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 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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-29 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 1-18 are an apparatus and Claims 19-29 are a method. The machine/apparatus and method 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 an apparatus (Claims 1-18) and a method (claims 19-29). Thus, the claims 1-18 are machine and claims 19-29 are process, 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., “receives signals” of claims 1-2; “detects a motor locked-rotor condition”, on last line of claims 1 and 10; “generating an observed signal indicative of the motor back emf” (emphasis added), on lines 7-8 of claim 4; “an estimated motor back emf “, on line 2 of claim 6; “receives motor drive signals”, on line 2 of claim 10; “estimates a motor speed”, on line 6 of claim 11; “ an observed signal indicative of the motor back emf”, on lines 7-8 of claim 13; “an estimated motor back emf”, on line 2 of claim 15; “monitoring motor drive signals” (emphasis added), on line 3 of claim 19; “detecting a locked-rotor condition” (emphasis added), on line 9 of claim 19; “an estimated motor back emf”, on line 2 of claim 22; “an observed signal indicative of the motor back emf”, on lines 7-8 of claim 23; “monitoring motor drive signals” (emphasis added), on line 3 of claim 27; “detecting a locked-rotor condition” (emphasis added), on line 9 of claim 27) and performing mathematical calculations (i.e. “compares the first signal indicative of the motor back emf to the second signal indicative of the motor back emf” (emphasis added), on lines 9-10 of claim 1; “an average of the motor speed estimated by the phase-lock-loop” (emphasis added), on line 6-7 of claim 3; “squaring a value of a first rotational back emf state variable of the set of state variables” (emphasis added), on line 3 of claims 4 and 23; “squaring a value of a second rotational back emf state variable of the set of state variables” (emphasis added), on lines 4-5 of claims 4 and 23; “adding the squared value of the first rotational back emf state variable and the squared value of the second rotational back emf state variable” (emphasis added), on lines 6-7 of claims 4 and 23; “an average estimated speed generated by the phase-locked loop” (emphasis added), on line 5 of claims 6, 9 and 15; “comparing indicating the first signal indicative of the motor back emf is less than second signal indicative of the motor back emf” (emphasis added), on lines 2-3 of claims 7, 8, 16 and claim 29; “compares the first signal indicative of the motor back emf to the second signal indicative of the motor back emf” (emphasis added), on lines 9-10 of claim 10; “an average of the motor speed estimated by the phase-locked loop” (emphasis added), on lines 6-7 of claim 12; “comparing the first signal indicative of the motor back emf to the second signal indicative of the motor back emf” (emphasis added), on lines 7-8 of claims 19 and 27; “an average of the estimated motor speed” (emphasis added), on lines 6-7 of claim 21; “modifying the motor drive signals” (emphasis added), on lines 2-3 of claim 26), 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 elements “control circuitry”, in claims 1, 10 and “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, which uses controller to perform the recited steps. The controller in the above steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor 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 controller to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A controller 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 “comparing, squaring, adding, average”, etc.). The claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, claims 1-29 are 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 2-7, 11-16 and 22-24 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.
For claim 7, the recitation “a motor locked-rotor condition” recites on lines 3-4. It is unclear because this “a motor locked-rotor condition” is the same as ““a motor locked-rotor condition”, on line 11 of claim 1 or different one. Clarification is required.
Claims 9 and 22 recite the limitation "the phase-locked loop" in line 5. There is insufficient an
Claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 22 are unclear. They are not understood how the phase-locked loop performs “estimates a motor speed” as recited in claims 2 and 11; “average of the motor speed” as recited in claims 3 and 12; “average estimated speed” as recited in claims 9, 15 and 22. Basically, a phase-locked loop is an electronic circuit that generates an output signal whose phase is fixed relative to the phase of an input signal.
Claims 4-7, 13-16 and 23-24 are rejected because they depend on claims 3, 12 and 22, respectively.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 17-19, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peng (CN 112325442 A).
For claim 1, Peng discloses a device (Fig. 7 of Peng discloses a device 700 – see Peng, Fig. 7, paragraph [0127]), comprising:
an input, which, in operation, receives signals indicative of currents and voltages of a motor drive signal (Fig. 7 of Lepka discloses the motor 706 including an input, which, in operation, receives motor drive signals from control circuitry 704 – see Peng, Fig. 7, paragraph [0129]); and
control circuitry coupled to the input (Fig. 7 of Peng discloses control circuitry 704 coupled to the input of the motor 706 – see Peng, Fig. 7, paragraph [0129]), wherein the control circuitry, in operation:
generates a first signal indicative of a motor back electromotive force based on the received signals ((Figs. 1 and 8 of Lepka disclose the control circuitry 101/800 which, in operation, generates a first signal 811 indicative of a motor back electromotive force (BEMFErrorThreshold) based on the received signals
PNG
media_image1.png
20
16
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-- see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 8, paragraphs [0015], lines 26-31; [0016], lines 21-26, [0045] and [0047]);
generates a second signal indicative of the motor back emf based on the received signals (Figs. 1 and 8 of Lepka disclose the control circuitry 103/800 which, in operation, generates a second signal 815 indicative of a motor back electromotive force (BEMFErrorFilt) based on the received signals
PNG
media_image2.png
16
14
media_image2.png
Greyscale
;
PNG
media_image3.png
20
14
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; BEMF coefficients CBemfCoef and BEMF offset coefficient CBemfOffset -- see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 8, paragraphs [0015], lines 21-26; [0016], lines 11-20; [0036]; [0045] and [0048]-[0049]);
compares the first signal indicative of the motor back emf to the second signal indicative of the motor back emf (Figs. 1, 2 and 8 of Lepka discloses comparing the first signal indicative of the motor back emf BEMFErrorThreshold to the second signal indicative of the motor back emf BEMFErrorFilt -- see Lepka, Figs. 1-2 and 8, paragraphs [0015], lines 15-21; [0026], lines 21-26 and [0048]-[0049]); and
detects a motor locked-rotor condition based on the comparison (see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0049] and [0057]).
For claim 8, Lepka discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry, in operation, in response to the comparing indicating the first signal indicative of the motor back emf is less than second signal indicative of the motor back emf, detects a motor locked-rotor condition (Figs. 1 and 8 of Lepka disclose the control circuitry 101/800, in operation, in response to the comparing indicating the first signal indicative of the motor back emf BEMFErrorThreshold is less than second signal indicative of the motor back emf BEMFErrorFilt, detects a motor locked-rotor condition -- (see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 8, paragraph [0049]).
For claim 10, Lepka discloses a system (Fig. 1 of Lepka discloses a system 100 – see Lepka, Fig. 1, paragraph 0006] and [0016], lines 1-4), comprising:
a motor, which, in operation, receives motor drive signals (Fig. 1 of Lepka discloses a motor 102, which, in operation, receives motor drive signals ia, ib, ic from drive circuit 105 – see Lepka, Fig. 1, paragraph [; and
control circuitry coupled to the motor (Fig. 1 of Lepka discloses control circuitry 101 coupled to the motor 102 via lines 112-114 – see Lepka, Fig. 1, paragraph [0018], line 1-7), wherein the control circuitry, in operation:
monitors the motor drive signals (Fig. 1 of Lepka discloses monitoring the motor drive signals via measurement circuit 106 – see Lepka, Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]);
generates a first signal indicative of a motor back electromotive force (back emf) based on the monitoring (same as explanation in claim 1 above);
generates a second signal indicative of the motor back emf based on the monitoring (same as explanation in claim 1 above);
compares the first signal indicative of the motor back emf to the second signal indicative of the motor back emf (same as explanation in claim 1 above); and
detects a motor locked-rotor condition based on the comparing (same as explanation in claim 1 above).
For claim 17, Lepka discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the motor is a permanent magnet synchronous motor (Fig. 1 of Lepka discloses the motor 102 which is a permanent magnet synchronous motor – see Lepka, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0002] and [0015], lines 9-15).
For claim 18, Lepka discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the motor is an alternating current PMSM (Fig. 1 of Lepka discloses the motor 102 which is an alternating current PMSM – see Lepka, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0002], [0015], lines 9-15, and [0020]).
Claim 19 and 25 are "method" claims which are either same or similar to that of the "a device" claims 1 and 8, respectively. Explanation is omitted.
For claim 26, Lepka discloses the method of claim 25, comprising: in response to detecting a motor locked rotor condition, modifying the motor drive signals (see Lepka, Fig. 9, paragraph [0057]).
For claim 27, Lepka discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having contents which cause motor control circuitry to perform a method (Fig. 1 of Lepka discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is stored in memory with a program, the program is executed by a processor 103 to implement the motor blocking detection method – see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 9, paragraphs [0016]; [0020], lines 5-10; and [0063]), the method comprising:
monitoring motor drive signals provided to a motor (same as explanation in claim 19 above);
generating a first signal indicative of a motor back electromotive force (back emf) based on the monitoring (same as explanation in claim 19 above);
generating a second signal indicative of the motor back emf based on the monitoring (same as explanation in claim 19 above);
comparing the first signal indicative of the motor back emf to the second signal indicative of the motor back emf (same as explanation in claim 19 above); and
detecting a locked-rotor condition of the motor based on the comparing (same as explanation in claim 19 above).
For claim 28, Lepka discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27, wherein the contents comprising instructions executed by the motor control circuitry (Figs. 1 and 9 of Lepka discloses the contents comprising instructions executed by processor 103 included in the motor control circuitry 100 – see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 9, paragraphs [0020] and [0050]).
For claim 29, Lepka discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27. wherein the method comprises:
in response to the comparing indicating the first signal indicative of the motor back emf is less than second signal indicative of the motor back emf, detecting a motor locked-rotor condition (same as explanation in claim 25 above).
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 2-3, 11-12, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepka et al. (hereinafter Lepka, US 2017/0126153 A1) in view of Peng (CN 112325442 A).
For claims 2 and 11, Lepka discloses the device of claim 1 or claim 10, wherein the control circuitry comprises:
a state observer, which, in operation, maintains a set of state variables based on the received signals, wherein the first signal indicative of the motor back emf is generated based on variables of the set of state variables (Figs. 1 and 8 of Lepka discloses a state observer (802, 805 and 809) which, in operation, maintains a set of state variables based on the received signals, wherein the first signal indicative of the motor back emf BEMFErrorThreshold is generated based on variables of the set of state variables -- see Lepka, Figs. 1-2 and 8, paragraphs [0045]-[0047]); and
a phase-locked-loop coupled to the state observer, wherein the phase-locked-loop, in operation, estimates a motor speed based on the variables of the set of state variables, wherein the second signal indicative of the motor back emf is generated based on the estimated motor speed (Figs. 1 and 8 of Lepka discloses a loop (806-808, 813 A-C, 814) coupled to the state observer (802, 805), wherein the loop, in operation, estimates a motor speed based on the variables of the set of state variables, wherein the second signal indicative of the motor back emf is generated based on the estimated motor speed
PNG
media_image1.png
20
16
media_image1.png
Greyscale
– see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 8, paragraphs [0036], [0045], [0048]-[0049]. Lepka discloses the loop coupled to the state observer for calculating the back EMF. Lepka is silent for disclosing a specific phase lock loop to calculate the back EMF. However, Peng discloses a phase lock loop coupled to the state observer to calculate back EMF (see Peng, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0016], [0034], [0087], [0100] and [0116]). 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 Lepka’s loop by using specific phase-locked loop as teaching of Peng to calculate back emf in each state observer for purpose of improving the accuracy of detecting whether the motor is stalled to control system efficiently).
For claims 3 and 12, Lepka in view of Peng disclose the device of claim 2 or claim 11, wherein,
the set of state variables comprises rotational current state variables and rotational back emf state variables (see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 8, paragraph [0045]),
the first signal indicative of the motor back emf is based on the rotational back emf state variables of the set of state variables (see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 8, paragraphs [0045] and [0047]), and
the second signal indicative of the motor back emf is based on an average of the motor speed estimated by the phase-locked-loop (see Lepka, Figs. 1 and 8, paragraphs [0036]; [0045]-[0046] and [0048]-[0049]).
Claims 20-21 are "method" claims which are either same or similar to that of the "a device" claims 2-3, respectively. Explanation is omitted.
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
Sep 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights