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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 10, the recitation “A apparatus”, on line 1, should be changed to – An apparatus--. 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-17 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 claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 10-17 are a motor control system and vehicle. The machine/apparatus involve multiple mental steps.
Step 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an apparatus (claims 10- 17). Thus, the claims 10- 17 are a machine, which are one of 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 receiving data (i.e., “receiving a first d-q axis feedback current” (emphasis added) of claim 10, line 2; “receiving a second d-q axis feedback current” (emphasis added), of claim 10, line 5; “receiving a third d-q axis voltage” (emphasis added) of claim 14, line 2; “receiving a fourth q- axis voltage” (emphasis added) of claim 16, line 2) and performing mathematical calculations (i.e. “determine the motor parameters”(emphasis added) of claim 10, line 8; “determine the stator resistance Rs”(emphasis added) of claim 12, line 2; “determine the motor parameters”(emphasis added) of claim 10, line 8; “determine the permanent magnet flux linkage λm” (emphasis added) of claim 13, lines 2-3; “determine a d-axis inductance Ld” (emphasis added) of claims 14, line 5 and 15, line 6; “determine a q-axis inductance Lq” (emphasis added) of claims 14, line 5 and 15, line 6; and equations in claims 4-5, 7-9, 12-13 and 15-16) are all mental steps 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 relationships” and “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, these limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
These limitations also fall 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 these limitations 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 Ill(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional elements “determining device” and “a current regulation”, in claims 10-11, which uses controller to perform the recited steps. The controller in the above steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. An evaluation of whether limitation 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 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, the physical nature of the short primary linear motor does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(l) 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 whole amounts 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, the additional element of using a controller and memory to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A controller to no more than well-understood, routine or conventional which is notoriously well-known. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Such as “determining”, etc.). The claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, claims 1-17 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 and 11-17 are rejected due to dependencies on the base claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 10-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odhano et al. (hereinafter Odhano, “Self-commissioning of interior permanent magnet synchronous motor drives with high-frequency current injection”, 2013 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, IEEE, 15 September 2013 (2013-09-15), pages 3852-3859, XP032516877, DOI:10.1109/ECCE.2013.6647211) (this reference is cited by Applicant).
For claim 1, Odhano discloses a method for detecting motor parameters (Figs. 5 and 7 of Odhano disclose a method for detecting motor parameters – see Odhano, Figs. 5 and 7, page 3856, left column, lines 10-14 and 37-43), characterized by comprising:
injecting a first direct current signal (Figs. 4-5 of Odhano disclose injecting a first direct current signal i*dq and/or V*2);
receiving a first d-q axis feedback current corresponding to the first direct current signal and a first d-q axis voltage output by a current regulation module (Figs. 4-5 and 7 of Odhano discloses receiving a first d-q axis feedback current idq/I2 corresponding to the first direct current signal i*dq and a first d-q axis voltage v*dq/V*2 output by a current regulation module PI/PI-RES -- see Odhano, Figs. 4-5 and 7, page 3854, left column, lines 2-5, and page 3856, left column, lines 37-43);
injecting a second direct current signal different from the first direct current signal (Odhano does not specifically disclose injecting a second direct current signal. However, Fig. 4 of Odhano discloses injecting a first direct current signal i*dq and receiving a first d-q axis voltage V*2. Also, Figs. 4 and 7 of Odhano disclose receiving a second d-q axis voltage V*1, so injecting a second direct current signal different from the first direct current signal could be presented from start until 0.4s. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a second direct current signal i**dq in teaching of Odhano’s reference for purpose of controlling motor control system accurately);
receiving a second d-q axis feedback current corresponding to the second direct current signal (Figs. 4-5 and 7 of Odhano discloses receiving a second d-q axis feedback current idq/I1 corresponding to the second direct current signal i*dq/V*1 ) and a second d-q axis voltage V2* output by the current regulation module PI/PI-RES -- see Odhano, Figs. 5 and 7, page 3854, left column, lines 2-10, and page 3856, left column, lines 37-43); and
determining motor parameters based on the first d-q axis feedback current, the first d-q axis voltage, the second d-q axis feedback current and the second d-q axis voltage (Figs. 5 and 7 of Odhano disclose determining motor parameters R, L based on the first d-q axis feedback current idq/I2, the first d-q axis voltage v*dq/V*2, the second d-q axis feedback current idq/I1 and the second d-q axis voltage V*1 -- see Odhano, Figs. 4-5 and 7, equations 3 and 10, page 3854, left column, lines 2-12 and page 3856, left column, lines 37-49).
For claim 2, Odhano discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the motor is a permanent magnet synchronous motor and the current regulation module is a PI controller (Fig. 5 of Odhano discloses the motor IPM is a permanent magnet synchronous motor and the current regulation module PI-RES is a PI controller – see Odhano, Fig. 5, abstract, lines 16-17; page 3856, left column, lines 10-12).
For claim 3, Odhano discloses the method of claim 2, wherein both the first direct current signal and the second direct current signal are positive currents on the d-axis (Fig. 7 of Odhano discloses both the first direct current signal V*2 and the second direct current signal V*1 are positive currents on the d-axis).
For claim 4, Odhanodiscloses the method of claim 3, wherein the motor parameters include a stator resistance Rs, wherein the stator resistance Rs is determined according to the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
46
128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Vdc1 is a d-axis voltage in the first d-q axis voltage, Vdc2 is a d-axis voltage in the second d-q axis voltage, idc1 is a d-axis feedback current value in the first d-q axis feedback current, and idc2 is a d-axis feedback current value in the second d-q axis feedback current, and idc1>idc2 (see Odhano, Fig. 7, page 3854, left column, lines 2-11 and equation 3).
Claims 10 and 12 is “an apparatus” claim which is either same or similar to that of the “a method” claims 1 and 4, respectively. The explanation is omitted.
Claim 11 is “an apparatus” claim which is either same or similar to combination of “a method” claim 2 and claim 3. The explanation is omitted.
For claim 17, Odhano discloses an air-conditioning compressor system (Odhano discloses a motor control system which is silent for disclosing an air-conditioning compressor system. However, given that the reference shows the precise structure claimed by the present invention adds nothing to the claimed structure of the circuit, the phenomena, whether it is used in “an air-conditioning compressor system”. It is an intended use of the circuit and that does not carry patentable weight. Since the teaching of Odhano for controlling motor can be used for controlling motor of “an air-conditioning compressor system”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use Odhano’s motor control system in “an air-conditioning compressor system” for purpose control device efficiently), characterized by comprising:
a permanent magnet synchronous motor (Fig. 5 of Odhano discloses the motor IPM is a permanent magnet synchronous motor – see Odhano, Fig. 5, abstract, lines 16-17); and
the apparatus according to claim 10 (see explanation in claim 1 or claim 10 above), for detecting motor parameters of the permanent magnet synchronous motor (see Odhano, Abstract, lines 9-17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846