DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: the application filed on April 19, 2024.
Claims 1-4 are presented for Examination. Claim 1 is independent.
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
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A processor and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations ”, thus it is a process of memorizing instructions or commands, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the steps of:
“a processor, and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations”, This involves a human memory solving a problem via pen and paper for a drive control, thus this is a mental process.
“calculating a duty ratio of a PWM signal based on a rotation speed of a motor driven by a PWM control and a target rotation speed”, This involves a human observing duty ratio of a PWM signal then generating a PWM signal based on a speed. Hence, this is a mental process.
“obtaining an estimate value of a torque of the motor based on the rotation speed of the motor and the calculated duty ratio”, This involves a human estimating a torque of the motor based on the rotation speed of the motor and the calculated duty ratio (e.g. using a mathematical function mentally or on pen and paper) which describes the torque of a motor, therefore this is a mental process.
Claim 1 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“an estimate value of a torque of the motor based on the rotation speed of the motor and the calculated duty ratio”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas from Step 2A Prong 1 into a practical application because it is an insignificant extra solution activity of value of a torque. (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, claim 1 is directed to the abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements in claim 1 do not provide significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves, taken alone and in combination because:
“an estimate value of a torque of the motor based on the rotation speed of the motor and the calculated duty ratio”: This element mentions the concept of “an estimate value of a torque of the motor” (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) which is well understood routine and conventional.
Since there is no nexus between the additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 2:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 2 is directed to a drive control process as in claim 1.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 2 recites the same mental processes as claim 1, therefore claim 2 recites abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
In addition to the elements in claim 1, claim 2 recites the additional elements:
“using a linear polynomial in which the rotation speed of the motor is a variable and whose intercept is a value corresponding to the duty ratio of the PWM signal”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it merely recites a generic component (motor) that is attached to the driver control in claim 1 in order to execute step (I) in claim 1 (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, claim 2 is directed to the abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional element in claim 2 does not provide significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves, taken alone and in combination because:
“using a linear polynomial in which the rotation speed of the motor is a variable and whose intercept is a value corresponding to the duty ratio of the PWM signal”: This element merely recites a generic component (motor) that is attached to the drive control in claim 1 in order to execute step (I) in claim 1 (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Since there is no nexus between the additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 2 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 3:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 3 is directed to a drive control process as in claim 2.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 3 recites the same mental processes as claim 2, therefore claim 3 recites abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
In addition to the elements in claim 2, claim 3 recites the additional elements:
“calculating the intercept using a linear polynomial in which the duty ratio of the PWM signal is a variable”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it merely recites a generic computing to execute the steps in claim 2 (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, claim 3 is directed to the abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements in claim 3 do not provide significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves, taken alone and in combination because:
“calculating the intercept using a linear polynomial in which the duty ratio of the PWM signal is a variable”: This element merely recites a generic computing to execute the steps in claim 2 (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Since there is no nexus between the additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 3 is subject-matter ineligible.
Regarding claim 4:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 4 is directed to a drive control process as in claim 2.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 4 recites the same mental processes as claim 1, therefore claim 4 recites abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
In addition to the elements in claim 2, claim 4 recites the additional elements:
“a quadratic polynomial in which the duty ratio of the PWM signal is a variable”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it merely recites a generic computing to execute the steps in claim 2 (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a quadratic polynomial in which the duty ratio of the PWM signal is a variable”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas from Step 2A Prong 1 into a practical application because it is an insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, claim 4 is directed to the abstract ideas.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements in claim 4 do not provide significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves, taken alone and in combination because:
“a quadratic polynomial in which the duty ratio of the PWM signal is a variable”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it merely recites a generic computing to execute the steps in claim 2 (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a quadratic polynomial in which the duty ratio of the PWM signal is a variable”: This element mentions the concept of “receiving or transmitting PWM signal/data” (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I), Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) [utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information]) which is well understood routine and conventional.
Since there is no nexus between the additional elements that could cause the combination to provide an inventive concept, claim 4 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (F. Niu, K. Li and Y. Wang, "Direct Torque Control for Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Machines Based on Duty Ratio Modulation," in IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 6160-6170, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2015.2426678.).
Regarding independent claim 1, Feng et al disclose that a drive control device (Fig. 12) comprising:
a processor(Fig.12); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Fig 12:page 6166; “ NI real-time module is employed to implement the control strategies using C language compiled by MATLAB/Simulink real-time workshop”) including:
calculating a duty ratio of a PWM signal (Page:6162; col.1, para. 2) based on a rotation speed of a motor driven by a PWM control and a target rotation speed (Fig.1:ωn); and
obtaining an estimate value of a torque (Fig.1:Te) of the motor based on the rotation speed of the motor and the calculated duty ratio (Equation 23).
Regarding claim 2, Feng et al disclose that wherein the operations further include obtaining the estimate value based on the rotation speed of the motor and the calculated duty ratio, using a linear polynomial in which the rotation speed of the motor is a variable and whose intercept is a value corresponding to the duty ratio of the PWM signal (Equations 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, Feng et al disclose that wherein the operations further include calculating the intercept using a linear polynomial in which the duty ratio of the PWM signal is a variable (equations 14-16).
Regarding claim 4, Feng et al disclose that wherein the operations further include calculating the intercept using a quadratic polynomial in which the duty ratio of the PWM signal is a variable (Equation 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am to 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights