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 . Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-18 have been amended. Claims 6 and 19 have been newly cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 9, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the absolute value of the negative speed value” but should instead recite --an absolute value of the negative speed value--.
Claim 3 recites “the at least one pre-set speed values” but should instead recite --the at least one pre-set speed value[[s]]--.
Claim 9 recites “the absolute value of the positive speed value” but should instead recite --an absolute value of the positive speed value--.
Claim 11 recites “a constant angular resolver offset” and “a speed-dependent angular resolver offset” but should instead recite --the constant angular resolver offset-- and --the speed-dependent angular resolver offset--.
Claim 14 recites “the at least one of the phase windings” but should instead recite --at least one phase winding--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7-8 depend upon newly cancelled claim 6. Since claim 6 is newly cancelled it is unclear if these claims should depend on claim 1 or a different claim. As best understood, these claims are interpreted to depend on claim 1.
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 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 1-5, 7, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (‘Self Identification and Compensation of Position Sensor Error in Interior Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine (IPMSM) Drives’, a copy of which was provided with the IDS dated 6/18/2024 and is being relied upon) in view of Kato (US 2014/0285125 A1) and Schulz (US 2008/0272731 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry (see at least page 2736, left column - an IPM motor with field-oriented control is simulated in MATLAB/Simulink. The high-performance complex vector current regulator was employed for the current controller) configured to: for a pre-set speed value: control the speed of an electrical machine to at least one of the pre-set speed values (see at least page 2736, right column – see at least page 2736, right column – motor speed), short circuit the electrical machine (see at least page 2736, column – controlled short circuit), and determine d,q currents and angular velocity of a rotor of the electrical machine during deceleration from the pre-set speed value (see at least page 2736, right column – ramping down motor speed… measured current id and iq), and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a resolver offset based on the determined d, q currents and the determined angular velocity of the rotor as a constant angular resolver offset (see at least page 2734, right column and 2736, right column – see equation (7) on page 2734, right column… using (7) and the known characteristic of short-circuit current vs. speed, the resolver error is precisely identified).
Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose for each one of a pre-set positive speed value and a pre-set negative speed value, short circuit the electrical machine, determine d,q currents and angular velocity of a rotor of the electrical machine during deceleration from the at least one pre-set speed value; determine the resolver offset as a speed-dependent angular resolver offset.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: for each one of a pre-set positive speed value and a pre-set negative speed value, determine d,q values of a rotor of the electrical machine (see at least [0017-0019, 0137-0138] – The correction value calculation unit may calculate a first correction value as the correction value based on phases of the measured d-axis voltage command value and the measured q-axis voltage command value when the motor is positively rotated… The correction value calculation unit may calculate, as the correction value, a second correction value calculated based on phases of the measured d-axis voltage command value and the measured q-axis voltage command value when the motor is negatively rotated… The correction value calculation unit may calculate the correction value by calculating an average of the calculated first and second correction values.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kato (implementing pre-set positive and negative speed values) into the invention of Cheng (which short circuits and determines d,q currents and angular velocity during deceleration) with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the precision of the correction by using the average of the offset values of the positive rotation and negative rotation, allowing the offset error to be corrected with high precision (Kato – [0168, 0171]).
Schulz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determine the resolver offset as a speed-dependent angular resolver offset (see at least [0026] - The feedforward gain block 142 multiplies the speed command (ωm*) by the feedforward gain (Kff) and combined with the difference between the electrical angle error (Δθe) and the resolver position (θres) by the second summing block 138 to produce the transformation angle (θtrans).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Schulz into the invention of Cheng with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of compensating for the known drag torque of the electric motor to further improve the offset determination (Schulz – [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the absolute value of the negative speed value equals an absolute value of the positive speed value.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the absolute value of the negative speed value equals an absolute value of the positive speed value (see at least [0019] – an absolute value of a rotation velocity of the motor in the positive rotation of the motor is the same as an absolute value of rotation velocity of the motor in the negative rotation of the motor).
The motivation to combine Cheng and Kato is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: disconnect the electrical machine from an associated load prior to controlling the speed of the electrical machine to the at least one pre-set speed values.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: disconnect the electrical machine from an associated load prior to controlling the speed of the electrical machine to the at least one pre-set speed values (see at least [0017-0019, 0137-0139] – motor 10 is positively rotated in the unloaded state, and is negatively rotated in the unloaded state).
The motivation to combine Cheng and Kato is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: calculate a correct resolver position by subtracting the resolver offset from a measured resolver position.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: calculate a correct resolver position by subtracting the resolver offset from a measured resolver position (see at least [0016] – the correction value calculation unit may generate a value indicating the rotation position by adding the calculated correction value and a detection value corresponding to the rotation position of the motor).
The motivation to combine Cheng and Kato is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control operation of the electrical machine based on the correct resolver position.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: control operation of the electrical machine based on the correct resolver position (see at least [0171] – By adding the offset error correction value calculated in this way to the detection signal detected by the resolver 20 and controlling the motor 10, it is possible to perform the control of the motor 10 by which the offset error is corrected with high precision.).
The motivation to combine Cheng and Kato is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the constant angular resolver offset as
PNG
media_image1.png
57
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the constant angular resolver offset as
PNG
media_image2.png
67
319
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(see at least [0137] – see equation (14)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kato into the invention of Cheng with a reasonable expectation of success. Cheng calculates the offset using motor speed as the motor decelerates from a preset speed. Kato calculates the offset by averaging offset values from the motor rotating in a positive direction and a negative direction. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement the average of the positive and negative rotation taught by Kato into the equation of Cheng to arrive at the claimed equation. Using the average of the offset values of the positive rotation and negative rotation improves the precision of the correction (Kato – [0168, 0171]). These are mathematical concepts (as demonstrated by Cheng and Kato) and therefore this modification would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Cheng discloses a vehicle (see at least page 2734, left column - vehicles).
Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose the vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a vehicle comprising the computer system (see at least [0042] – motor control device in a vehicle).
The motivation to combine Cheng and Kato is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Cheng further discloses the vehicle of claim 10, further comprising the electrical machine comprising the resolver, wherein the computer system is configured to determine a constant angular resolver offset of the resolver of the electrical machine (see at least page 2734, right column and 2736, right column – see equation (7) on page 2734, right column… using (7) and the known characteristic of short-circuit current vs. speed, the resolver error is precisely identified for the motor).
Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one load connected to the electrical machine, wherein the computer system is configured to determine a speed-dependent angular resolver offset of the resolver of the electrical machine.
Schulz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: at least one load connected to the electrical machine (see at least [0027] – during normal operation of the electrical motor with a load), wherein the computer system is configured to determine a speed-dependent angular resolver offset of the resolver of the electrical machine (see at least [0026] - The feedforward gain block 142 multiplies the speed command (ωm*) by the feedforward gain (Kff) and combined with the difference between the electrical angle error (Δθe) and the resolver position (θres) by the second summing block 138 to produce the transformation angle (θtrans).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Schulz into the invention of Cheng with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of compensating during a normal operation of the electric motor with a load for proper control of the motor (Schulz – [0027, 0035]), and compensating for the known drag torque of the electric motor to further improve the offset determination (Schulz – [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Cheng discloses further comprising: allowing the electrical machine to rotate during deceleration from the at least one pre-set speed value (see at least page 2736, right column – ramping down motor speed).
Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose allowing the electrical machine to rotate freely during deceleration from the at least one pre-set speed values.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: allowing the electrical machine to rotate freely during rotation at the at least one pre-set speed values (see at least [0017-0019, 0137-0139] – motor 10 is positively rotated in the unloaded state, and is negatively rotated in the unloaded state).
The motivation to combine Cheng and Kato is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Cheng discloses further comprising: short-circuiting, by the processing circuitry, the at least one of the phase windings of the electrical machine (see at least page 2734, left column – all phases of the IPM motor can be safely short circuited).
Regarding claim 15, Cheng discloses further comprising: determining, by the processing circuitry, the resolver offset based on the determined d, q currents for the speed values, and based on the determined angular velocity of the rotor for the speed values (see at least page 2734, right column and 2736, right column – see equation (7) on page 2734, right column… using (7) and the known characteristic of short-circuit current vs. speed, the resolver error is precisely identified).
Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose for the positive speed values and the negative speed values.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: allowing the electrical machine to rotate freely during rotation at the pre-set speed values (see at least [0017-0019, 0137-0139] – motor 10 is positively rotated in the unloaded state, and is negatively rotated in the unloaded state).
The motivation to combine Cheng and Kato is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Cheng discloses further comprising: determining, by the processing circuitry, d,q currents by estimating steady-state d, q voltages as zero (see at least page 2734, right column – steady-state short circuit current derived, see equations (3)-(6)).
Regarding claim 17, Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: calculating a correct resolver position by subtracting the resolver offset from an estimated resolver position.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: calculating a correct resolver position by subtracting the resolver offset from an estimated resolver position (see at least [0165-0167, 0171] – adding the offset error correction value to the detection signal detected by the resolver 20, i.e., when the offset error correction value is negative).
The motivation to combine Cheng and Kato is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: disconnecting, by the processing circuitry, the electrical machine from an associated load prior to controlling the speed of the electrical machine to the at least one pre-set speed value, and calibrating, by the processing circuitry, a resolver position based on the resolver offset.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: disconnecting, by the processing circuitry, the electrical machine from an associated load prior to controlling the speed of the electrical machine to the at least one pre-set speed value (see at least [0017-0019, 0137-0139] – motor 10 is positively rotated in the unloaded state, and is negatively rotated in the unloaded state), and calibrating, by the processing circuitry, a resolver position based on the resolver offset (see at least [0171] – By adding the offset error correction value calculated in this way to the detection signal detected by the resolver 20 and controlling the motor 10, it is possible to perform the control of the motor 10 by which the offset error is corrected with high precision.).
The motivation to combine Cheng and Kato is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Cheng discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 12 (see at least page 2736, left column - an IPM motor with field-oriented control is simulated in MATLAB/Simulink. The high-performance complex vector current regulator was employed for the current controller).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
See pages 17-19 of the Office action dated 10/20/2025 for the reason for the indication of allowable subject matter of claims 8-9.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the amendments have necessitated new 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections (see above).
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 filed 2/18/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument: The cited prior art fail to disclose the resolver offset being a constant angular resolver offset and a speed-dependent angular resolver offset, as required by the amended independent claims. Cheng teaches that the angular resolver offset is constant and therefore does not describe a speed-dependent angular resolver offset. Schulz at paragraph [0026-0027] also teaches a constant angular resolver offset.
Examiner response: To clarify the rejection, the examiner relies upon Cheng to teach the constant angular resolver offset, but Cheng fails to disclose the speed-dependent angular resolver offset. For this feature, the examiner relies upon Schulz. As the Applicant points out, in paragraphs [0026-0027] the speed command (ωm*) is taken into account when determining the angle error. Since speed command is taken into account, the angle error does depend on speed and is therefore speed-dependent. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the combination of Cheng and Schulz render this limitation as a whole obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669