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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 4/11/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show structure details as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected; the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 12- 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea, and do not include an inventive concept that is something "significantly more" than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows (see claims analysis below). The claims recites a mathematical concept manifested in the calculations to compute different amounts of type of powers. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Note that, the “subtracting” and “integrating” steps are determined to recite a mathematical concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a generic aspect of performing the comparing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as
a general means of gathering computed power values for comparison step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the comparison step is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the comparison step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic compute component (a processor).
Re. Claim 12, A method (1) for limiting (3) a power of an electric motor (2), the method comprising: determining, by a processor, an estimated loading of the electric motor (2).
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Claim 12 recites the step of determining an estimated loading; therefore, is process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The claim recites the limitation of determining an estimated loading of the electric motor. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses the user manually calculating the
amount of loading. The mere nominal
recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654
F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category").
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical application?
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device “processor” or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
(See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something "significantly more" than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: "an electric motor" do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2
analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP
Page 6 §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the
abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.);
(see also, ,i,i 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.").
Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves.
Re. Claim 25, A method (1) for estimating a loading of an electric motor (2) in a vehicle, the method comprising:
calculating a power loss (5) by subtracting a mechanical motor power (7) from an electrical power (8) supplied to the electric motor (2);
determining a thermal power by subtracting a cooling capacity (6) from the power loss (5);
integrating the thermal power (9) over an operating period of the electric motor (2) so that a fictive thermal energy value (10) is obtained continually, and wherein the fictive energy value (10) represents the fictive thermal loading;
comparing the fictive energy value (10) with a downward-regulation function (12), wherein the downward-regulation function (12) relates a fictive thermal correction factor (11) as a function of the fictive energy value (10).
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Claim 25 recites a series of steps; therefore, is process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The claim recites a mathematical concept manifested in the calculations that is used to compute different amounts of type of powers. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Note that, the “subtracting” and “integrating” steps are determined to recite a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical application?
The claim recites a combination of additional elements including comparing the fictive energy value with a downward-regulation function wherein the downward-regulation function relates a fictive thermal correction factor as a function of the fictive energy value; wherein a generic aspect of performing the comparing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as
a general means of gathering computed power values for comparison step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which
is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. the comparison step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the comparison
step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer
component (a processor).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 12- 24 recite additional element is generic aspect for performing the comparing step at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering computed power values for comparison step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. the comparison step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the comparison step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processor).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
Claims 12- 26 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 claims 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.
Claims 14- 24 recite the phrase process (P1) to (P7), systems and processor configured to carry the steps of the claimed method. The specification does not define what are the process (P1) to (P7), systems and processor. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted does not enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention.
8. 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 12- 26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “determining, by a processor, an estimated loading of the electric motor.” The term estimated loading can refer to various contexts; whether, is mechanical, electrical or thermal…; rendering the claim indefinite, because the claim includes elements and functions not actually disclosed (those encompassed by the estimated loading), thereby rendering the claims confusing, vague, and indefinite.
Claim 14- 26 recite the term “fictive thermal loading,” “fictive energy value,” “fictive thermal correction factor” represent imaginary values as result of conceptual ideas with no meaning in the physical world such as mere ideas without the recitation of any tangible or physical elements for performing the recited functions in such a way to comply with 35 U.S.C 112, second paragraph. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. The claims are drafted in such a broad sense rendering the claims confusing, vague, and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12- 15 and 22- 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20230234418 A1).
Re. claim 12, Lee discloses a method for limiting a power of an electric motor (2), the method comprising:
determining, by a processor, an estimated loading of the electric motor (Fig. 1 is thermal management system as load).
Re. claim 13, Lee discloses determining, by the processor, a limitation (3) of the power based on the estimated loading (¶. [0017]) and based on a current operating parameter (4) of the electric motor (2), wherein the current operating parameter is selected from an actual rotation speed and an actual motor torque of the electric motor (¶. [0021]).
Re. claim 14, Lee discloses the estimated loading is a fictive thermal loading as the intelligent thermal load management module 132 in Fig. 1.
Re. claim 15, Lee discloses the fictive thermal loading is calculated on the basis of a power loss of the electric motor and on the basis of a cooling capacity of the electric motor (¶. [0017]).
Re. claims 22- 24, Figs 1 and 2 shows system, vehicle , and processor.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846