CTNF 18/750,882 CTNF 84694 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA CLAIM INTERPRETATION 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 The claims 1-16 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” 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. Such claim limitations are: “a control unit configured to set the target value of the excitation current to a first target value in a first period within a period in which a rotation speed of the motor is controlled to be a target speed , and to set the target value of the excitation current to a second target value larger than the first target value in a second period different from the first period ”, as recited in the base Claims 1 and 11; “the control unit is further configured to update the second target value based on a speed variation of the rotation speed of the motor with respect to the target speed in the second period ” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 5; “the control unit is further configured to update the second target value such that the second target value increase as the speed variation increases ” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 6; “the control unit is further configured to determine that the second period has ended when a speed variation of the rotation speed of the motor with respect to the target speed continues to be within a predetermined range for a second predetermined period” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 7; “the control unit is further configured to set a timing at which the detection unit detects the sheet as a start timing of the second period , or is further configured to determine a start timing of the second period based on the timing at which the detection unit detects the sheet ” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 13; and “the control unit is further configured to determine a start timing of the second period based on a timing at which the switching unit is switched from the transmission state to the disconnected state ” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 16. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-16 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (See paragraphs [0021] through [0029]; and in conjunction with Figs. 2-4) as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-16 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 claim 1 is a motor control apparatus. The machine/apparatus involves 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 1 and 11), Thus, the claim 1-16 are to a machine, which is 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., “set target value”, on lines 5 and 7 of claim 1 and on lines 13 and 15 of claim 11; “update the second target value”, on line 2 of claims 5-6; and “set a timing at which the detection unit detects the sheet as a start timing of the second period”, on lines 5-6 of claim 13) and performing mathematical calculations (i.e. “a second target value larger than the first target value in a second period different from the first period” (emphasis added), on lines 8-9 of claim 1; “the control unit is further configured to determine that the second period has ended ”, on lines 1-2 of claim 7; “ determine a start timing of the second period based on the timing at which the detection unit detects the sheet”, on lines 7-8 of claim 13; “ determine a start timing of the second period based on a timing at which a sheet is fed to the conveyance path”, on lines 3-5 of claim 15; and “ determine a start timing of the second period based on a timing at which the switching unit is switched from the transmission state to the disconnected state”, on lines 7-9 of claim 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 “control unit” and “storage”, in claims 1, 4, which uses controller and/or processor to perform the recited steps. The controller or the processor and storage 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 processor/controller and storage to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A processor 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 “update”, “determine”, etc.). The claims are not patent eligible. Thus, claims 1-16 are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 9-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Ohashi (US 2019/0386596 A1) . For claim 1 , Ohashi discloses a motor control apparatus (Figs. 1-2 of Ohashi discloses a motor control apparatus 301 – see Ohashi, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0017] and [0033]-[0034]) comprising: a current supply unit configured to supply a coil current to a plurality of coils of a motor by controlling a voltage applied to the plurality of coils based on a target value of an excitation current and a target value of a torque current (Fig. 3 of Ohashi discloses a current supply unit 506 configured to supply a coil current to a plurality of coils of a motor 509 by controlling a voltage applied to the plurality of coils based on a target value of an excitation current id-ref and a target value of a torque current iq-ref – see Ohashi, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0045], lines 5-7 and [0053]); and a control unit configured to set the target value of the excitation current to a first target value in a first period within a period in which a rotation speed of the motor is controlled to be a target speed (Figs. 2-3 and 5 of Ohashi disclose a control unit 157 configured to set the target value of the excitation current id-ref to a first target value A in a first period t1 within a period in which a rotation speed of the motor is controlled to be a target speed w-ref -- see Ohashi, Figs. 2-3 and 5, paragraphs [0045],[0050], lines 19-21 and [0061]-[0063]), and to set the target value of the excitation current to a second target value larger than the first target value in a second period different from the first period (Figs. 2-3 and 5 of Ohashi disclose a control unit 157 configured to set the target value of the excitation current id-ref to a second target value B larger than the first target value A in a second period t2 different from the first period t1 – see Ohashi, Figs. 2-3 and 5, paragraphs [0061]-[0064]). For claim 2 , Ohashi discloses the motor control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second period is a period including a timing at which a load of the motor varies (Fig. 3 and Fig. 5, step S106 of Ohashi discloses the second period t2 is a period including a timing at which a load of the motor 509 varies -- see Ohashi, Figs. 3 and 5, paragraphs [0064]-[0065]). For claim 3 , Ohashi discloses the motor control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the second period (t2) is a predetermined period (see Ohashi, Figs. 3 and 5, paragraph [0065]). For claim 4 , Ohashi discloses the motor control apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a storage unit configured to store information indicating the second period (Fig. 2 of Ohashi discloses the ROM 151b and the RAM 151c which altogether constitute a storage unit 151b, 151c configured to store information indicating the second period t2 – see Ohashi, Fig. 2, paragraph [0035]). For claim 9 , Ohashi discloses the motor control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first target value is a value of 0 or larger than 0 (Fig. 5 of Ohashi discloses the first target value A which is a value of O A or larger than O (a positive value) -- see Ohashi, Fig. 5, paragraph [0062]). For claim 10 , Ohashi discloses the motor control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the motor is a sensorless motor that is not provided with a sensor configured to detect a rotational phase of a rotor (see Ohashi, paragraph [0041], lines 9-11). For claim 11 , Ohashi discloses an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1 of Ohashi discloses an image forming apparatus 100 – see Ohashi, Fig. 1, paragraph [0017]) comprising: a conveyance unit configured to convey a sheet along a conveyance path (Fig. 1 of Ohashi discloses rollers 3,4,7, 8 and 11/303, 305-308,320-323 and convey belt 317 which altogether constitute a conveyance unit configured to convey a sheet P along a conveyance path 325, 326 via convey belt 317– see Ohashi, Fig. 1, paragraph [0018] and [0024]); an image forming unit configured to form an image on the sheet conveyed by the conveyance unit (Fig. 1 of Ohashi discloses an image forming unit 100 configured to form an image on the sheet conveyed by the conveyance unit 303, 306-308, 320-323, and convey belt 317 – see Ohashi, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0017] and [0029]-[0030]); a motor configured to rotationally drive a rotation member of the conveyance unit or the image forming unit (Figs. 1-2 of Ohashi discloses a motor 509 – see Ohashi, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0008], [0032] and [0037]); and a motor control apparatus configured to control the motor (Figs. 1-2 of Ohashi discloses a motor control apparatus 100 configured to control the motor 509 – see Ohashi, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0036]-[0037]), wherein the motor control apparatus includes: a current supply unit configured to supply a coil current to a plurality of coils of the motor by controlling a voltage applied to the plurality of coils based on a target value of an excitation current and a target value of a torque current (Fig. 3 of Ohashi discloses a current supply unit 506 configured to supply a coil current to a plurality of coils of a motor 509 by controlling a voltage applied to the plurality of coils based on a target value of an excitation current id-ref and a target value of a torque current iq-ref – see Ohashi, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0045], lines 5-7 and [0053]), and a control unit configured to set the target value of the excitation current to a first target value in a first period within a period in which a rotation speed of the motor is controlled to be a target speed (Figs. 2-3 and 5 of Ohashi disclose a control unit 157 configured to set the target value of the excitation current id-ref to a first target value A in a first period t1 within a period in which a rotation speed of the motor is controlled to be a target speed w-ref -- see Ohashi, Figs. 2-3 and 5, paragraphs [0045],[0050], lines 19-21 and [0061]-[0063]), and to set the target value of the excitation current to a second target value larger than the first target value in a second period different from the first period (Figs. 2-3 and 5 of Ohashi disclose a control unit 157 configured to set the target value of the excitation current id-ref to a second target value B larger than the first target value A in a second period t2 different from the first period t1 – see Ohshi, Figs. 2-3 and 5, paragraphs [0061]-[0064]). For claim 12 , Ohashi discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the second period includes a timing at which the rotation member rotationally driven by the motor and the sheet come into contact with each other (Figs. 1, 3 and 5 of Ohashi discloses the second period t2 includes a timing at which the rotation member (rollers 303, 306-308, 320-323) rotationally driven by the motor 509 and the sheet come into contact with each other – see Ohashi, Figs. 1, 3 and 5, paragraphs [0008], lines 1-4; [0032] and [0037]) or a timing at which the rotation member rotationally driven by the motor and the sheet are separated from each other (see Ohashi, Figs. 1, 3 and 5, paragraphs [0008] and [0024]). For claim 13 , Ohashi discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising a detection unit configured to detect the sheet in the conveyance path on an upstream side with respect to a position where the sheet comes into contact with the rotation member rotationally driven by the motor (Figs. 1-2 of Ohashi disclose a detection unit 330, 331 configured to detect the sheet in the conveyance path 316 on an upstream side with respect to a position where the sheet comes into contact with the rotation member rotationally driven by the motor – see Ohashi, Figs. 1-2, claim 1, paragraphs [0008], [0024],[0037], lines 1-3, [0082]), wherein the control unit is further configured to set a timing at which the detection unit detects the sheet as a start timing of the second period, or is further configured to determine a start timing of the second period based on the timing at which the detection unit detects the sheet (Figs. 1, 3 and 5-6 of Ohashi discloses the control unit 157 is further configured to set a timing t2 at which the detection unit 330, 331 detects the sheet as a start timing of the second period t2, or is further configured to determine a start timing of the second period t2 based on the timing at which the detection unit 330, 331 detects the sheet – see Ohashi, Figs. 1, 3 and 5, paragraphs [0065], [0067]; [0075], [0077] and [0082]). For claim 15 , Ohashi discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the conveyance unit includes a feeding unit configured to feed a sheet to the conveyance path, and the control unit is further configured to determine a start timing of the second period based on a timing at which a sheet is fed to the conveyance path (Fig. 1 of Ohashi discloses the conveyance unit including a feeding unit 3/303, 305 configured to feed a sheet/P to the conveyance path 316, 326, 325, and the control unit 157 is further configured to determine a start timing of the second period based on a timing at which a sheet is fed to the conveyance path – see Ohashi, Fig. 1, 3 and 5-6, paragraphs [0063]-[0064] and [0073]-[0074]). For claim 16 , Ohashi discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the conveyance unit includes a feeding unit configured to feed a sheet to the conveyance path, and a switching unit configured to switch between a transmission state in which a driving force of the motor is transmitted to the feeding unit and a disconnected state in which the driving force of the motor is not transmitted to the feeding unit (Figs. 1, 3 and 5-6 of Ohashi disclose the conveyance unit includes a feeding unit 3/303,305 configured to feed a sheet to the conveyance path 316, 326, 325, and a switching unit 540 configured to switch between a transmission state in which a driving force of the motor 509 is transmitted to the feeding unit 3/303, 305 and a disconnected state in which the driving force of the motor 509 is not transmitted to the feeding unit 3/303, 305 -- see Ohashi, Figs. 1,3 and 5-6,paragraphs [0063]-[0066] and [0073]-[0076]), and wherein the control unit is further configured to determine a start timing of the second period based on a timing at which the switching unit is switched from the transmission state to the disconnected state (see Ohashi, Figs. 3 and 5-6, paragraphs [0064]-[0066] and [0074]-[0076]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi (US 2019/0386596 A1) . For claim 5 , Ohashi discloses the motor control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is further configured to update the second target value based on a speed variation of the rotation speed of the motor with respect to the target speed in the second period (Figs. 3 and 5 of Ohashi disclose the control unit 157 which is configured to generate the target value of the excitation current Id-ref based on the target speed w-ref in the second period – see Ohashi, Figs. 3 and 5, paragraphs [0062] and [0064]. Ohashi discloses the control unit 157 which is silent for specifically updating the second target value based on a speed variation of the rotation speed of the motor with respect to the target speed in the second period. However, Ohashi discloses the control unit 157 which generates the target value of the excitation current id-ref base on the target speed w-ref and reduces fluctuations in speed of motor 509 – see Ohashi, Figs. 3 and 5, paragraphs [0064] and [0067]. Thus, updating the second target value based on a speed variation of the rotation speed of the motor with respect to the target speed in the second period reads onto generating the target value of the excitation current id-ref base on the target speed w-ref and reducing fluctuations in speed of motor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ohashi to disclose specifically updating the second target value based on a speed variation of the rotation speed of the motor with respect to the target speed in the second period for purpose of controlling power consumption efficiently). For claim 7 , Ohashi discloses the motor control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to determine that the second period has ended when a speed variation of the rotation speed of the motor with respect to the target speed continues to be within a predetermined range for a second predetermined period, after a first predetermined period has elapsed since the target value of the excitation current is set to the second target value by start of the second period (Figs. 3 and 5 of Ohashi discloses the control unit 157 which is configured to determine that the second period has ended when a speed variation of the rotation speed of the motor 509 with respect to the target speed, after a first predetermined period t1 has elapsed since the target value of the excitation current id-ref is set to the second target value B by start of the second period – see Ohashi, Figs. 3 and 5-6, paragraphs [0062]-[0064] and [0073]-[0074]. It is noted that Ohashi is silent for disclosing the target speed which continuous to be within a predetermined range for a second predetermined period. However, the so-called “a predetermined range” is undefined, any value of speed can be within a predetermined ranged for a second predetermined period because Ohashi discloses CPU 151a which control drive current to reduce fluctuations in speed of the motor which can be read onto “the target speed which continuous to be within a predetermined range for a second predetermined period”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Ohashi to disclose the target speed which continuous to be within a predetermined range for a second predetermined period for purpose of protecting physical machinery and preventing the system from triggering unnecessary). For claim 8 , Ohashi discloses the motor control apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the first predetermined period is a period including a timing at which a load of the motor varies (see Ohashi, Fig. 5, paragraph [0062]-[0063]). 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 2837 May 16, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 2 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 3 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 4 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 5 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 6 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 7 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 8 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 9 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 10 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 11 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 12 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 13 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 14 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 15 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/750,882 Page 16 Art Unit: 2837
Prosecution Insights