DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/9/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- voltage diagnosis part, introduced/recited in claim 1
- current diagnosis part, introduced/recited in claim 3
- torque diagnosis part, introduced/recited in claim 6
- pulse width modulation diagnosis part, introduced/recited in claim 9
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 as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. It is noted that the Specification does not describe the specific structure that the recited voltage diagnosis part, current diagnosis part, torque diagnosis part and pulse width modulation diagnosis part, refers to and what its equivalents are. Thus, it’s not possible to determine the scope of the claim (please refer to the Rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below).
A review of the Specification appears to indicate the recited voltage diagnosis part, current diagnosis part, torque diagnosis part and pulse width modulation diagnosis part, refers to software executed by a generic computing device. Thus, for the purpose of examination, the examiner considers the recited voltage diagnosis part, current diagnosis part, torque diagnosis part and pulse width modulation diagnosis part, as a processor comprising non-tangible computer executable instructions that, when executed, receives data (for example, data related to voltage output from a PI controller) and manipulates the data (for example, comparing the voltage output with voltage calculated based on duty information), and generates a calculation (for example, failure diagnosis).
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a voltage diagnosis part”. The Specification however is silent about what constitutes the recited “part”. Similarly, claim 3 introduces the recitation “a current diagnosis part”, and claim 6 introduces the recitation “the torque diagnosis part”. As mentioned with regards to the interpretation of the recited “parts” under 35 USC 112(f) above, because the Specification is silent about what constitutes any of the “parts”, it’s not possible to ascertain the scope of the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner considers the recited voltage diagnosis part, current diagnosis part, torque diagnosis part and pulse width modulation diagnosis part, as a software program that receives data (for example, data related to voltage output from a PI controller) and manipulates the data (for example, comparing the voltage output with voltage calculated based on duty information), and generates a calculation (for example, failure diagnosis).
Correction is required. Claims 2-11 and 13 are also rejected as they incorporate or inherit the deficiencies noted above.
Regarding claim 12, lines 3-4, the recitation “a PI controller that receives current for operating the motor and outputs voltage, a first transformation that transforms voltage information” is unclear. It’s not clear if the recited “first transformation” refers to the action of transforming, or if it refers to a device within the system. After reviewing the Specification, the examiner believes the latter was intended. Thus, the examiner suggests amending the claim as follows:
-- a PI controller that receives current for operating the motor and outputs voltage, a first transformation device that transforms voltage information.. --
Similarly, in line 5, the recitation “a motor reference” appears to describe a value. However, the Specification appears to describe a motor which operation is used as a reference. Thus, the recitation “a motor reference” in line 5 should be amended to “a reference motor”.
Regarding claim 14, line 4, the recitation “diagnosing failure of a first transformation that transforms voltage information...” is unclear. It’s not clear if the recited “first transformation” refers to a transformation operation, or if it refers to a device (transformer) within the system. After reviewing the Specification, the examiner believes the latter was intended. Thus, the examiner suggests amending the claim as follows:
-- diagnosing failure of a first transformation operation that transforms voltage information...--
Correction is required. Claims 15-20 are also rejected as they inherit the deficiencies noted above.
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 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 13, the claim(s) recite(s) manipulation of data (for example: calculating, comparing, diagnosing) that appears to be performed by the execution of a computer program (please refer to the basis for interpretation of the claims under 35 USC 112(f) above). Data manipulation or calculations performed by following mathematical concepts constitute a judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the calculations can be performed in the human mind. The examiner notes that although claim 1 mentions an “inverter” a “PI controller” and a “motor”, neither of said components as recited are comprised within the system. The claim only describes the “voltage diagnosis part” as performing calculations based on signals received from or related to the elements. In other words, claim 1 only necessitates the presence of the “voltage diagnosis part”.
Lastly, as mentioned above, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As mentioned above, the claims do not necessitate the presence of additional elements besides the recited voltage diagnosis part, current diagnosis part, and torque diagnosis part.
Regarding claims 9-11, in addition to that stated above, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Although the claim recites a “voltage detector”, the element is directed to a well-known generic sensor/detector relied upon for gathering data. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Claims 12 and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a motor failure diagnosis system comprising a PI controller that receives current for operating the motor and outputs voltage, a first transformation that transforms voltage information of the PI controller into a vector and transmits the information, and a motor reference into which a torque command for operating the motor is input; and a motor failure diagnosis device diagnosing failure of at least one of the inverter, the PI controller, the first transformation, and the motor reference, in combination with all other elements recited.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination a motor failure diagnosis method comprising the step of diagnosing failure of a first transformation operation that transforms voltage information of a PI controller into a vector and transmits the information, based on diagnosed information on the failure of the inverter, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 15-20, the claims would be allowable as they include the allowable subject matter in claim 14 noted above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2022/0396151 A1 by Flieh et al. directed to methods and apparatus for diagnosing motor phase connections including components within a proportional integral controller (within 150 in Fig. 2, see paragraph 0034, lines 8-10).
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2009/0250289 A1 by Kifuku et al., directed to systems for monitoring and diagnosing operation of a power steering device, including diagnosing the behavior of an inverter connected to the power steering motor.
- the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2022/0376642 by White et al., directed to motor control systems including a Park Transformation module, inverter, pulse width modulator as well as a torque estimation unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights