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 .
Election Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1- claims 1-7 (of claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2026.
Non-elected claims 8-20 shown “withdrawn” and must be shown as “cancelled” in response to this office action.
Objection to Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore (see claims 1-7), the back-electromotive force (EMF signal), a back-EMF magnitude and a back-EMF velocity must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Objection to Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-7 state one or more computer readable media. The “computer readable media” in accordance with applicant’s specification (see spec., page 1, para. [0003], pages 25-27, para’s [0082], [0090]-[0093]), may be an electromagnetic signal. This subject matter is not limited to that which falls within a statutory category of invention because it is not limited to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable media that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Applicant’s Spec. currently does not state “non-transitory computer readable media”.
Throughout the specification (see spec., page, 1, para. [0003], pages 3-4, para. [0014], page, 9, para. [0033], pages, 13-14, para’s [0046]-[0047] and claims 1-7) state the phrase, “back-EMF velocity” or” velocity of back-EMF” is not clear.
In general, velocity refer to motor velocity or speed of rotation of motor (see applicant’s fig.3). “Back-Emf is related to motor velocity”.
Appropriate correction is required wherever necessary in the specification.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1-7 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 1-7 state one or more computer readable media. The “computer readable media” in accordance with applicant’s specification (see spec., page 1, para. [0003], pages 25-27, para’s [0082], [0090]-[0093]), may be an electromagnetic signal. This subject matter is not limited to that which falls within a statutory category of invention because it is not limited to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable media that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Applicant’s Spec. currently does not state “non-transitory computer readable media”.
As to claims 1-7, the phrase, “back-EMF velocity” or” velocity of back-EMF” is not clear. In general, velocity refer to motor velocity or speed of rotation of motor (see applicant’s fig.3). “Back-Emf is related to motor voltage”.
Dependent claims 2-7 are rejected as they depend from rejected independent claim 1. 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (see claim 1) “A motor controller, comprising: one or more processors;
one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the motor controller to:
determine a first current associated with a motor controlled by the motor controller;
determine, based at least in part on the first current, a back-electromotive force (EMF) signal associated with the motor;
determine, based at least in part on the back-EMF signal, a back-EMF magnitude and a back-EMF velocity;
determine, based at least in part on the back-EMF magnitude and the back-EMF velocity, a first flux linkage value of the motor at a first time; and cause to report the first flux linkage value” without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical algorithms and mental processes (determining back-EMF, velocity, and flux linkage) rather than a specific physical improvement. The claim recites abstract ideas and simply applying these mathematical steps on a processor or motor controller is not enough. The generic hardware does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application and moreover applicants failed to state necessary structural and control details (current sensors 208, back EMF observer, Flux linkage measurement 220, Flux linkage estimate 222, magnet strength estimate 224, position estimator, current control 214, inverter 206 to physically control the motor via MOSFET(s) 210, see applicant’s fig.2) for proper understanding of the invention.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generic hardware (processor(s), computer readable media) does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application applicants failed to state necessary structural and control details (current sensors 208, back EMF observer, Flux linkage measurement 220, Flux linkage estimate 222, magnet strength estimate 224, position estimator, current control 214, inverter 206 via MOSFET(s) 210 to physically control the speed of the motor, see applicant’s figs.2-3 and determining the magnet strength 224 of the motor 200 for monitoring the health of the motor (see spec., para. [0002]).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because applicants failed to state necessary structural and control details (current sensors 208, back EMF observer, Flux linkage measurement 220, Flux linkage estimate 222, magnet strength estimate 224, position estimator, current control 214, inverter 206 via MOSFET(s) 210 to physically control the speed of the motor (see applicant’s figs.2-3) and determining the magnet strength 224 of the motor 200 for monitoring the health of the motor (see spec., para. [0002]) for proper understanding of the invention.
Regarding claims 2-5, the claims continue to use abstract ideas as storing, receiving, displaying, determining and indicating. These are still abstract and do not integrate into a practical application. Applicant may consider incorporating claim 6 into claim 1 to overcome the abstract idea rejection under 101.
Claims 1-7 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention (see claim 1) state one or more computer readable media. As to claims 1-7, the “computer readable media” in accordance with applicant’s specification (see spec., page 1, para. [0003], pages 25-27, para’s [0082], [0090]-[0093]), may be an electromagnetic signal. This subject matter is not limited to that which falls within a statutory category of invention because it is not limited to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable media that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
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, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US Patent No.: US 10,295,599 B2 and Choi hereinafter).
As to claim 1, (Original) A motor controller, comprising: one or more processors;
one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the motor controller to:
determine a first current associated with a motor controlled by the motor controller; determine, based at least in part on the first current, a back-electromotive force (EMF) signal associated with the motor;
determine, based at least in part on the back-EMF signal, a back-EMF magnitude and a back-EMF velocity;
determine, based at least in part on the back-EMF magnitude and the back-EMF velocity, a first flux linkage value of the motor at a first time; and cause to report the first flux linkage value.
(As to claim 1, Choi teaches (see fig.1-4, (col.1, lines 37-67), (col.3, lines 65-67), (col.4, lines 1-11, 15-45), (col.5, lines 20-29, lines 53-67) & col.6, lines 1-35))
a motor controller 34 (202-204) (of system 100), comprising: one or more processors 44 (fig.1, (col.5, lines 20-29, lines 53-67) & col.6, lines 1-35));
one or more computer-readable media 46 storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 44, cause the motor controller 34 to:
determine via motor current measurement, a first current 203 (fig.2) associated with a motor 20 controlled by the motor controller 34 (see figs.1-2, (col.1, lines 37-40), (col.6, lines 36-61), see claim1, (col.10, lines 1-7), claim 9, lines 1-5);
determine, based at least in part on the first current 203, a back-electromotive force (EMF) signal 215 (via 202 (212), fig.2) associated with the motor 20 (see fig.2, (col.1, lines 37-46), (col.2, lines 1-8, (col.6, lines 62-67), (col.7, lines 1-14), see claim1, (col.10, lines 1-14), claim 9, lines 1-15));
determine (via control module 202, fig.2), based at least in part on the back-EMF signal 215, a back-EMF magnitude [back-EMF voltage
PNG
media_image1.png
24
80
media_image1.png
Greyscale
], see (col.2, lines 9-19) and a back-EMF velocity [angular speed ωr/ ωe] (see figs.2-3, (col.2, lines 9-19), (col.7, lines 15-47), & see fig.3, (col. 8, lines 1-7, and lines 50-57);
determine (via control module 202, fig.2), based at least in part on the back-EMF magnitude [back-EMF voltage
PNG
media_image1.png
24
80
media_image1.png
Greyscale
] and the back-EMF velocity [angular speed ωr/ ωe], a first flux linkage value [
PNG
media_image2.png
24
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
209] of the Permanent magnet M motor 20 at a first time [via flux calculation time update module 214], see fig.2, (col.2, lines 17-24), (col.3, lines 51-58), fig.3, (col.6, lines 36-67, (col.7, lines 1-14), step 310, (col.8, lines 50-65), claim 7, (col.10, lines 59-62) and claim 15, (col.12, lines 4-7); and
cause to report (see fig.3, [set diagnostic trouble code 318/report 316)) the first flux linkage value [
PNG
media_image2.png
24
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
] (see control steps 318, 316 of related control steps 312-314, figs.3-4, (col.8, lines 50-67) and (col.9, lines 1-20), see claim 1, (col.10, lines 15-23, (claim 9, col.11, lines 15-28)).
As to claim 2, (Original) The motor controller of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the motor controller to: store the first flux linkage value, associated with the first time, in a datastore.
(As to claim 2, Choi teaches (see fig.1-4, (col.1, lines 37-67), (col.3, lines 65-67), (col.4, lines 1-11, 15-45), (col.5, lines 20-29, lines 53-67) & col.6, lines 1-35))
a motor controller 34 (202-204) (of system 100, figs.1-2), wherein
one or more computer-readable media 46 (fig.1) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 44 (fig.1), cause the motor controller 34 to: store the first flux linkage value 209 (figs.2-3), associated with the first time [via flux calculation time update module 214], in a datastore 32 (communicating via motor controller 34, see fig.1, (col.5, lines 53-56) or (flux value 219 provided in LUT 208, see col.6, lines 51-67 & (col.7, lines 1-14)).
As to claim 4, (Original) The motor controller of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the motor controller to: determine that the first flux linkage value is less than a threshold value;
determine, based at least in part on the first flux linkage value being less than the threshold value, that the motor is unsafe to use; and indicate, on the display device, that the motor is unsafe to use.
(As to claim 4, Choi teaches (see fig.1-4, (col.1, lines 37-67), (col.3, lines 65-67), (col.4, lines 1-11, 15-45), (col.5, lines 20-29, lines 53-67) & col.6, lines 1-35))
a motor controller 34 (202-204) (of system 100, figs.1-2), wherein
one or more computer-readable media 46 (fig.1) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 44 (fig.1), cause the motor controller 34 to:
determine that the first flux linkage value [
PNG
media_image2.png
24
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
] (relative to magnetic strength, see fig.3, (col.8, lines 50-67), (col.9, lines 1-8))) is below a threshold value [Threshold];
determine, based at least in part on the first flux linkage value [
PNG
media_image2.png
24
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
] (relative to magnetic strength, see fig.3) is below a threshold value [threshold] (see step 314, Yes), that the motor is unsafe to use such as set diagnostic trouble code (See step 318, fig.3, (col.8, lines 50-67), (col.9, lines 1-8)); and indicate, on the display device that the motor is unsafe to use such as (fig.4 showing display of magnetic strength signal 404 and Choi teaches online monitoring capability for monitoring magnet flux degradation (see fig.4 and (col.9, lines. 9-51); Choi also teaches system 100 includes touch-screen display, (see (col. 5, lines 44-52)).
As to claim 5, (Original) The motor controller of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the motor controller to: determine, based at least in part on the first flux linkage value and an initial permanent magnet strength, an estimate of a permanent magnet strength associated with the motor; and display, on the display device, the estimate of the permanent magnet strength.
(As to claim 5, Choi teaches (see fig.1-4, (col.1, lines 37-67), (col.3, lines 65-67), (col.4, lines 1-11, 15-45), (col.5, lines 20-29, lines 53-67) & col.6, lines 1-35))
a motor controller 34 (202-204) (of system 100, figs.1-2), wherein
one or more computer-readable media 46 (fig.1) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 44 (fig.1), cause the motor controller 34 to:
determine based on the first flux linkage value [
PNG
media_image2.png
24
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
] (relative to magnetic strength, see fig.3, (col.8, lines 50-67), (col.9, lines 1-8))) and a first permanent magnet strength [
PNG
media_image3.png
22
152
media_image3.png
Greyscale
](step 312, fig.3), an estimate of a permanent magnet strength associated with the motor 20 (see (col.8, lines 19-65) and fig.2 shows magnet strength determining module 204 from flux calculated via flux determining module 202); and display (fig.4), on the display device (system 100 includes touch-screen display, (see (col. 5, lines 44-52)), monitoring via display (fig.4) the calculated/predicted permanent magnet strength signal 408, first/reference PM flux 406, actual motor magnet strength 404 (See fig.4) and Choi teaches online monitoring capability for monitoring magnet flux degradation (see fig.4 and (col.9, lines. 9-51)).
As to claim 7, (Original) The motor controller of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the motor controller to:
determine that the motor is spinning at greater than a threshold speed, wherein determining the first current is based at least in part on the motor spinning at greater than the threshold speed.
(As to claim 7, Choi teaches (see fig.1-4, (col.1, lines 37-67), (col.3, lines 65-67), (col.4, lines 1-11, 15-45), (col.5, lines 20-29, lines 53-67) & col.6, lines 1-35))
a motor controller 34 (202-204) (of system 100, figs.1-2), wherein
one or more computer-readable media 46 (fig.1) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors 44 (fig.1), cause the motor controller 34 to:
determine that the motor 20 is rotating at greater than a threshold speed (Choi teaches via fig.4, wherein motor rotating speed 410 (stepped from 2000 rpm to 8000 rpm, see fig.4) wherein determining the first current 203 (see fig.2, and Choi teaches motor current measurement is performed in the rotating reference frame, see (col.6, lines 55-56), (col.7, lines 9-10)) associated with the stepped motor speed 410 (2000-8000 rpm, see fig.4 for relative monitoring of magnet strength 404, see (col.9, lines 9-51)).
Allowable Subject-Matter
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 would be allowable 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 and to include 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: As to claim 6, the prior art of record (Choi et al.) fails to teach determine that the motor is spinning at less than a threshold speed; operate, based at least in part on the motor spinning at less than the threshold speed, the motor in open loop operation by providing open loop commutation signals to the motor; and prior to determining the first current, stop providing the open loop commutation signals to the motor.
However, formal requirements outstanding (see objection to drawings and specification and 35 U.S.C.101 rejection of claims 1-7 and 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 1-7 needs to be corrected and clarified) in response to this office action.
Citation of Pertinent Prior art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
A). Roemmelmayer et al. teaches (figs.1-13, abstract) sensorless motor control.
B). Yang (US Pub. 2015/0311844 A1) teaches (figs.1-11, abstract) motor controller.
C). Szymula et al. (US Pub. US 2024/0022194 A1) teaches (figs.1-9C, abstract) position estimation for PM synchronous machines vi rotor flux space vector identification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONY M PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am to 4 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, Mr. 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.
/ANTONY M PAUL/
Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights