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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fancellu et al. (US Pub. # 20200186062), hereinafter referred to as Fancellu, in view of Tanaka et al. (EP 2688197), hereinafter referred to as Tanaka.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Fancellu teaches, “A method for monitoring a motor (claim 13: extracting current ripples from raw current values drawn by a motor) within a [seat assembly] in an automotive vehicle (see para. [0002, 0007]; discussion related to controlling motor of a vehicle), the method comprising the steps of measuring raw current values drawn by the motor to reposition the seat assembly (see abstract, para. [0068], claim 1, and Fig. 23, ref. # 122); temporally dividing the raw current values into sections based on size and variations in the raw current values (see para. [0049, 0076]; Fig. 18, 19, ref. #’s 131, 135, 137, 139, 143); filtering the raw current values in each section to obtain filtered current values (see at least claim 8; “wherein the controller includes a digital bandpass filter unit for isolating the plurality of ripple peaks”); detecting local peaks within the filtered current values (see at least claim 13: wherein the local peaks correspond to the current ripples) (see at least claim 1; “count the plurality of ripple peaks determined to be valid”); and determining a rotational position or a speed of the motor based on the detected local peaks (see at least claim 1; “determine at least one of the rotational position and the speed of the electric motor”).” Fancellu does not necessarily teach, “monitoring a motor within a seat assembly in an automotive vehicle.” However, Tanaka teaches the deficiencies of Fancellu (see at least claim 19 and para. [0001–0003]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fancellu’s invention to include monitoring a motor within a seat assembly in an automotive vehicle.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fancellu’s invention for at least the purpose of allowing control of the motor via detection of signals from the current values, without the use of extra detection devices, as taught by the combination of Fancellu and Tanaka (see Tanaka, para. [0001–0003]).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fancellu in view of Tanaka as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Pellegrinetti et al. (US Pub. # 20190390500), hereinafter referred to as Pellegrinetti.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Fancellu in combination with Tanaka does not appear to teach, “wherein the step of filtering the raw current values comprises the steps of applying an adaptive filter to the raw current values to obtain the filtered current values, wherein the adaptive filter includes a plurality of filter coefficients; and adjusting the plurality of filter coefficients based on the variations in the raw current values.” However, Pellegrinetti teaches the deficiencies of Fancellu and Tanaka (see para. [0064]; adaptive digital filter 104). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fancellu and Tanaka’s invention to include wherein the step of filtering the raw current values comprises the steps of applying an adaptive filter to the raw current values to obtain the filtered current values, wherein the adaptive filter includes a plurality of filter coefficients; and adjusting the plurality of filter coefficients based on the variations in the raw current values.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fancellu and Tanaka’s invention for at least the purpose of controlling (suppressing) low-frequency harmonic components, resulting in removal of unwanted detection signals.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Fancellu teaches, “wherein the adaptive filter comprises a finite impulse response filter, a rolling average filter, or an infinite impulse response filter (see para. [0052]).”
Claim(s) 4, 5, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fancellu in view of Tanaka and Pellegrinetti, as applied to claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of Son et al. (US Pub. # 20190253010), hereinafter referred to as Son.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Fancellu in combination with Tanaka and Pellegrinetti do not appear to teach, “determining a median value of the filtered current values for each section to obtain a plurality of sequential median values.” However, Son teaches the deficiencies of Fancellu, Tanaka, and Pellegrinetti (see para. [0050]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fancellu, Tanaka, and Pellegrinetti’s invention to include determining a median value of the filtered current values for each section to obtain a plurality of sequential median values.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fancellu, Tanaka, and Pellegrinetti’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring highly reliable detection among the many irregular ripples, resulting in finer control of the vehicle motor rotation.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Fancellu teaches, “determining a trend in the plurality of sequential median values; and removing the trend from the plurality of sequential median values to obtain detrended values (see para. [0052]; “The controller 110 is also configured to remove a direct current portion of the motor current signal...).”
Claim(s) 6, 7, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fancellu in view of Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, and Son, as applied to claims 4, 5, 16, and 17 above, and further in view of Breynaert et al. (US Pub. # 20200343842), hereinafter referred to as Breynaert.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Fancellu in combination with Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, and Son do not appear to teach, “determining a difference in magnitude between successive detrended values to obtain delta values.” However, Breynaert teaches the deficiencies of Fancellu in combination with Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, and Son (see Fig. 4, ref. # 114). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fancellu, Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, and Son’s invention to include determining a difference in magnitude between successive detrended values to obtain delta values.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fancellu, Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, and Son’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring most accurate control of the smoothed/filtered signal from which the motor is controlled (see para. [0001–0003] of Breynaert).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Tanaka teaches, “identifying a plurality of peaks in the delta values; and determining which of the plurality of peaks has an amplitude greater than a threshold, wherein the peaks having an amplitude greater than the threshold correspond to the local peaks detected within the filtered current values (see at least para. [0408–0412] and claim 13; “comparing the pulse cycle measured in the first processes to a first threshold”).”
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fancellu’s invention for at least the purpose of allowing control of the motor via detection of signals from the current values, without the use of extra detection devices, as taught by the combination of Fancellu and Tanaka (see Tanaka, para. [0001–0003]).
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fancellu in view of Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, Son, and Breynaert, as applied to claims 6, 7, 18, and 19 above, and further in view of Forster et al. (US Pub. # 20210044228), hereinafter referred to as Forster.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the combination of Fancellu, Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, Son, and Breynaert do not appear to teach, “filtering the delta values using a Kalman filter prior to identifying the plurality of peaks in the delta values.” However, Forster teaches the deficiencies of Fancellu, Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, Son, and Breynaert (see abstract and claim 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fancellu, Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, Son, and Breynaert’s invention to include filtering the delta values using a Kalman filter prior to identifying the plurality of peaks in the delta values.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Fancellu, Tanaka, Pellegrinetti, Son, and Breynaert’s invention for at least the purpose of utilizing a well-known filter known for superior optimization and very efficient computational tasks, resulting in reduced noise and most accurate data estimates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9–12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 9–12, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “determining a median value of the filtered current values for each section to obtain a plurality of sequential median values; determining a trend in the plurality of sequential median values; removing the trend from the plurality of sequential median values to obtain detrended values; determining a difference in magnitude between successive detrended values to obtain delta values; identifying a plurality of peaks in the delta values; determining which of the plurality of peaks has an amplitude greater than a threshold, wherein the peaks having an amplitude greater than the threshold correspond to detected local peaks within the filtered current values; and determining a rotational position or a speed based on the detected local peaks.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach motor control systems and methods with configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852