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 .
Claims 1 – 8, 10, 11, 13 – 15, 17 – 21, 23, and 24 are pending.
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.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is ineligible.
PNG
media_image1.png
873
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category?
YES. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
YES. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the step (c) of “processing…, and estimating…” In this claim, “estimating” the average operating speed… involves a mathematical operation (see equation (0.5) and (0.6)). This step can be accomplished visually/mentally on the fly. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical operation for estimating the average operating speed. The recited formula is clearly a mathematical formula or equation, and the processing/estimation is a mathematical calculation. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical formula or equation as well as a mathematical calculation, both of which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As the steps (c) fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. 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 (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites a first additional element of “specifying a signal capture time” in step (a) in order to “capturing a line current signal…” in step (b). Step(a) is claimed at a high level of generality and could describe the user specifying the time in any condition known in the art. The element in step (b) amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculation (i.e., estimating the average…). The element does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The method also recites a second additional element in step (c) of using “using programmable processing means”. When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, there are no details about a particular structure or how the structure operates to obtain the estimation other than that it is being used to processing/estimating values from the measurements. The “programmable processing means” is used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mathematical calculation using the recited mathematical equation) without placing any limitation on how any structure operates to derive the estimation as a function of the “line current signal”. In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of using the estimation using “the measurements” without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the “the estimating” in combination with the other values solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Also, the claim invokes a generic “asynchronous machine” merely as a tool for generating the line current signal necessary for data gathering in order to achieve the recited mathematical calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The disclosure identifies a technical problem encountered in the field of estimating speed of an asynchronous machine of using parameters rarely known in the industry. The disclosure clearly describes how this invention offers an improvement over existing methods and devices for estimating speed of an asynchronous machines using a technique which only uses starting information data indicated on the machine nameplate, without requiring any invasive step. The claim, however, only requires part of the particular arrangement and therefore does not reflect the improvement discussed in the disclosure. The recited generic “programmable processing means” merely adds a generic component necessary for using the data gathering to perform the method and therefore fails to provide an improvement to the technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a 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. See MPEP 2106.05.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the second additional element in step (c), using “using programmable processing means” was found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the value in the formula since no link of how the value is possible with respect to the arrangement is provided in step (a) and (b). The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Further, the first additional element in step (a) and (b) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, the step of measuring the active power in step (b) is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as discussed in the original disclosure, is well-understood (e.g., page 1, line 25 of the background of the original specification explains a capture step known in the art). Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO).
The claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims(s) 2, 3, 5 – 8, 10, 11, 14 – 15, 17 – 21, and 24, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitations(s) are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering and calculation.
Particularly:
Regarding Claim 2 and 19 – 21, “displaying” is considered extra-solution activity.
Regarding Claims 3, 5 – 8, 10, 11, 14 – 15, 17 – 18, and 24, the limitations in the claims recite a mathematical formula or equation as well as a mathematical calculation, both of which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 23, the limitations are considered more than the abstract idea.
The claims have been considered ineligible under 35 USC 101 by reviewing both the limitations themselves and as ordered combinations of elements which do not amount to a practical application of the abstract limitations.
Comments
The prior art of record found as a result of the search, does not teach alone or in combination all of the elements recited in claim 1. Therefore, no prior art rejection for claim 1 is presented in this action. However, Claims 1 – 8, 10, 11, 13 – 15, 17 – 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ou Yang (US 2024/0424911 A1) suggests a method comprising: measuring, for a permanent magnet motor having a rotor rotating at a speed, a direct-axis voltage in a rotor frame of reference, the speed being determined by an angular position sensor; comparing the measured direct-axis voltage with a reference voltage; determining, based on the comparing, an angle offset estimate of the angular position sensor; and iteratively adjusting the angle offset estimate until the measured direct-axis voltage substantially equals the reference voltage (see claim 1).
Lin et al. (US 11,683,000 B1) teaches a fault detector for detecting a fault of an operation of a synchronous motor including a stator and a rotor separated by an air gap, the fault detector comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the fault detector to: collect, over a communication channel including one or a combination of a wired and wireless communication link, an electrical input for controlling the operation of the synchronous motor, and measurements associated with the operation of the synchronous motor caused by the electrical input; determine sequences of points defining a mutual position between the stator and the rotor of the synchronous motor forming interfaces of different materials inside the synchronous motor that results in magnetostatic determined as a weighted summation over real-space basis functions parameterized on pairs of adjoint points in the determined sequence of points and weighted with a surface charge density between corresponding adjoint points, such that the resulted magnetostatic explains the measurements of the operation of the synchronous motor given the electrical input; determine the fault of the operation of the synchronous motor based on the mutual position between the stator and the rotor of the synchronous motor (see claim 1).
Hansson et al. (US 6,995,539 B1) discloses a device for estimating the rotor speed of at least one slip ring asynchronous machine, the asynchronous machine including a stator having a stator winding fed with three-phase voltage and current in order to generate a varying magnetic flux having a rotation speed, and a rotor having a rotor winding in which the magnetic flux generated by the stator winding induces a voltage in the rotor winding, thereby creating an electromagnetic torque which drives the rotor at a rotor speed such that the rotor speed has a slip in relation to the rotation speed of the varying magnetic flux, the device comprising: a measuring member arranged to measure the voltage in the rotor winding during at least one time period and to output a signal corresponding to the measured voltage in the rotor winding (see claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, HUY PHAN can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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.
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 5/30/2026
Prosecution Insights