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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The specification does not demonstrate possession of the stator-excitation mode limitation recited in claim 6.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The specification does not demonstrate possession of the specific limitation “the resolver is associated to a joint of an articulated robot arm.”
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 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The terms “master amount of total inductive coupling” and “current amount of total inductive coupling” (recited in claims 1–4, 7–10, 12, and 14) are relative terms that render the claims indefinite. The specification does not provide a clear standard or objective criteria for ascertaining what degree or value constitutes a “master amount” versus a “current amount,” nor does it sufficiently define the precise metes and bounds of “total inductive coupling” (e.g., whether it is strictly the sum of squares of sine and cosine voltages, an RMS value, or another metric). One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Additionally, the term “allowable range” (recited in claims 8 and 9) is indefinite. The claims and specification fail to disclose any objective boundaries or method for determining what values fall within or outside the allowable range.
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, 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite a method (claim 1), controller (claim 10), assembly (claim 12), and computer-readable storage medium (claim 14) for monitoring a resolver by: (a) obtaining a master amount of total inductive coupling, (b) obtaining a current amount of total inductive coupling at a current instant in time, and (c) deciding that the resolver is defective when a difference between the current amount and the master amount exceeds a predetermined threshold.
This judicial exception is a mathematical concept (comparison of calculated amounts) and/or a mental process (observation, evaluation, and judgment that could be performed in the human mind).
The additional elements (resolver with first and second winding assemblies, power supply circuit, measurement circuitry, processor, and tangible non-volatile storage medium) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than generic components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of data gathering and execution. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two) and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B) (see *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l* and *Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.*).
Dependent claims 2–9, 11, and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chellamuthu et al. (US 2018/0073895 A1, hereinafter “Chellamuthu”).
As to claim 1, Chellamuthu discloses a method for monitoring a resolver, the resolver comprising first and second winding assemblies that are rotatable with respect to each other and are inductively coupled, the first winding assembly having a sine winding and a cosine winding arranged so that when inductive coupling between the sine winding and the second winding assembly is zero, inductive coupling between the cosine winding and the second winding assembly is at a maximum, and when inductive coupling between the cosine winding and the second winding assembly is zero, inductive coupling between the sine winding and the second winding assembly is at a maximum (resolver sensor 200 as shown in Fig. 1; exciter terminals R1/R2 (second winding assembly) and sine terminals S2/S4, cosine terminals S1/S3 (first winding assembly with secondary coils 240 and 250); “The exciter signal applied to the primary coil is AC-coupled (e.g., inductively coupled) to the two stator windings”), the method comprising:
a) obtaining a master amount of total inductive coupling between the first and second winding assemblies of the resolver (first average power signal generated over a first time window by the first power averaging circuit 1602 as shown in Fig. 16);
b) obtaining a current amount of total inductive coupling at a current instant in time (second average power signal generated over a second time window by the second power averaging circuit 1604 as shown in Fig. 16); and
c) deciding that the resolver is defective when a difference between the current amount and the master amount exceeds a predetermined threshold (Abstract: “the comparator circuit compares the first average power signal and the second average power signal and generates a fault signal when the first average power signal and the second average power signal differ by a selected voltage threshold”; see comparators 1662 and 1664 + fault signal generator 1670 in Fig. 16).
As to claim 2, Chellamuthu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein step a) comprises a1) obtaining at least one master sample of total inductive coupling between the first and second winding assemblies of the resolver at an instant in time different from a current instant, and a2) determining the master amount based on the at least one master sample (first power averaging circuit 1602 as shown in Fig. 16 uses multiple samples over the longer time window).
As to claim 3, Chellamuthu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a) is periodically repeated and comprises low pass filtering or averaging of successive master samples at a time constant of at least a minute (longer time window of first power averaging circuit 1602 as shown in Fig. 16; verbatim from description: “first time window … longer than the second time window”).
As to claim 4, Chellamuthu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining a current amount comprises obtaining a current sample of total inductive coupling (second power averaging circuit 1604 as shown in Fig. 16).
As to claim 5, Chellamuthu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein obtaining a current and/or obtaining a master sample comprises passing an alternating current through the second winding assembly to induce a magnetic field, sampling voltages induced by said magnetic field in sine and cosine windings of the first winding assembly, and using as the current sample or said master sample the sum of squares of the sampled voltages (exciter terminals R1/R2 (second winding assembly) as shown in Fig. 1; induced voltages at sine terminals S2/S4 and cosine terminals S1/S3; verbatim para [0082]: “the sin(ωt) effect is decoupled by the squared-sum calculation”; square cells 1510 and 1520 + summer 1540 in Fig. 15).
As to claim 6, Chellamuthu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein obtaining a current and/or obtaining a master sample comprises providing first and second alternating currents having a same amplitude and a phase shift of 90°, passing the first alternating current through the sine winding of the first winding assembly and passing the second alternating current through the cosine winding so as to generate a magnetic field, sampling a voltage induced by said magnetic field in the second winding assembly, and using as said current or master sample the amount or the square of said sampled voltage (the squared-sum math is symmetrically supported for stator-excitation mode; verbatim para [0082]: “squared-sum calculation”).
As to claim 7, Chellamuthu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: d) storing an initial master amount obtained by an initial execution of step a); e) repeating step a) to obtain an updated master amount, and deciding that the resolver is defective when a difference between the initial master amount and the updated master amount exceeds a predetermined threshold (long-window power averaging circuit 1602 as shown in Fig. 16 starts as initial and is updated; comparators 1662/1664).
As to claim 8, Chellamuthu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: d) storing an allowable range of the total inductive coupling, e) repeating step a) to obtain an updated master amount, and deciding that the resolver is defective when the updated master amount is outside the allowable range (threshold around long-term average defines the range; fault if outside).
As to claim 9, Chellamuthu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: d) storing an allowable range of the total inductive coupling; and e) deciding that the resolver is defective when the current amount of total inductive coupling is outside the allowable range (short-term value checked against long-term reference/threshold range; Abstract).
As to claim 10, Chellamuthu discloses a resolver controller comprising a power supply circuit for providing an alternating current to one of first and second winding assemblies of a resolver (exciter signal applied to terminals R1/R2 of resolver sensor 200 as shown in Fig. 1; “The exciter signal applied to the primary coil”), measurement circuitry for measuring voltage induced in the other of the first and second winding assemblies by the alternating current (sine and cosine output terminals S1/S3 and S2/S4 processed by square cells 1510 and 1520 + summer 1540 in Fig. 15), and a processor configured:
a) to obtain a master amount of total inductive coupling between the first and second winding assemblies of the resolver from voltage data measured by the measurement circuitry (first power averaging circuit 1602 as shown in Fig. 16; verbatim from Abstract: “first average power signal” generated over a first time window),
b) to obtain at least one current amount of total inductive coupling at a current instant in time from voltage data measured by the measurement circuitry (second power averaging circuit 1604 as shown in Fig. 16; Abstract: “second average power signal” generated over a second time window), and
c) to decide that the resolver is defective when a difference between the current amount and the master amount exceeds a predetermined threshold (Abstract: “the comparator circuit compares the first average power signal and the second average power signal and generates a fault signal when the first average power signal and the second average power signal differ by a selected voltage threshold”; see comparators 1662 and 1664 + fault signal generator 1670 in Fig. 16).
As to claim 11, Chellamuthu discloses the resolver controller of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to deduce an angular position of the resolver from the voltage induced in the other of the first and second winding assemblies (verbatim: “outputting a rotational position signal or an angular signal… based on the sine wave signal and the cosine wave signal”).
As to claim 12, Chellamuthu discloses a resolver assembly, comprising:
a resolver controller, the resolver controller comprising:
a power supply circuit for providing an alternating current to one of first and second winding assemblies of a resolver (exciter signal applied to terminals R1/R2 of resolver sensor 200 as shown in Fig. 1; “The exciter signal applied to the primary coil”),
measurement circuitry for measuring voltage induced in the other of the first and second winding assemblies by the alternating current (sine and cosine output terminals S1/S3 and S2/S4 processed by square cells 1510 and 1520 + summer 1540 in Fig. 15),
and a processor configured to obtain a master amount of total inductive coupling between the first and second winding assemblies of the resolver from voltage data measured by the measurement circuitry (first power averaging circuit 1602 as shown in Fig. 16; Abstract: “first average power signal” generated over a first time window), and to obtain at least one current amount of total inductive coupling at a current instant in time from voltage data measured by the measurement circuitry (second power averaging circuit 1604 as shown in Fig. 16; Abstract: “second average power signal” generated over a second time window), and to decide that the resolver is defective when a difference between the current amount and the master amount exceeds a predetermined threshold (Abstract: “the comparator circuit compares the first average power signal and the second average power signal and generates a fault signal when the first average power signal and the second average power signal differ by a selected voltage threshold”; see comparators 1662 and 1664 + fault signal generator 1670 in Fig. 16); and
the resolver (resolver sensor 200 as shown in Fig. 1 with first and second winding assemblies that are rotatable with respect to each other and are inductively coupled; verbatim: “The exciter signal applied to the primary coil is AC-coupled (e.g., inductively coupled) to the two stator windings”).
As to claim 14, Chellamuthu discloses a tangible, non-volatile computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a plurality of computer executable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to
obtain a master amount of total inductive coupling between first and second winding assemblies of a resolver from input voltage data (first power averaging circuit 1602 as shown in Fig. 16; verbatim from Abstract: “first average power signal” generated over a first time window),
to obtain at least one current amount of total inductive coupling at a current instant in time from input voltage data (second power averaging circuit 1604 as shown in Fig. 16; verbatim from Abstract: “second average power signal” generated over a second time window), and
to decide that the resolver is defective when a difference between the current amount and the master amount exceeds a predetermined threshold (verbatim from Abstract: “the comparator circuit compares the first average power signal and the second average power signal and generates a fault signal when the first average power signal and the second average power signal differ by a selected voltage threshold”; implemented by comparators 1662 and 1664 + fault signal generator 1670 in Fig. 16).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chellamuthu et al. (US 2018/0073895 A1 hereinafter “Chellamuthu”) in view of Noritou (US 2007/0251332 A1 hereinafter “Noritou”).
As to claim 13, Chellamuthu discloses the resolver assembly of claim 12. Chellamuthu does not expressly disclose the resolver is associated to a joint of an articulated robot arm. However, Noritou discloses the resolver is associated to a joint of an articulated robot arm (resolver rotor 6 attached to motor passing shaft as shown in Fig. 1; para [0021]). Therefore, it 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 to associate the resolver assembly of Chellamuthu with a joint of an articulated robot arm, as taught by Noritou, to provide reliable angular position sensing and defect detection in robotic systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am-6:30pm M-F.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/TUNG X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 3/20/2026
Prosecution Insights