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 .
This action is in response to an application filed on 09/30/2024.
Claims 11-30 are pending for examination.
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.
Claim 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps of a rotor control method and therefore is a process and the claim qualifies for the statutory category of process.
Further the claim recites “…obtaining, by the processing module, both position information and a rotation direction of a rotor…”, “…obtaining, by the processing module, a first control signal…the first control signal comprises at least a first velocity vector…”, “…obtaining, by the processing module, a first detection signal…the first detection signal comprises at least a first reversal detection vector and a second reversal detection vector …” and “...obtaining, by the processing module, a detection result …”. Therefore, the limitations recited recite a judicial exception as they recite mental processes. (Step 2A Prong 1)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited merely mention obtaining, by the processing module, a first control signal based on the position information and the rotation direction and a detection result based on the first detection signal to indicate whether the rotation direction of the rotor has changed are not abstract but more of routine data gathering and they are insignificant extra-solution activity. (Step 2A prong 2)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements of obtaining, by the processing module, a first detection signal based on the position information and the rotation direction and a detection result based on the first detection signal to indicate whether the rotation direction of the rotor has changed and they are insignificant extra-solution activity without mentioning an actual device/detection device other than the module. Further, the claim taken as a whole doesn’t provide inventive steps that can lead to the invention described in the specification. Hence, when the claim is viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea of mental processes. (Step 2B)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 21, the claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps of a rotor control method and therefore is a process and the claim qualifies for the statutory category of process.
Further the claim recites “…obtaining both position information and a rotation direction of a rotor…”, “…obtaining, by the processing module, a first control signal…the first control signal comprises at least a first velocity vector…”, “…obtaining a first detection signal…the first detection signal comprises at least a first reversal detection vector and a second reversal detection vector …” and “...obtaining a detection result …”. Therefore, the limitations recited recite a judicial exception as they recite mental processes. (Step 2A Prong 1)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited merely mention obtaining a first control signal based on the position information and the rotation direction and a detection result based on the first detection signal to indicate whether the rotation direction of the rotor has changed are not abstract but more of routine data gathering and they are insignificant extra-solution activity. (Step 2A prong 2)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements of obtaining a first detection signal based on the position information and the rotation direction and a detection result based on the first detection signal to indicate whether the rotation direction of the rotor has changed and they are insignificant extra-solution activity without mentioning an actual device/detection device other than the processor. Further, the claim taken as a whole doesn’t provide inventive steps that can lead to the invention described in the specification. Hence, when the claim is viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea of mental processes. (Step 2B)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 30, the claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps of a rotor control method and therefore is a process and the claim qualifies for the statutory category of process.
Further the claim recites “…obtaining both position information and a rotation direction of a rotor…”, “…obtaining, by the processing module, a first control signal…the first control signal comprises at least a first velocity vector…”, “…obtaining a first detection signal…the first detection signal comprises at least a first reversal detection vector and a second reversal detection vector …” and “...obtaining a detection result …”. Therefore, the limitations recited recite a judicial exception as they recite mental processes. (Step 2A Prong 1)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited merely mention obtaining a first control signal based on the position information and the rotation direction and a detection result based on the first detection signal to indicate whether the rotation direction of the rotor has changed are not abstract but more of routine data gathering and they are insignificant extra-solution activity. (Step 2A prong 2)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements of obtaining a first detection signal based on the position information and the rotation direction and a detection result based on the first detection signal to indicate whether the rotation direction of the rotor has changed and they are insignificant extra-solution activity without mentioning an actual device/detection device other than the processor. Further, the claim taken as a whole doesn’t provide inventive steps that can lead to the invention described in the specification. Hence, when the claim is viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea of mental processes. (Step 2B)
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 10,591,893 B2: A motor driving apparatus comprises a motor including a rotor that is rotatable and has a magnet whose outer peripheral surface divided in a circumferential direction is magnetized in multiple poles with alternating different polarities, and a position detecting unit having a first detecting element, a second detecting element, a third detecting element and a fourth detecting element, each of which detects a magnet pole, a driving unit that drives the motor on the basis of signals output from the first to fourth detecting elements, and a controlling unit that obtains a rotational quantity of the motor on the basis of signals output from the first and second detecting elements and that outputs a control signal of the motor to the driving unit on the basis of the rotational quantity of the motor – see [Abstract]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL T AGARED whose telephone number is (571)270-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Mon- Thur).
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.
/GABRIEL AGARED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights