], motor 2 comprise a printed circuit board where at temperature sensing element 23 is mounted on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Atarashi by applying the teaching of Uematsu to explicitly have wherein said device comprises a printed circuit board, wherein said measuring instrument is coupled to said printed circuit board of said device, for the purpose of protecting sensors form overheating (e.g. Uematsu, [0037]) by mounting sensors on the printed circuit board.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atarashi (US 6,700,400), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0341062).
Regarding claim 11, Atarashi is silent with regard to wherein said controller is configured to perform the state estimation calculation by using a Kalman Filter.
Wang teaches perform a state estimation calculation by using a Kalman Filter (e.g. [0014] and [044], temperature state is estimating using Kalman filter).
It would produce a predictive result of using the controller to implement a Kalman filter to estimation a temperature state, for the purpose of, estimating real-time temperature more reliably (e.g. Wang, [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Atarashi by applying the teaching of Wang to explicitly have wherein said controller is configured to perform the state estimation calculation by using a Kalman Filter, for the purpose of estimating real-time temperature more reliably (e.g. Wang, [0014]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atarashi (US 6,700,400), and further in view of Henderson (US 2015/0381091).
Regarding claim 17, Atarashi is silent with regard to further comprising a system-in-package including said measuring instrument and said controller.
Henderson teaches a system-in-package including a device and a controller (e.g. fig. 1, [0023], a system-in-package 10 includes inverter 14 and control element 16).
It would produce a predictive result of having a system-in-package to package said measuring instrument and said controller for form a system, for the purpose of reducing signal communication time and/or reducing wiring complexity and length by bring the measuring instrument and the controller closure to the motor to from a package device; therefore, increasing measurement and processing efficiencies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Atarashi by applying the teaching of Henderson to explicitly have further comprising a system-in-package including said measuring instrument and said controller, for the purpose of reducing signal communication time and/or reducing wiring complexity and length by bring the measuring instrument and the controller closure to the motor to from a package device; therefore, increasing measurement and processing efficiencies.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atarashi (US 6,700,400) in view of Liu (CN 101264737 A), and further in view of Henderson (US 2015/0381091).
Regarding claim 19, combination of Atarashi and Liu is silent with regard to further comprising a system-in-package including said plurality of measuring instruments, said fusion controller, said temperature measurement controller, and said device controller.
Henderson teaches a system-in-package including a device and a controller (e.g. fig. 1, [0023], a system-in-package 10 includes inverter 14 and control element 16).
It would produce a predictive result of having a system-in-package to package said plurality of measuring instruments, said fusion controller, said temperature measurement controller, and said device controller, for the purpose of reducing signal communication time and/or reducing wiring complexity and length by bring the measuring instrument and the controller closure to the motor to from a package device; therefore, increasing measurement and processing efficiencies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Atarashi by applying the teaching of Henderson to explicitly have further comprising a system-in-package including said plurality of measuring instruments, said fusion controller, said temperature measurement controller, and said device controller, for the purpose of reducing signal communication time and/or reducing wiring complexity and length by bring the measuring instrument and the controller closure to the motor to from a package device; therefore, increasing measurement and processing efficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 9-10 and 13-16 are properly overcome without broadening the scopes of claims 9-10 and 13-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (571) 272-7924. 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.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858