CTNF 18/823,895 CTNF 90514 DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on 09/04/2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for Examination. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Alice Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category (systems and methods). Alice Step 2A, Prong 1 (Identification of Abstract Idea): Claims 1 and 12 recite the steps of "determining at least one electrical machine parameter... based on an assumed resolver offset", "determining... a residual", and "determining... if the assumed resolver offset is acceptable by comparing the residual with a predetermined reference value." These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts (calculating a residual) and mental processes (evaluating data and making a comparison against a threshold reference value), which are abstract ideas. Alice Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integration into a Practical Application): The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims merely recite processing data to evaluate the accuracy of a resolver offset. While the claims recite "during operation of an electrical machine," this is mere field-of-use language. Furthermore, the claims end at the evaluative step ("determine if the assumed resolver offset is acceptable"). They do not claim using the result to actually calibrate the resolver, control the electrical machine, or alter the machine's state based on the comparison. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Alice Step 2B (Significantly More): The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations recite a generic "computer system comprising processing circuitry" performing generic computer functions (determining, calculating, comparing). The specification acknowledges that the system can be implemented using any standard processor, memory, and bus architecture (Paragraphs [0079]-[0080]). Thus, the hardware limitations represent nothing more than the implementation of abstract mathematical and evaluative concepts on a generic computer. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims broadly recite determining "a residual" from "at least one electrical machine parameter." However, the specification solely enables calculating a residual using a highly specific subset of parameters and a distinct mathematical relationship. Specifically, paragraph [0063] and [0064] outline the residual as calculated strictly using d-axis voltage, stator resistance, d-axis current, electrical speed, q-axis inductance, and q-axis current, governed by the formula as shown in claim 5. The broad recitation in Claims 1 and 12 encompasses any unspecified electrical machine parameter used to calculate any unspecified residual. The specification provides no guidance, disclosure, or written description on how one of ordinary skill in the art would calculate a residual using parameters other than the d-axis and q-axis metrics expressly defined. The claims are therefore an attempt to preempt the broader result of evaluating a resolver offset without providing an enabling disclosure commensurate with that broad scope. Examiner's Note / Suggestions for Overcoming Rejections: To overcome the § 101 rejection: Applicant should consider amending the independent claims to integrate the evaluation step into a practical application. For example, incorporating the limitation from Claim 8 or Claim 18 ("determine a correct resolver offset from the residual") and affirmatively controlling the electrical machine (e.g., executing field-oriented control) based on the corrected offset may show an improvement in the functioning of the electrical machine itself. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the step of "determine at least one electrical machine parameter... based on an assumed resolver offset." In the immediate following step, the claim recites "determine a residual from said at least one measured electrical machine parameter."There is a lack of proper antecedent basis for "said at least one measured electrical machine parameter." Furthermore, the claim is internally contradictory. The first step requires the parameter to be a calculated or extrapolated value ("determined... based on an assumed resolver offset"), whereas the second step refers to it as a measured parameter. The specification fails to clarify whether this parameter is physically measured via sensors or computationally derived based on the assumption. Claim 12 suffers from the same defect. Appropriate correction is requested. Since the independent claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and hence the dependent claims of 1 and 12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 503 378 A1 (hereinafter "Sahhary") in view of US 2015/0106043 A1 (hereinafter "US '043") . Regarding Independent Claim 1, Sahhary teaches that a computer system for an electrical machine comprising processing circuitry( [0030]; FIG. 1) configured to: determine at least one electrical machine parameter during operation of the electrical machine based on an assumed resolver offset (Sahhary teaches determining current information (an electrical machine parameter), which represents a d-current and a q-current based on rotor position information 22 provided by the rotor position sensor (resolver) (Sahhary, [0037]-[0038]). Sahhary explicitly teaches that due to mounting inaccuracies, the provided rotor position information refers to d/q axes having an initially assumed/uncorrected measuring offset represented by an offset angle 33 (Sahhary, [0029]), determine a residual from said at least one measured electrical machine parameter (Sahhary teaches calculating a measuring offset (Δϑ), which functionally serves as an error residual, by finding the difference between current angles derived from the measured currents and derived from impedance data (Sahhary, [0050]: "determines the measuring offset based on the first current angle information …"). Sahhary teaches calculating the offset error (the residual) and transmitting it to the control unit to store for "correcting future rotor position information" (Sahhary, [0052]). However, Sahhary does not explicitly teach an automated decision-making step of determining if the assumed resolver offset is acceptable by comparing the residual with a predetermined reference value. US '043 teaches an electrical drive control system comprising a rotational position detector (resolver) and a decision-making circuit (processing circuitry) that evaluates determined electrical machine parameters against a predetermined threshold (reference value) to determine if the state is acceptable or if a fault has occurred (US '043, [0013]: "decision-making circuit determines whether or not the phase current values exceed a predetermined amplitude threshold value"; [0083]-[0085]: "compared with the threshold value Fk limit... If the counter value exceeds the threshold value, all the transistor elements... are turned off in step S508" and FIG.11). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resolver offset calculation system of Sahhary by incorporating the threshold-comparison and decision-making logic taught by US '043. The motivation for this modification would be to automate the validation of the calculated resolver measuring offset (the residual) to determine whether the uncorrected offset falls within an acceptable operational tolerance or if it exceeds safe bounds, thereby requiring intervention or triggering an error flag. As taught by US '043, utilizing a decision-making circuit to compare electrical machine parameters against predetermined thresholds enhances system safety, improves fault detection efficiency, and ensures reliability in motor applications (US '043, [0048]). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that applying US '043's standard fault-tolerance comparison logic to Sahhary's calculated offset error would predictably yield an improved system capable of autonomously validating resolver calibration, thereby preventing machine damage from unacceptably high initial resolver offsets. Regarding Independent Claim 12, Sahhary in view of US '043 teaches the corresponding method steps: A method for an electrical machine: Sahhary teaches a method for determining a measuring offset of a rotor position sensor (Sahhary,[0005]; FIG.3). determining at least one electrical machine parameter during operation of the electrical machine based on an assumed resolver offset: As mapped above, Sahhary teaches determining measured currents based on an uncorrected rotor position offset (Sahhary, [0037]-[0038]). determining a residual from said at least one measured electrical machine parameter: As mapped above, Sahhary teaches calculating the delta error (Δϑ) (Sahhary, [0050]). determining if the assumed resolver offset is acceptable by comparing the residual with a predetermined reference value: As mapped above, US '043 teaches assessing parameter values against predetermined thresholds to make an acceptability decision (US '043, [0083]-[0085]), which one of ordinary skill would have naturally applied to Sahhary's residual for safety and calibration validation. Regarding the Dependent Claims: Claims 2-5, 13-16 recite determining a reference electrical machine parameter and defining the electrical parameters as voltage, current, etc. Sahhary explicitly teaches computing a reference second current angle based on rotational rate, stator inductance (Ls), stator resistance (Rs), and short circuit current (Isc) (Sahhary, [0040]-[0049]; FIG. 4). Claims 8-11, 18-20 recite determining a correct resolver offset from the residual and operating the machine based on the accepted offset. Sahhary explicitly teaches applying the calculated measuring offset (Δϑ) to correct future rotor position information 22 (Sahhary, [0052]). Furthermore, US '043 teaches altering control states (e.g., stopping gate signals) based on the threshold evaluation (US '043, [0085]). Examiner's Note: The combination of references teaches all substantive limitations of the independent and dependent claims through the predictable use of known prior art elements according to their established functions. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm. 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 on 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. /MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/823,895 Page 2 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/823,895 Page 3 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/823,895 Page 4 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/823,895 Page 5 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/823,895 Page 6 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/823,895 Page 7 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/823,895 Page 8 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/823,895 Page 9 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/823,895 Page 10 Art Unit: 2837
Prosecution Insights