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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 0079 discloses α axis 212, which should be α axis 312 according to fig. 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are ineligible.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1 and 14 are a device/ a method facility for determining a sector. These involve multiple mathematical steps.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a machine/process, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Limitations “receive….a sum” in lines 5 and 6, “compare…” in lines 7 and 8, “determine a sector” in line 8 in claim 1, “receiving…..a sum” in line 2, “receiving…..layout” in line 5, “rescaling….in response” in line 6, “comparing…to zero” in line 10-12, “determining…layout” in lines 13 and 14, and “converting…sector” in lines 15 and 16 in claim 14 are all mathematical calculations as evident from the disclosure. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, limitation (a-g) recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving algebraic equations in their minds using a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii).
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II), and October 2019 Update at Section I.B. Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this example considers limitations (a-g) as a single abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional element “a non-transitory memory”, “a processor”, in claim 1. An evaluation of whether limitation (a) is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation (a) is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, these additional elements are recited so generically that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(d). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis. These are generic computer components configured to perform routine tasks.
See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, “a non-transitory memory”, “a processor” performing basic arithmetic/comparison. This generic hardware is usually considered well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims are not patent eligible. Claim 5 also disclose abstract idea of rescaling and dividing, claim 6 discloses “rotate”, claim 7 discloses “determine an arctangent”, “subtract the rotation angle”, claim 18 discloses “dividing”, claim 19 discloses “rotating” and claim 20 discloses “determining” and “subtracting”. The same analysis applies to these claims as well.
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 (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 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 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada US 2009/0160377 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Yamada discloses a controlled system (fig. 1) comprising: a rotational system (item 10) [0045]; a non-transitory memory configured to store a first instruction and a second instruction; and a processor (item 50) configured to receive the first instruction from the memory and to, in response to the first instruction [0070]: receive a position vector (Δi) corresponding to a sum (vector Δi is a vector sum of its α and β components) of a first component (Δiα) in a first dimension (α axis) and a second component (Δiβ) in a second dimension (β direction); compare a magnitude of the first component to a magnitude of the second component (in step S10), and compare the first component or the second component to zero (in step S10); and determine a sector in which the position vector is located responsive to the compare actions (during step S14); wherein the processor is configured to receive the second instruction from the memory and to, in response to the second instruction, control the rotational system based on the sector [0084, 0085, 0090, 0122, 0146-0148] (fig. 4 shows the motor (10) is controlled using switching vector selector).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses
A device (fig. 1, item 11) comprising: a non-transitory memory configured to store a first instruction; and a processor configured to receive the first instruction from the memory and to, in response to the first instruction: receive a position vector corresponding to a sum of a first component in a first dimension and a second component in a second dimension; compare a magnitude of the first component to a magnitude of the second component, and compare the first component or the second component to zero; and determine a sector in which the position vector is located responsive to the compare actions (see claim 8 rejection for details).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada discloses wherein the memory is configured to store additional instructions; and wherein the processor is configured to receive the additional instructions from the memory and to, in response to the additional instructions, operate a rotational system in response to the sector [0070, 0084, 0085, 0090].
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Yamada discloses, wherein the determine a sector action is performed responsive to a sector layout; and wherein the sector layout corresponds to an axis in the first dimension, a first demarcation line, and a second demarcation line (fig. 6 shows a sector layout with alpha and beta components and two demarcation lines over V4 and V6 on sector R1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 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. Claim 10 discloses details of the sector layout. Claim 12 mentions using a rotation angle being used to rotate the initial position vector.
Conclusion
(No prior art rejection is made with regards to claims 4-7 and 10-20. Claims have been rejected under 35 USC § 101 as indicated above)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Czerwinski (US 6,058,028) discloses determination of sectors using alpha and beta components in column 6.
Jadric (US 6,462,974 B1) discloses a space vector modulation-based control method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896