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 .
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 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-10 and 12 are directed to specifying values and determining other values, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claims 8, 10 and 12) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method (100) for determining an angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) between a zero position of a rotor position sensor (210) of an electric machine (220) and an orientation of the permanent magnets of the electric machine (220), wherein the electric machine (220) is controlled by way of a field-oriented control, and the rotor of the electric machine (220) rotates, the method comprising the steps of:
specifying (150) a first d setpoint current value (Id_soll_1) not equal to zero amps and specifying a first q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_1);
determining (155) a first d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_1) and a first q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_1);
specifying (160) a second d setpoint current value (Id_soll_2), wherein the second d setpoint current value (Id_soll_2) corresponds to the value of the first d setpoint current value (Id_soll_1) with the complementary mathematical sign, specifying a second q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_2), wherein the second q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_2) corresponds to the value of the first q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_1) with the complementary mathematical sign;
determining (170) a second d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_2) and a second q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_2);
determining (175) an angle error (PhiErr_opt) on the basis of the determined first d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_1), the first q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_1); the second d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_2) and the second q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_2); and
determining (180) the angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) on the basis of the angle error (PhiErr_opt).
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mathematical concepts and mental processes performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a rotor position sensor (210) of an electric machine (220)… permanent magnets of the electric machine” and “the electric machine (220) is controlled by way of a field-oriented control, and the rotor of the electric machine (220) rotates,” (which in this instance do not actually perform any of the claim steps and are all listed in the preamble which are not necessarily limiting) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a mathematical concept or performed in the mind. For example, but for the “rotor position sensor (210) of an electric machine (220)… permanent magnets of the electric machine” and “electric machine (220) is controlled by way of a field-oriented control, and the rotor of the electric machine (220) rotates,” language, “determining (175) an angle error (PhiErr_opt) on the basis of the determined first d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_1), the first q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_1); the second d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_2) and the second q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_2); and determining (180) the angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) on the basis of the angle error (PhiErr_opt)” (claims 3-6 define the specific formulas for determining these values) in the context of this claim encompasses mathematical concepts. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “specifying (150) a first d setpoint current value (Id_soll_1) not equal to zero amps and specifying a first q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_1); determining (155) a first d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_1) and a first q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_1); specifying (160) a second d setpoint current value (Id_soll_2), wherein the second d setpoint current value (Id_soll_2) corresponds to the value of the first d setpoint current value (Id_soll_1) with the complementary mathematical sign, specifying a second q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_2), wherein the second q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_2) corresponds to the value of the first q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_1) with the complementary mathematical sign; determining (170) a second d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_2) and a second q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_2)” in the context of this claim encompasses mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites a few additional elements – “a rotor position sensor (210) of an electric machine (220)… permanent magnets of the electric machine”, “the electric machine (220) is controlled by way of a field-oriented control, and the rotor of the electric machine (220) rotates,”, “a logic unit” (claims 8 and 10), “a device” (claim 8), “a powertrain” (claim 9), “a vehicle” (claim 10) and “a computer” (claim 12) (which in these instances do not actually perform any of the claim steps, except for the logic unit, and are all listed in the preamble which are not necessarily limiting). The “electric machine (220) … a field-oriented control, and the rotor of the electric machine (220),”, “logic unit” (claims 8 and 10), “device” (claim 8), “powertrain” (claim 9), “vehicle” (claim 10) and “computer” (claim 12) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a rotor position sensor (210) of an electric machine (220)… permanent magnets of the electric machine”, “the electric machine (220) is controlled by way of a field-oriented control, and the rotor of the electric machine (220) rotates,”, “a logic unit” (claims 8 and 10), “a device” (claim 8), “a powertrain” (claim 9), “a vehicle” (claim 10) and “a computer” (claim 12) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “electric machine (220) … a field-oriented control, and the rotor of the electric machine (220),”, “logic unit” (claims 8 and 10), “device” (claim 8), “powertrain” (claim 9), “vehicle” (claim 10) and “computer” (claim 12) are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Publication No. DE 11 2018 001 646 T5 to Asai et al. (“Asai”) in view of United States Patent No. 6,984,957 B2 to Tajima et al. (“Tajima”).
As per claims 1, 8-10 and 12, the claimed subject matter that is met by Asai includes:
A method (100) for determining an angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) between a zero position of a rotor position sensor (210) of an electric machine (220) and an orientation of the permanent magnets of the electric machine (220), wherein the electric machine (220) is controlled by way of a field-oriented control, and the rotor of the electric machine (220) rotates, the method comprising the steps of (Asai: ¶¶ 0001-0004 and 0026):
specifying (150) a first d setpoint current value (Id_soll_1) not equal to zero amps and specifying a first q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_1) (Asai: ¶¶ 0026 and 0034);
determining (155) a first d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_1) and a first q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_1) (Asai: ¶ 0034);
specifying (160) a second d setpoint current value (Id_soll_2), wherein the second d setpoint current value (Id_soll_2) corresponds to the value of the first d setpoint current value (Id_soll_1) with the complementary mathematical sign, specifying a second q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_2), wherein the second q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_2) corresponds to the value of the first q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_1) with the complementary mathematical sign (Asai: ¶¶ 0035-0036);
determining (170) a second d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_2) and a second q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_2) (Asai: ¶¶ 0042-0043);
determining (175) an angle error (PhiErr_opt) on the basis of the determined first d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_1), the first q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_1); the second d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_2) and the second q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_2) (Asai: ¶¶ 0054-0063 and 0103-0110); and
determining (180) the angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) on the basis of the angle error (PhiErr_opt) (Asai: ¶¶ 0054-0063 and 0103-0110).
Asai fails to specifically teach determining (180) the angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) on the basis of the angle error (PhiErr_opt) in the same way as described by the Instant Specification. The Examiner provides Tajima to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Tajima includes:
determining (180) the angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) on the basis of the angle error (PhiErr_opt) (Tajima: column 4, lines 25-38).
Asai teaches a system and method of determining angle error of an electronic machine. Tajima teaches a comparable system and method of determining angle error of an electronic machine that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Tajima offers the embodiment of determining (180) the angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) on the basis of the angle error (PhiErr_opt) in the same way as the Instant Specification. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the angle difference calculations as disclosed by Tajima to the calculations as taught by Asai for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of determining angle error of an electronic machine. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 2, the claimed subject matter that is met by Asai and Tajima includes:
determining an angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) according to claim 1, wherein the first q setpoint current value (Iq_soll_1) is specified as equal to zero amps (Tajima: column 3, lines 37-60).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Asai and Tajima are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 3, the claimed subject matter that is met by Asai and Tajima includes:
wherein the determination (175) of the angle error (PhiErr_opt) is performed as a function of the arctangent of the quotient of a first sum of the first d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_1) and the second d setpoint voltage (Ud_soll_2), and a second sum of the first q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_1), and the second q setpoint voltage (Uq_soll_2) (Tajima: column 3, lines 61 through column 4, line 38).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Asai and Tajima are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, the claimed subject matter that is met by Asai and Tajima includes:
determining (182) the angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) as a function of a specified angle difference (PhiOffs_vor) (Tajima: column 3, lines 61 through column 4, line 38).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Asai and Tajima are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, the claimed subject matter that is met by Asai and Tajima includes:
wherein the specified angle difference (PhiOffs_vor) is determined as a function of a specified angle error (PhiErr_vor) (Tajima: column 3, lines 61 through column 4, line 38).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Asai and Tajima are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by Asai and Tajima includes:
wherein the specified angle error (PhiErr_vor) is determined as a function of a zero current control or a test pulse method (Tajima: column 3, lines 37 through column 4, line 38).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Asai and Tajima are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Asai and Tajima includes:
wherein the determination of the angle difference (PhiOffs_opt) takes place in dependence of the difference of the specified angle difference (PhiOffs_vor) and the angle error (PhiErr_opt) (Tajima: column 3, lines 37 through column 4, line 38).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Asai and Tajima are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627