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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 18, the comma (,) at the end of the claim should be changed to period (.).
For claim 18, the limitation “the parameter representative of a set torque”, on line 2, should be change to -- the parameter representative of the set torque--.
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 10-11, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 10, 13-15 and 18 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 claims 1 and 18 are a method and a power steering system. The machine/apparatus involve multiple mental steps.
Step 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claims recite a method (claim 1) and an apparatus (Claim 18). Thus, the claim 1 is a process and claim 18 is machine, which are 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., “a DC current threshold, a measured DC current and a limitation parameter” (emphasis added) of claim 10, line 8; “the upper limit and the lower limit of the parameter representative of the set torque are obtained by a revolution of a equation” (emphasis added), of claim 14, line 1-3; “a direct axis current of the motor supply AC current measured” (emphasis added) of claim 14, lines 4-5) and performing mathematical calculations (i.e. “a control parameter is determined” (emphasis added) of claim 10, line 7; “a command variable is determined” (emphasis added) of claim 10, line 9; “an upper limit and a lower limit of the parameter representative of the set torque are determined” (emphasis added) of claim 10, lines 11-12; “the parameter representative of the set torque is determined”(emphasis added) of claim 10, lines 14-15; “determines the command variable by a sum of the DC current threshold and a correctio action value determined by a controller” (emphasis added) of claim 13, lines 2-3; “a direct axis current of the motor supply AC current determined” (emphasis added) of claim 14, lines 4-5; “ a transformation gain is determined” (emphasis added) of claim 15, line 2) 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 claims recite the additional element “microcontroller”, in claim 1, which uses microcontroller to perform the recited steps. The microcontroller in the above steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic microcontroller 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 microcontroller to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A microcontroller 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 “determining”, “performing”, etc.). The claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, claims 10, 13-15 and 18 are not patent eligible.
For claims 11, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, this claim merely requires “the parameter representative of the set torque and the parameter representative of the desired torque correspond to a torque or to a current quadrature axis”, which is part of the abstract idea. Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the desired torque” in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-18 are rejected due to their dependencies on based claim 10.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the transformation factor” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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 10-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellinga (US 2020/0321898 A1).
For claim 10, Hellinga discloses a method for determining a parameter representative of a set torque for a motor, the motor being supplied with an AC current coming from at least one inverter (Fig. 1 of Hellinga discloses a method for determining a parameter representative of a set torque for a motor 400 – see Hellinga, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0014]), the motor being supplied with an AC current coming from at least one inverter, the at least one inverter being driven by at least one microcontroller using a vector control method, the at least one inverter being supplied with a DC current coming from at least one DC current supply system (Figs. 1 and 4 of Hellinga disclose a method for determining a parameter representative of a set torque (torque demand 108c) for a motor 400, the motor 400 being supplied with an AC current coming from at least one inverter included in motor controller 300, the at least one inverter being driven by at least one microcontroller 100, the at least one inverter being supplied with a DC current coming from at least one DC current supply system BMS – see Hellinga, Figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0014]; [0054]-[0055] and [0074]), the method being executed by the at least one microcontroller -- see Hellinga, Figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs [0077]-[0078]) and comprising:
- a control step in which a control parameter is determined at least as a function of a DC current threshold, a measured DC current and a limitation parameter (see Hellinga, Figs. 1, 3-4, paragraphs [0018] and [0020]);
- a regulation step in which a command variable is determined at least as a function of the DC current threshold and the measured DC current (see Hellinga, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0050]-[0053]);
- a determination step in which an upper limit (Fig. 4, 108a, 108b) and a lower limit (Fig. 4, 108a, 108b) of the parameter representative of the set torque are determined at least as a function of the command variable (see Hellinga, Figs. 1 and 3-4, paragraphs [0021], [0033]-[0034] and [0051]-[0053]);
[0050]-[0054], [0060]-[0061]);
- an evaluation step in which the parameter representative of the set torque is determined at least as a function of the upper limit and the lower limit of the parameter representative of the set torque and a parameter representative of the desired torque (see Hellinga, Figs. 1 and 3-4, paragraphs [0054]-[0056]; [0060]-[0063] and [0067]).
Hellinga discloses inverter being driven by at least one microcontroller which is silent for using a vector control method.
However, Pramod discloses inverter being driven by at least one microcontroller which uses a vector control method (Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Pramod disclose the at least one inverter 124 being driven by at least one microcontroller 130 using a vector control method – see Pramod, Figs. 1 and 4-5, paragraphs [0048]-[0050]).
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 Hellinga to incorporate teaching of Pramod for purpose of minimizing magnetization losses and reducing overall power consumption.
For claim 11, Hellinga in view of Pramod disclose the determination method according to claim 10, wherein the parameter representative of the set torque and the parameter representative of the desired torque correspond to a torque or to a current quadrature axis (see Hellinga, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0018] and [0055]).
For claim 12, Hellinga in view of Pramod disclose the determination method according to claim 10, also comprising a driving step in which the at least one inverter is driven by the microcontroller on the basis of the parameter representative of the set torque (see Hellinga, Figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0014]; [0054]-[0055] and [0074]).
For claim 13, Hellinga in view of Pramod disclose the determination method according to claim 10, wherein the regulation step determines the command variable by a sum of the DC current threshold and a corrective action value determined by a controller of integral, and/or derivative, and/or proportional type receiving as input the DC current threshold and the measured DC current (see Hellinga, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0051]-[0052]).
For claim 14, Hellinga in view of Pramod disclose the determination method according to claim 10, wherein the upper limit and the lower limit of the parameter representative of the set torque are obtained by a resolution of a equation which is a function of at least: the command variable, a rotational speed of the motor, a DC current voltage supplied to the inverter, and a direct axis current of the motor supply AC current measured or determined during a previous iteration (see Hellinga, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0018] and [0052]-[0056]).
For claim 16, Hellinga in view of Pramod disclose the determination method according to claim 10, wherein the control parameter is passed into an active state when the measured DC current is greater than or equal to the DC current threshold, and passed into an inactive state when the measured DC current is less than the DC current threshold and the parameter representative of the set torque is equal to the parameter representative of the desired torque (see Hellinga, Figs. 1 and 3-4, paragraphs [0051]-[0054], [0068]-[0069] and [0072]-[0074]).
For claim 17, Hellinga in view of Pramod disclose the determination method according to claim 16, wherein the control parameter is initiated in the inactive state (see Hellinga, Fig. 3-4, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
For claim 18, Hellinga in view of Pramod discloses a power steering system (Fig. 1 of Pramod discloses a power steering system) comprising at least one motor controlled by the parameter representative of a set torque determined by the method according to claim 10 (same as explanation in claim 10 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
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
Aug 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights