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 4/16/2024 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 measured frame currents (Id and Iq) been used by "circuitry 160 being configured to determine the resolver offset error and the resolver delay error according to a method 200 generally described with reference to FIG. 3” ¶. [0055] as described in the specification. See figure 2 duplicated and annotated by Examiner.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1061
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to” should read as follow, a computer system comprising a processing circuitry configured to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1- 15 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite determining a first average of a measured current load angle (δm(n)) of an electrical machine and a first average of a correct current load angle (δc(n)). However, it’s not clear whether the average of a measured/correct current load angle are been determined using measured frame currents (Id and Iq) or measured angles values; keep in mind, the load angle is required to determine the transformed current (Id and Iq) as described in figure 2.
The cited limitations determining first average of a measured current load angle (δm(n)) of an electrical machine and a first average of a correct current load angle (δc(n)) recited in claims 1 and 12 render the claims indefinite, because the claims includes elements and functions not actually disclosed (those encompassed by the determination of the load angle), thereby rendering the claims confusing, vague, and indefinite.
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- 15 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).
Claims 1 and 12 recites processing circuitry configured to implement a method comprising the steps of:
determine a first average of a measured current load angle (δmn) of an electrical machine and a first average of a correct current load angle (δcn) of the electrical machine for a plurality of positive speed values within a positive speed interval,
determine a second average of the measured current load angle (δmn) of the electrical machine and a second average of the correct current load angle (δcn) of the electrical machine for a plurality of negative speed values within a negative speed interval, determine a resolver offset error (θoffset) of the electrical machine from the first and second average of the measured current load angle (δmn), and
determine a resolver delay error (τgd) of the electrical machine from the first and second average of the measured current load angle (δmn), from the first and second average of the correct current load angle (δcn), and from the rotor speed (ωe).
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Claims 1 and 12 recite computer system/method implementing the method for determining
a first average of a measured current load angle…
a second average of the measured current load angle…
a resolver delay error…
therefore, it is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
This limitations:
determining
a first average of a measured current load angle…
a second average of the measured current load angle…
a resolver delay error…
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; thus, the claim recites an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor “computer-implemented” or “processing circuitry” 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 “processing circuitry” 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 machine" 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.
Claims 2- 11 and 13- 15 recite additional element in generic aspect for performing the determining steps at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering computed power values), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a processing circuit).
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