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
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of evaluating current sensor measurements.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A system for evaluating current sensor measurements, comprising:
(a) a current sensor configured to measure three-phase alternating current (AC) signals applied to a three-phase electrical device, the measured AC signals including a first measurement of a first phase current, a second measurement of a second phase current and a third measurement of a third phase current; and
(b) an error detection module configured to receive the measured AC signals and perform:
(b.1) applying a transform to the measured AC signals to generate a plurality of reference currents, each reference current of the plurality of reference currents represented as a current vector rotating in a two-dimensional reference frame;
(b.2) calculating a current angle between the plurality of reference currents;
(b.3) correlating the current angle to a second order harmonic function; and
(b.4) determining a gain error associated with the measured AC signals based on the correlating.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of the limitations (b.1), (b.2), (b.3) and (b.4) encompasses mathematical concepts and/or relationships (see Specification, paragraphs [0035]-[0036]; note: in electrical engineering, the αβγ transformation is a mathematical transformation employed to simplify the analysis of three-phase circuits), which also encompasses mental processes (i.e., data manipulation, analysis, evaluation and/or judgement) that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations (b.1), (b.2), (b.3) and (b.4) from practically being performed in the mind or by a human with the aid of pen and paper or a generic computer. As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitation: “a) a current sensor configured to …” Under the BRI, this limitation encompasses merely an insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e., necessary data gathering). According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea.
The claim recites the “current sensor” and the “a three-phase electrical device” at a high level of generality but does not specify any particular sensor and/or structure/configuration through which the sensor is applied to a three-phase electrical device. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
The data characterization of the “measured AC signals including a first measurement of a first phase current, a second measurement of a second phase current and a third measurement of a third phase current” are merely descriptive of the information being measured. At most, it generally links the identified abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The “error detection module” is recited at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, it reads on a generic computer. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
None of these additional elements is considered to be qualified for “significantly more” to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of evaluating current sensor measurements using math concepts. The claim recites routine data gathering such as a current sensor configured to measure three-phase alternating current (AC) signals applied to a three-phase electrical device, which are all considered "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. There is nothing else being done to the “current sensor” or the “three-phase electrical device”. The “error detection module” simply reads on a generic computer utilized as a tool to perform the identified judicial exception (math + mental). The claim does not recite any additional element that is qualified for “significantly more”. As such, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application or reflects an “inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim is therefore ineligible under the 2019 PEG
The dependent claims 2-8 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the three-phase electrical device includes an electric motor configured to drive a vehicle”. Under the BRI, this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use. Further, a three-phase electrical device including an electric motor configured to drive a vehicle is "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. It does not involve any “inventive concept”.
Claims 9-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-8.
Hence instant claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Note
4. While there are related references that discuss techniques of determining and compensating a gain error associated with AC signals measured by a current sensor, the prior art of record do not specifically provide teachings for a method/system of evaluating current sensor measurements that includes the following limitations: calculating a current angle between the plurality of reference currents; correlating the current angle to a second order harmonic function; and determining a gain error associated with the measured AC signals based on the correlating. It is these limitations found in each of the claims 1-20, as they are recited in independent claim 1, 9 and 16, that would make these claims distinguish over the prior art.
The closest reference Marwali et al. (US 20240204642 A1) discloses a system/method of compensating a current sensor applied to a three-phase electrical device, including a technique of evaluating gain error associated with the current sensor based on a phase angle of the three phase AC signal (para. 0040, 0043, 0049, 0061: “the aggregated compensation signal can be provided as scaled based on the phase angle of the three phase AC signal as detected by a phase locked loop 440, by a scaler 450 such as a multiplier”). However, Marwali does not teach those limitations of the pending claims identified above.
Emeghara et al. (US 20240391324 A1) discloses a system/method for compensating for current sensor offset/gain errors. However, Emeghara does not teach those limitations of the pending claims identified above.
OKAMOTO et al. (WO 2023243087 A1, machine translation) discloses an electric motor control device capable of simultaneously estimating the gain error of a current detector and the parameter error of a three-phase electric motor. However, OKAMOTO does not teach those limitations of the pending claims identified above.
Contact Information
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights