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 .
This action is in response to an application filed on 05/30/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble “The information processing apparatus according to claim 11” should be rewritten as “The information processing method according to claim 11”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition unit”, “an estimation circuit” in claim 1 and “a control unit” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps and therefore is a process and the claim qualifies for the statutory category of process. (Step 1)
Further the claim recites “…acquiring temperature information…current information…” and “…estimating a system anomaly value…”. The limitations recited recite a judicial exception as they recite mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind – including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). (Step 2A Prong 1)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited “semiconductor element” and “electric motor” merely mentioned (without mentioning how the temperature and current information are acquired) and are not abstract but more of routine data gathering and they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Further the claim limitation estimating a system anomaly value indicating a predetermined anomaly in at least one of the power conversion device and the electric motor based on the temperature information and the current information merely insignificant post solution activity. (Step 2A prong 2)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements of acquiring temperature information indicating a transition of temperature in a semiconductor element of a power conversion device for driving an electric motor and current information indicating a transition of a current to the electric motor are all routine data gathering and they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, when the claim is viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea of mental processes, (Step 2B)
Therefore, the claim is 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Shinohara (US 2023/0396198 A1).
As to Claim 1 and 11, Shinohara in his teachings as shown in Fig.1-12 disclose an information processing apparatus/method (100) comprising:
an acquisition circuit (71-76) configured to acquire temperature information indicating a transition of temperature in a semiconductor element (61-66) of a power conversion device (25) for driving an electric motor (10) and current information indicating a transition of a current (26) to the electric motor (see [0040] – [0043]),
an estimation circuit (91 of 90) configured to estimate a system anomaly value (OT/OT1) indicating a predetermined anomaly (predetermined value) in at least one of the power conversion device (25) and the electric motor (10) based on the temperature information (71-76) and the current (61) information (see also [0095] – [0103]).
As to Claim 2 and 12, Shinohara disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 11, further comprising: a control circuit (90) configured to periodically perform an inspection of the power conversion device and the electric motor by controlling the acquisition in the acquisition circuit and the estimation in the estimation circuit (see [0049] – [0050]).
As to Claim 3 and 13, Shinohara disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 2 and the method according to claim 12, wherein the control circuit increases a frequency of the inspection when the system anomaly value exceeds a threshold value (predetermined value or more – see [0103]).
As to Claim 4 and 14, Shinohara disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 2 and the method according to claim 12, wherein the control circuit outputs anomaly information signal corresponding the predetermined anomaly (see [0103]).
As to Claim 5 and 15, Shinohara disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 11, wherein the estimation circuit is configured to estimate a temperature anomaly value and a current anomaly value based on the temperature information and the current information respectively, and wherein the estimation circuit is configured to estimate the system anomaly value based on a correlation between the temperature anomaly value and the current anomaly value (see [0095] – [0103]).
As to Claim 6 and 16, Shinohara disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 5 and the method according to claim 15, wherein the temperature anomaly value is estimated base on the transition of the temperature of the semiconductor element and temperature anomaly likeness information corresponding to each temperature of the semiconductor element (see T1-T6 of semiconductor element 61-66 and [0054] – [0055]).
As to Claim 7 and 17, Shinohara disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 5 and the method according to claim 15, wherein the current anomaly value is estimated based on the transition of the current to the electric motor and current anomaly likeness information corresponding to each current to the electric motor (see 26 and [0054] – [0055]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara in view of Vrankovic et al. (US 2023/0324432 A1 and Vrankovic hereinafter).
As to Claim 8 and 18, Shinohara disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 1, however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the acquisition circuit further acquires:
vibration information indicating a transition of vibration in the electric motor
Nonethless, Vrankovic in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-4 disclose an integrated drive motor assembly 34 may operate under the control of the control circuitry 16. As such, the control circuitry 16 may monitor the operations of the power circuitry 18 and the motor 20 based on receiving collected data (e.g., vibrations, voltages, speeds, temperatures, pressures, and so forth) from any number of sensors. For example, the accelerometer 30 may provide vibration and/or shock data of the motor 20 to the processor 28 (see [0024])
Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the instant application for the acquisition circuit to acquire vibration information indicating a transition of vibration in the electric motor as thought by Vrankovic within the teachings of Shinohara to determine anomaly conditions of the motor based on comparing the vibrations of the motor with the baseline vibration profiles (see [Abstract]).
As to Claim 9 and 19, Shinohara in view of Vrankovic disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 8 and the method according to claim 18, wherein the estimation circuit is configured to estimate a temperature anomaly value, a current anomaly value and a vibration anomaly value based on the temperature information, the current information and the vibration information respectively, and wherein the estimation circuit is configured to estimate the system anomaly value based on correlations of the temperature anomaly value, the current anomaly value and the vibration anomaly value (Vrankovic: see [0031]).
As to Claim 10 and 20, The information processing apparatus according to claim 9 and the method according to claim 19, wherein the vibration anomaly value is estimated based on the transition of the vibration in the electric motor and vibration anomaly likeness information corresponding to each type of vibrations to the electric motor (Vrankovic: see [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 2022/0034949 A1: A power conversion device includes a power conversion circuit including a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature at a sensor position and a switch configured to switch a connection on and off at a switch position separated from the sensor position; a loss calculation processing circuitry configured to calculate a power loss in the switch; a loss correction processing circuitry configured to correct a calculation result of the power loss on the basis of a detection result of the temperature at the sensor position; a temperature correction processing circuitry configured to correct the detection result of the temperature on the basis of the calculation result of the power loss; and a temperature estimation processing circuitry configured to estimate a temperature at the switch position on the basis of a corrected calculation result of the power loss and a corrected detection result of the temperature).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL T AGARED whose telephone number is (571)270-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Mon- Thur).
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 5712722060. 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.
/GABRIEL AGARED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846