DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: the response filed on May 13, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-4 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 .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Applicant's remarks and amendments to the claims have been considered.Claims 1 and 3-4 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-4 are pending.Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments accompanying the amendment filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, § 102, and § 112 are maintained for the reasons set forth below.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the addition of a "monitoring device" to detect a "physical abnormality" transforms the claim into a patent-eligible practical application. This argument is unpersuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained as the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
The claims, as amended, remain directed to the abstract idea of performing mathematical calculations to estimate motor torque. Under the Alice/Mayo framework, the analysis proceeds to step two to determine if the claim contains an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The newly added limitation of a "monitoring device" does not provide such an inventive concept.
The "monitoring device," as claimed, represents insignificant post-solution activity. The claim recites calculating a torque value (the "solution" to the mathematical problem) and then simply using that value. The function of the monitoring device—"to detect a physical abnormality...based on the estimate value"—is nothing more than a general instruction to observe the result of the calculation and apply a label ("abnormal") if it meets some unstated criteria. This is a classic example of insignificant data-gathering and mental-step-type activity appended to an abstract idea. The claim does not require any specific, inventive machine, structure, or unconventional process for the act of "monitoring" or "detecting." It merely states a desired outcome without providing the inventive means to achieve it, rendering the additional limitation insufficient to confer patent eligibility.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter is maintained. As detailed above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and the addition of a "monitoring device" represents insignificant post-solution activity that fails to supply an inventive concept.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The limitation "a monitoring device configured to detect a physical abnormality...based on the estimate value of the torque" is a means-plus-function limitation that fails to recite corresponding structure in the specification for performing the claimed function.
The term "device" is a non-structural nonce term, which, when coupled with the functional language "configured to detect," invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The claimed function is "to detect a physical abnormality...based on the estimate value of the torque." The specification, however, fails to disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing this function. The disclosure describes how to calculate the torque value but is devoid of any specific algorithm, comparator, thresholding logic, or other concrete structure that the "monitoring device" would use to perform the "detecting" function. Due to this failure to disclose corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite.
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a "monitoring device configured to detect a physical abnormality." The specification does not provide an antecedent basis or a sufficiently clear definition for the term "monitoring device," leaving one of ordinary skill in the art unable to determine the bounds of the claimed invention. It is unclear if this is a structural component or merely a software routine, and the specification provides no guidance to distinguish the "monitoring device" from the processor that performs the initial calculations.Furthermore, the term "physical abnormality" is broad and subjective. The specification and claims fail to provide objective criteria or a threshold that would inform a skilled artisan what constitutes an "abnormality" versus normal operational variations in motor load or other system noise. This lack of objective boundaries renders the scope of the claims indeterminate. Because claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1, they are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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, 3-4 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.
“a monitoring device configured to detect a physical abnormality of a conveying roller driven by the motor based on the estimate value of the torque, wherein the physical abnormality includes at least one of wear of the conveying roller or deterioration of the conveying roller, and wherein the operations further include obtaining the estimate value of the torque 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”: This element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it merely recite generic components of a monitoring device and a motor.
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 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, and 3-4 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) and a monitoring device configured to detect a physical abnormality of a conveying roller driven by the motor based on the estimate value of the torque, wherein the physical abnormality includes at least one of wear of the conveying roller or deterioration of the conveying roller, and wherein the operations further include obtaining the estimate value of the torque 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 2837
Prosecution Insights