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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-35 are still pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 2 that Freescale does not disclose measuring the motor phase resistance and phase inductance and further argues that Freescale does not teach automated on-motor identification during tuning, but rather, analytical calculation and manual waveform-based iteration.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because step 4.1, step 4 clearly cites “by using the PMSM parameters measurement procedure”. It is disclosed that both Rs, Ld and Lq are all measured quantities cited using Table 1. Applicant is further advised that MCAT Tool screen in figure 1 discloses automated tool to tune the controller mentioned in section 4.3, 4.4, 4.6-4.9.
Applicant further argues on pages 3 and 4 that Freescale does not teach any of the above (subject matter mentioned in paragraphs 001-006)
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., subject matter in paragraphs 001-006) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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, 25, 2-6, 27, 7-10, 12-14, 26, 18, 31, 19, 32, 20, 33, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freescale, Tuning 3-phase….MACT tool.
Regarding claim 1, Freescale discloses
A method of automatically tuning a controller for a field-oriented control (FOC) electric motor (section 4.7), comprising: receiving user input (speed FOC) for parameters for tuning the controller (section 4); measuring phase resistance and phase inductance of the motor (Section 4.1 shows initial configuration where Rs, Ld and Lq are specified); and automatically tuning the controller for at least one type of tuning based on the user input and the measured phase resistance and phase inductance of the motor (section 4.3, 4.4, 4.6-4.9).
Regarding claim 25, Freescale discloses
A system (fig. 1) to automatically tune a controller for a field-oriented control (FOC) electric motor, comprising: memory and at least one processor (Hardware has inherently has a processor and a memory to store data and perform calculation. See section 2 and 3) configured to: receive user input for parameters for tuning the controller; measure phase resistance and phase inductance of the motor; and automatically tune the controller for at least one type of tuning based on the user input and the measured phase resistance and phase inductance of the motor (see claim 1 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 2, Freescale discloses
, wherein the at least one type of tuning includes alignment tuning (section 4.3).
Regarding claim 3, Freescale discloses
, wherein the at least one type of tuning includes startup tuning (section 4.7).
Regarding claim 4, Freescale discloses
, wherein the at least one type of tuning includes current closed loop tuning (section 4.4).
Regarding claim 5, Freescale discloses
, wherein the at least one type of tuning includes speed closed loop tuning (section 4.9).
Regarding claims 6 and 27, Freescale discloses
estimating a BEMF constant Ke for the motor using at least one of the parameters received as user input (section 4.1).
Regarding claim 7, Freescale discloses
measuring the phase resistance and phase inductance of the motor prior to tuning a current loop for the motor (happens during section 4.1), and estimating the constant Ke during tuning of a speed loop of the motor (fig. 2 shows tunning BEMF only when actual speed is reached).
Regarding claim 8, Freescale discloses
, wherein the receiving user input for the parameters includes receiving a rated motor speed (fig. 2 shows setting speed FOC).
Regarding claim 9, Freescale discloses
, wherein the receiving user input for the parameters includes receiving a rated current for the motor (section 4.1).
Regarding claim 10, Freescale discloses
, wherein the receiving user input for the parameters includes a DC bus voltage for the motor (a DC bus voltage is inherently present because an inverter requires the DC voltage to operate).
Regarding claim 12, Freescale discloses
, wherein the receiving user input for the parameters includes receiving an acceleration factor for the motor (section 4.6).
Regarding claim 13, Freescale discloses
, wherein the receiving user input for the parameters includes receiving a deceleration factor for the motor (section 4.6).
Regarding claims 14 and 26, Freescale discloses
, wherein the at least one type of tuning includes alignment tuning, startup tuning, current closed loop tuning, and speed closed loop tuning (section 4.3, 4.4, 4.6-4.9).
Regarding claims 18 and 31, Freescale discloses
, wherein the at least one type of tuning includes alignment tuning, wherein the alignment tuning is a function of rated current of the motor, and wherein the alignment tuning includes tuning of an AC alignment frequency (section 4.3).
Regarding claims 19 and 32, Freescale discloses
, wherein the at least one type of tuning includes startup tuning, and wherein the start up tuning includes tuning a startup start frequency and a startup end frequency (5-10%) (section 4.7).
Regarding claims 20 and 33, Freescale discloses
, wherein the at least one type of tuning includes current closed loop tuning, and further including using performance assessment criteria (PAC) (steps 4 and 5) for comparing an ideal current closed loop response with a current closed loop response having varying parameters (via the control structure tab) (section 4.4).
Regarding claims 21 and 34, Freescale discloses
, wherein the at least one type of tuning includes speed closed loop tuning, and further including determining a gain factor (Kp or Ki) for speed control (section 4.9).
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 11 and 15, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freescale in a view of Borisavljevic US 7,339,344 B2.
Regarding claim 11, Freescale does not disclose but Borisavljevic discloses, wherein the receiving user input for the parameters includes receiving a resistance of a shunt resistor (column 6, lines 5-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive a resistance of a shunt as disclosed by Borisavljevic in Freescale’s teachings to determine the motor parameters (see Borisavljevic’s column 6, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Freescale does not disclose but Borisavljevic discloses, wherein measuring the phase resistance includes injecting a DC voltage into a d-axis of the motor at a standstill and measuring d-axis current (column 1, lines 57-67, column 4, lines 45-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the phase resistance using a DC voltage at a standstill as taught by Borisavljevic in Freescale’s teachings to ensure stable operation of the motor (Borisavljevic’s column 1, lines 30-36)
Regarding claim 28, a combination of Freescale and Borisavljevic discloses, wherein the user input for the parameters includes a rated motor speed, a rated current for the motor, a DC bus voltage for the motor, a resistance of a shunt resistor, an acceleration factor for the motor, and/or a deceleration factor for the motor (see claims 8-13 rejections for detail).
Regarding claim 29, a combination of Freescale and Borisavljevic discloses, wherein the system is configured to measure the phase resistance by injecting a DC voltage into a d-axis of the motor at a standstill and measuring d-axis current. (see claim 15 rejection for detail)
Claims 16, 17, 24, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freescale in a view of Kerkman et al. US 5,689,169.
Regarding claim 16, Freescale does not disclose but Kerkman et al. disclose, wherein measuring the phase inductance includes measuring motor current response to injection of a sine waveform into a d-axis ((column 2, lines 45-67, column 3, lines 10-15, 30-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the phase inductance including measuring current in response to injection of a sine wave as taught by Kerkman in Freescale’s teachings to accurately determining an inductance value in an electric motor. (Kerkman’s column 3, lines 30-40)
Regarding claim 17, a combination of Freescale and Kerkman discloses, wherein the sine waveform has a plurality of non-harmonic frequencies (see Kerkman’s column 3, lines 30-40, column 6, lines 30-42).
Regarding claims 24 and 35, Freescale does not disclose but Kerkman et al. disclose, wherein voltage injection is used to estimate the phase resistance and the phase inductance of the motor (column 2, lines 45-67, column 3, lines 10-15, 30-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate the phase resistance and the phase inductance using voltage injection as taught by Kerkman in Freescale’s teachings to accurately determining machine parameters in an electric motor. (Kerkman’s column 3, lines 30-40)
Regarding claim 30, a combination of Freescale and Kerkman discloses, wherein the system is configured to measure the phase inductance by measuring motor current response to injection of a sine waveform into a d-axis (see claim 16 rejection for detail).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freescale in a view of Park KR101101462 B1.
Regarding claim 22, Freescale does not disclose but Park discloses using a cost function to determine the gain factor.
PNG
media_image1.png
140
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gain factor as disclosed by Park in Freescale’s teachings to set a gain value of a PI controller that is robust to variations.
PNG
media_image2.png
91
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Freescale, wherein the cost function is configured to find the gain factor for PI control.
PNG
media_image3.png
160
975
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights