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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 1 boxes 5,6, fig 2 boxes 9,11,13 , fig 3 boxes a and boxes in b and in c , figure 4 boxes 15,17,21,23 need to be labelled descriptively with text . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. For a storage medium claim to be patent eligible under 101 it must solely be drawn to physical medium and not encompass a signal. Since signals are not in and of themselves patent eligible subject matter ( see in re Nuijten) , these claims must then be rejected under 101. As stated in the memo, the addition of the phrase “ non-transitory storage medium “ would render claim patent eligible under 101. Storage medium is defined broadly , is anything that can hold a program. Since programs can be stored as signals in a carrier wave , we interpret storage medium as not being inherently a physical thing.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite routine data gathering such as determining, setting , generating … There is nothing else being done to the motor . The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims have additional elements that are not abstract, the storage medium and processing circuitry which are generic computers are not adding significantly more than abstract idea. They also add motor that is also generic. The fact that they add for vibration reduction is what we call “extra post solution” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additional element does not integrate abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,5,6,9,10.11.13.14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 2018/126852 cited by Applicant .
2018 /126852 discloses method of reducing vibration in motor comprising rotor and stator ( paragraph 7 and paragraph 30), resonance restraining ) , by means of an active vibration controller ,AVC ( fig 2 front /rear resonance controller ) the method comprising determining whether one of an angular rotational speed of the rotor and an angular stator frequency multiplied by two is whing a critical range comprising a mechanical resonance frequency of a motor assembly comprising motor and its load ( fig 3, the rotation speed of front /rear wheel motor is input to a bandpass filter 211 which allows the resonance frequency component to pass , see paragraph 35-36, said determination being implicit in filtering action ), setting an oscillating incremental torque angular frequency of the AVC to angular rotational speed of rotor if angular rotational speed of the rotor is within the critical range ( fig 3, rotation speed of front wheel motor is input to PD control circuit 215) or setting oscillating incremental torque angular frequency to angular stator frequency multiplied by two if angular stator frequency multiplied by two is within critical range, generating an oscillating incremental toque reference ( fig 3 paragraph 38, feedback signal output from PD control circuit 215 which is sent to the adder 216) using the AVC with the oscillating incremental torque angular frequency set in step b or I or bii( fig 3) and controlling motor based on sum ( out of adder 216 the instruction torque )of oscillating incremental torque reference ( fig 3 the feedback signal) and an electrical torque reference ( fig 3 required torque ) or deactivating the AVC if the angular rotational speed of the roto and the angular stator frequency multiplied by two is outside the critical range and controlling motor based on electrical torque reference ( fig 3 paragraph 30), case where the rotation speed is outside of the bandpass filter and the motor is controlled based on the required torque , not corrected ) . Independent claims 9 and 10 disclose same as above and processing circuitry and storage medium , see paragraph 27 ECU 20. Claim 2 see paragraph 30 required torque , claim 3,5, 11,13 see fig 3 band pass filter 211, paragraph 30 and 36 , claims 6 and 14 see fig 3 wherein feedback signal is obtained based on difference between target and actual amplitude of oscillation at out of subtractor 213.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4,7,8,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2018126852 in view of 2023/025973, 2019296666, and20221218356 all cited by Applicant .
2018/126852 as disclosed above lacks damping ,vibration velocity and gain . Claim 4 and 12 see transfer function of resonant controller of 2022/1218356 , claims 13-14 and fig 5 for damping . Claims 7 see paragraph 52 of 2023/025973 for vibration related signal . Claim 8 see 2019286666 paragraph 61-62 fig 2 and fig 4 (410) for gain . IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of reducing vibration of 2018/126852 with damping of 2022/1218356 and vibration velocity of 2023025973 and gain of 2019/296666 for improved control .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN113223489 for active vibration noise reduction .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN MASIH whose telephone number is (571)272-2068. The examiner can normally be reached m-f 8-5 with second Friday off.
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.
/KAREN MASIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846