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 Statement filed on 7/26/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Figure 3 depicts blocks 14- 16 as conventional switch (15), monitoring device (16) and general PI controller (14) which do not exhibit any improved/invented portions in separate views.
The drawings are objected to because the subscripts/superscripts carried by the reference characters are not clear.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature “all embedded in the frequency inverter” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a/an missing/extra parenthesis at step (d). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “an stable operation point.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the generic placeholder word “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation “tracking module (16) increasing or decreasing the current power factor FP of the induction motor” in claim 22 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “increasing or decreasing” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 22 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure of the limitations:
“tracking module” : block (16) depicted in figure 3 is described in the Spec. as an algorithm; “the tracking algorithm automatically looks for the optimized value of the power factor variable reference FPvar*, varying FPvar* with steps of ΔFP, increasing or decreasing depending on the evaluation of the current power factor FP of the induction motor (7) during the time interval Δt.”. ¶. [0134]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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- 22 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For instances:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “for tracking at an operation point.” It’s not clear what it’s been tracked in this limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “providing a control signal (dfp *) to be added to the current power factor FP.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the current power factor FP” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the tracking module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the frequency inverter;" there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the block;" there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “regulating the magnetic flux obtaining the lowest power consumption point with the highest power factor.” The grammatical situation of the verb “obtaining” is not clear; rendering the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the tracking module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the variable.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the block;" there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 167 recites the limitation "the current signal;" and “the stator winding” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “searches” The grammatical situation of the verb “searches” is not clear; rendering the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the variable" and "the algorithm;" there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 20 and 21 recite the limitation "the result;" there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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- 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea, and do not include an inventive concept that is something "significantly more" than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows (see claims analysis below).
Re. claim 1, A method for continuous adjustment of the power factor FP in an induction motor driven by a frequency inverter, comprising the steps of:
a. selecting a power factor variable reference FPvar* by a selection switch (15) for tracking at an operation point;
b. increasing or decreasing with steps of ΔFP the current power factor tracking module (16) defining an adjusted power factor reference signal FP*;
c. inputting the adjusted power factor reference signal FP* in the proportional and integral controller (14);
d. providing a control signal (dfp *) to be added to the current power factor FP using the proportional and integral controller (14);
e. repeating for countless times the steps (a) to (d) while the frequency inverter is driving the induction motor.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Claim 1 recites steps of continuous adjustment of the power factor FP in an induction motor; therefore, is process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The claim recites the limitation of selecting a power factor variable reference… inputting the adjusted power factor reference signal FP* in the proportional and integral controller… providing a control signal (dfp *) to be added to the current power factor FP using the proportional and integral controller. These limitations are directed to selecting a power factor; adjusting the power factor by a deviation of ± ΔFP, then generating a control signal by applying the adjusted FP to generic PI controller. as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “PI controller.” Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor “PI controller” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654
F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category").
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical application?
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device “PI controller” or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
(See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something "significantly more" than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, " repeating for countless times the steps (a) to (d) while the frequency inverter is driving the induction motor" do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements “driving the induction motor” as a tool to carry out the abstract idea on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP Page 6 §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ,i,i 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves.
Claims 2- 21 fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; still fall within the abstract idea recited above, and are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
8. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lu et al. (US 20100315033 A1).
Re. claims 1 and 22, Lu discloses a system for advanced energy saving comprising:
a proportional and integral controller (Lu discloses “a controller operationally connected to control operation of the inverter” (¶. [0012]); however, it does not teach the proportional and integral feature. PI control is a default or most common mode built into motor controller so users don’t need to manually add it; it’s part of the control loop. Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to implement PI inverter controller because it offers a good balance between fast response and zero steady-state error,
at least a selection switch (¶. [0011]) and
a tracking module (¶. [0033]- [0034]), all embedded in the frequency inverter; wherein
a power factor variable reference FPvar* is initially selected by a selection switch (¶. [0011]),
making the tracking module (16) increasing or decreasing the current power factor FP of the induction motor (7) during a time interval At, to establish an adjusted power factor reference signal FP* which is currently inputed in the proportional and integral controller (¶.[0035]) to provide a control sign dfp* to be added to the current power factor FP (¶.[0037])
Re. claim 2, Lu discloses 1, wherein the induction motor control can be scalar type (Fig. 4) or vector type (¶.[0027]).
So far as claims 3- 21 are understood, fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; and are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
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 Colon-Santana. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights