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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2024 and 04/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13-14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, line 1 recites “The synchro-demodulator of claim 1”. Claim is not directed to a synchro-demodulator. It appears that there was a typo in the dependency and claim 13 should depend from claim 11 instead. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that claim 13 depends from claim 11.
Claim 14 depending from claim 13 is objected for the same reason.
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.
Claims1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-10, the independent claim (claim 1) is directed, in part, to a method for generating a signal indicative of a shaft angle of a synchro-resolver. Step 1 - First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-10 are directed a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process. However, these series of steps are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mathematical concept which includes formulas or calculations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to convolving a first differential signal induced between a first output terminal and a second output terminal of a three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver with a first sine wave having a period and a phase equal to a period and phase of the first differential signal, thereby generating a first convolution result; determining a magnitude of the first differential signal based on the first convolution result; using the magnitude of the first differential signal as a measure of a sine of the shaft angle; convolving a second differential signal induced between the first output terminal and a third output terminal of a three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver with a second sine wave having a period and a phase equal to a period and phase of the second differential signal, thereby generating a second convolution result; determining a magnitude of the second differential signal based on the second convolution result; creating a measure of a cosine of the shaft angle based on a weighted sum of the measures of the magnitudes of the first and second differential signals; and determining the shaft angle based on the measures of the sine and cosine of the shaft angle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a formula or calculation, the it falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 recites additional elements first output terminal, second output terminal, third output terminal, and three-phase secondary winding. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into any practical application (device or thing) because the claimed mathematical concepts do not effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
As per Step 2b of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements could be considered as not significantly more than the abstract idea because they relate to insignificant extra solution activity. Because first output terminal, second output terminal, third output terminal, and three-phase secondary winding generically linking to a particular technology of environment or field of use and simply the use of judicial exception. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim limitations do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. This claim is therefore directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, and therefore stands rejected as being directed towards a judicial exception.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 further recites the element(s) "providing a sinusoidal excitation signal to primary windings of the synchro-resolver", which is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 further recites the element(s) "wherein determining the magnitude of the first differential signal induced between the first output terminal and the second output terminal of the three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver includes: determining a zero-crossing of the first differential signal; synthesizing a sine wave based on zero-crossing of the first differential signal, the sine wave having a period and a phase equal to a period and phase of the first differential signal; and convolving the synthesized sine wave with the first differential signal induced between the first output terminal and the second output terminal of the three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver, thereby determining a magnitude the first differential signal", which is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 further recites the element(s) "wherein determining the magnitude of the second differential signal induced the first output terminal and the third output terminal of the three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver includes: determining a zero-crossing of the second differential signal; synthesizing a sine wave based on the zero-crossing of the second differential signal, the sine wave having a period and a phase equal to a period and phase of the second differential signal; and convolving the synthesized sine wave with the second differential signal induced between the first output terminal and the third output terminal of the three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver, thereby determining a magnitude the second differential signal", which is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 further recites the element(s) "wherein creating a measure of a cosine of the shaft angle based on a weighted sum of the measures of the magnitudes of the first and second differential signals comprises: weighting the magnitude of the first differential signal half as much as the magnitude of the second differential signal", which is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 further recites the element(s) "wherein determining the shaft angle based on the measures of the sine and cosine of the shaft angle further comprises: taking a ratio of the measures of the sine and cosine of the shaft angle", which is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 further recites the element(s) "wherein determining the shaft angle based on the measures of the sine and cosine of the shaft angle further comprises: taking the arctangent of the ratio of the measures of the sine and cosine of the shaft angle", which is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 2, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 further recites the element(s) "wherein the measure of the shaft angle is determined for each period of the excitation signal", which is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 further recites the element(s) "normalizing magnitudes of the first and second differential signals based on first and second DC voltages blended into each of the first and second differential voltages", which is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 further recites the element(s) "wherein the magnitudes of the first and second differential signals are normalized by: setting the synthesized cosine signal to unity; setting the synthesized sine signal to zero; determining magnitude of the first and second differential signals for each of the first and second DC voltages blended thereinto; determining gain of the first differential signal based on a difference in the magnitudes of the first differential signal for each of the blended DC voltages; and determining gain of the second differential signal based on a difference in the magnitudes of the second differential signal for each of the blended DC voltages", which is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-10, the prior art fails to specifically teach a method for generating a signal indicative of a shaft angle of a synchro-resolver, the method comprising: convolving a first differential signal induced between a first output terminal and a second output terminal of a three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver with a first sine wave having a period and a phase equal to a period and phase of the first differential signal, thereby generating a first convolution result; determining a magnitude of the first differential signal based on the first convolution result; using the magnitude of the first differential signal as a measure of a sine of the shaft angle; convolving a second differential signal induced between the first output terminal and a third output terminal of a three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver with a second sine wave having a period and a phase equal to a period and phase of the second differential signal, thereby generating a second convolution result; determining a magnitude of the second differential signal based on the second convolution result; creating a measure of a cosine of the shaft angle based on a weighted sum of the measures of the magnitudes of the first and second differential signals; and determining the shaft angle based on the measures of the sine and cosine of the shaft angle, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 11-20, the prior art fails to specifically teach a synchro-demodulator for generating a signal indicative of a shaft angle of a three-phase synchro-resolver, the synchro-demodulator comprising: a processor configured to receive the first and second digitized samplings; and computer readable memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor cause the synchro-demodulator to: convolve a first differential signal induced between a first output terminal and a second output terminal of a three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver with a first sine wave having a period and a phase equal to a period and phase of the first differential signal, thereby generating a first convolution result; determine a magnitude of the first differential signal based on the first convolution result; use the magnitude of the first differential signal as a measure of a sine of the shaft angle; convolve a second differential signal induced between the first output terminal and a third output terminal of a three-phase secondary winding of the synchro-resolver with a second sine wave having a period and a phase equal to a period and phase of the second differential signal, thereby generating a second convolution result; determine a magnitude of the second differential signal based on the second convolution result; create a measure of a cosine of the shaft angle based on a weighted sum of the measures of the magnitudes of the first and second differential signals; and determine the shaft angle based on the measures of the sine and cosine of the shaft angle, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Avritch et al. (US PGPUB 2026/0056035) teaches transformerless demodulation of synchro-resolver.
Fu et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0142782) teaches evaluation of resolver sensor signals.
Chen et al. (US PGPUB 2006/0241790) teaches electromagnetic sensor direct communication algorithm to a digital microprocessor.
Vlahu (US Pat. 5,912,638) teaches a direct resolver to digital converter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights