DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on 11/27/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for Examination. Claims 1 and 20 are independent.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the statutory category of a "process" under 35 U.S.C. § 100(b).
Step 2A – Prong One: Abstract Idea
Independent claims 1, 10, and 20 recite steps/functions including:
Generating a "normal component signal" and a "reverse component signal";Determining an error by adding the reverse component signal to a normal operation signal; and
Compensating for the feedback operation signal based on said error.Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), these steps describe mathematical concepts (addition, inversion, differential signal generation) and mental processes (determining an error by comparing signals). The specification at ¶ [0075]-[0096] confirms that the core innovation is a mathematical manipulation: generating a reverse difference signal via differential processing and summing it with a stored normal operation signal to isolate an error term ES=OS+RS ES=OS+RS. The recitation of "semiconductor process equipment" and "motor" constitutes a field-of-use limitation that does not alter the fundamental nature of the underlying abstract mathematical algorithm.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integration into a Practical Application): The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements—"motor controller," "operation signal compensator," "signal extraction unit," and "error determination unit"—are recited at a high level of generality. The specification at ¶ [0078] explicitly states that the operation signal compensator is "implemented as a program through an algorithm." Thus, these hardware components function merely as generic computing devices executing the abstract mathematical formula. There is no specific improvement to the functioning of the computer/motor controller itself, nor is there a particular machine or transformation beyond conventional sensorless control data gathering. The use of "line drive type signal processing" is a functional label for the mathematical abstraction rather than a specific technological implementation.
Step 2B (Significantly More): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps of applying a control signal and receiving feedback (Claims 1, 10, 20) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in motor control systems, as admitted in the Background at ¶ [0007]-[0009]. The remaining limitations simply instruct the practitioner to "apply" the abstract math using generic hardware. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2–9 (Dependent on Claim 1)
The dependent claims add the following limitations:
Claim 2: Normal component signal is "a true reflection" of the feedback signal; reverse component is "an inversion."
Claim 3: Generating component signals through a "differential signal."
Claim 4: Adding the reverse component signal to the normal operation signal.
Claim 5: Adding the reverse component signal to generate an "error signal."
Claim 6: Operation signal compensation step — determining a compensation component and compensating.
Claim 7: Regarding the error as the compensation component, combining it with the normal component signal.
Claim 8: Adding the error signal to the normal component signal to generate a compensation signal.
Claim 9: Operation signal storage step of storing the normal operation signal.Each of these limitations further describes the mathematical operations (inversion, addition, summation, comparison) or conventional data handling (storing a reference signal). None of these limitations, individually or in combination, provides an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. They are routine steps in performing the mathematical calculation, analogous to the limitations found insufficient in Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79–80; Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262–63 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (conventional functional limitations insufficient to confer eligibility).
Accordingly, claims 2–9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Independent claim 10 is an apparatus claim directed to a "motor control device." The dependent claims recite:
Claim 11: Motor controller and operation signal compensator components.
Claim 12: Signal extraction unit and error determination unit.
Claim 13: Signal extraction unit generates signals through a differential signal.
Claim 14: Error determination unit adds the reverse component signal to generate an error signal.
Claim 15: Signal compensation unit.
Claim 16: Compensation component combined with normal component signal.
Claim 17: Error signal added to normal component signal.
Claim 18: Signal extraction unit stores the normal operation signal.
Claim 19: Individually controlling a plurality of motors.
These claims recite apparatus components (e.g., "motor controller," "operation signal compensator," "signal extraction unit," "error determination unit," "signal compensation unit") that are described in purely functional terms — each component is defined solely by the mathematical operation it performs (generating, inverting, adding, summing). The specification at ¶[0069] even acknowledges that "preferably the operation signal compensator 230 is implemented as a program through an algorithm and installed on the motor controller 210," confirming the lack of specific hardware structure. The claims amount to a result-oriented functional recitation of the same mathematical abstraction. See In re Katz, 687 F.3d 1269, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (functional claiming without specific structure is insufficient); MPEP § 2106.05(d) ("[F]unctional limitations that are nothing more than the recitation of the judicial exception itself are insufficient.").
Accordingly, claims 10–19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 10, 11, and 20 recite "line drive type signal processing" (or "line drive type signal processing technique") as a limitation. The specification uses this term throughout (e.g., ¶¶ [0048], [0065], [0068], [0075], [0088], ¶ [0016] of the Summary, claim 10, claim 11, claim 20), but fails to provide a clear, consistent definition of what constitutes "line drive type signal processing."
Specifically, at ¶ [0066], the specification states that "the signal extraction unit 231 may apply a line drive signal processing technique to generate the normal component signal NS and the reverse component signal RS through a differential signal with respect to the feedback operation signal." This suggests "line drive signal processing" involves generating differential signals but does not define it as such — the term could encompass additional techniques or circuit configurations.
At ¶0081], the specification states the "signal extraction unit 231 may generate a normal component signal NS and a reverse component signal RS through a differential signal with respect to a feedback operation signal FS." Here, the term "line drive" is not even used, and the description refers only to "differential signal" processing — raising the question of whether "line drive type signal processing" is synonymous with "differential signal processing" or is broader.
The term "line drive" itself has multiple meanings in the art. In analog electronics, "line driver" refers to an amplifier used to transmit signals over transmission lines. In the context of motor control and feedback systems, "line drive" could refer to various differential or balanced signaling techniques. The specification does not disambiguate which meaning is intended.
The specification does not provide any structural description of a "line drive" circuit, architecture, or configuration. ¶ [0069] states that "preferably the operation signal compensator 230 is implemented as a program through an algorithm and installed on the motor controller 210," which suggests the technique is a software algorithm rather than a specific hardware configuration — but this still does not define the scope of the term.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand, with reasonable certainty, the scope of "line drive type signal processing" as used in claims 10, 11, and 20. The term is amorphous and could be interpreted broadly (any signal processing involving differential signals) or narrowly (a specific line driver circuit topology). This ambiguity is compounded by the specification's inconsistent use of the term and failure to provide a definitive description. See Module corrective — the scope of the claim limitation cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty from the specification as filed.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites "an error of the feedback operation signal with respect to a normal operation signal of the motor in response to the control signal based on the reverse component signal.". It is unclear from the claim language what physical entity or value constitutes the "normal operation signal". Is it a command signal previously applied to the motor, an expected theoretical model signal stored in memory, or a secondary feedback signal measured from a calibrated benchmark motor? Without defining how the normal operation signal is derived or provided, the boundary of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 6 recites "determining a compensation component for the normal component signal based on the error and compensating for the feedback operation signal based on the compensation component."
Claim 7, recites that the compensation component is combined with the normal component signal to generate a compensation signal, yet the final step claims "compensating for the feedback operation signal based on the compensation signal."If the compensation signal replaces the feedback operation signal, modifies the control signal applied to the motor, or modifies the physical motor operation itself, the claim fails to specify the target of the compensation. One cannot logically "compensate for" an already received feedback operation signal without either altering the feedback value stored in memory or feeding a modified command signal forward to the motor. The term "compensating for the feedback operation signal" is vague, indefinite, and leaves the actual technical effect of the step ambiguous.
Claim 11 recites an "operation signal compensator configured to generate... to determine an error... and to determine a compensation component... to compensate for the feedback operation signal."
The claim fails to recite whether the compensator is a hardware module, a programmed microprocessor, or an analog differential circuit. Paragraph [0069] of the specification states that the operation signal compensator is "implemented as a program through an algorithm and installed on the motor controller 210."
When claimed purely functionally without structural bounds, and when construed as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the claim lacks disclosure of an algorithm with sufficient structure (flowchart blocks S300–S500 merely reiterate the functional labels without mathematical or algorithmic code definitions), rendering the claim indefinite under Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The limitations of “adding the error signal to the normal and compensating..." lacks a noun following "the normal" (presumably intending to recite "the normal component signal" as in Claim 8 and 17). Because a key claim limitation is grammatically incomplete and omits the object of the addition operation, the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Appropriate correction is requested.
Since the independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and hence the dependent claims of 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20100091262 A1 to Tousain et al. ("Tousain").
Regarding independent claim 1, Tousain discloses that a motor (Fig.2B:MOT2) control method for semiconductor process equipment (Fig.2B), the motor control method comprising:
a motor operation feedback step of applying a control signal (RS2) to a motor and receiving a resulting operation signal as feedback to obtain a feedback operation signal.
a component signal generation step (COMP2) of generating a normal component signal and a reverse component signal for the feedback operation signal; and
an error determination step (DS2 and [0057]) of determining an error of the feedback operation signal with respect to a normal operation signal of the motor in response to the control signal based on the reverse component signal (Fig.2B and [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Tousain discloses that wherein the component signal generation step comprises generating a normal component signal, which is a true reflection of the feedback operation signal, and generating a reverse component signal, which is an inversion of the feedback operation signal ([0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Tousain discloses that wherein the component signal generation step comprises generating a normal component signal and a reverse component signal through a differential signal with respect to the feedback operation signal ([0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Tousain discloses that wherein the error determination step comprises adding the reverse component signal to the normal operation signal to determine the error of the feedback operation signal ([0059])
Regarding claim 5, Tousain discloses that wherein the error determination step comprises adding the reverse component signal to the normal operation signal to generate an error signal ([0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Tousain discloses that further comprising an operation signal compensation step of determining a compensation component for the normal component signal based on the error and compensating for the feedback operation signal based on the compensation component ([0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Tousain discloses that wherein the operation signal compensation step comprises regarding the error as the compensation component for the feedback operation signal, combining the compensation component with the normal component signal to generate a compensation signal, and compensating for the feedback operation signal based on the compensation signal ([0061])).
Regarding claim 8, Tousain discloses that further comprising an operation signal compensation step of adding the error signal to the normal component signal to generate a compensation signal and compensating for the feedback operation signal based on the compensation signal (Fig.2A).
Regarding claim 9, Tousain discloses that further comprising an operation signal storage step of storing the normal operation signal of the motor according to the application of the control signal ([0088]).
Regarding independent claim 10, Tousain discloses that a motor control device for semiconductor process (Fig.1) equipment that performs a semiconductor process, wherein the motor control device applies a control signal to a motor of the semiconductor process equipment to control an operation of the motor, receives an operation signal of the motor corresponding to the control signal as feedback to obtain a feedback operation signal, generates a normal component signal and a reverse component signal for the feedback operation signal through line drive type signal processing, determines an error of the feedback operation signal with respect to a normal operation signal of the motor in response to the control signal based on the reverse component signal, and compensates for the error to control the motor (Fig.2B and [0055]).
Regarding claim 11, Tousain discloses that wherein the motor control device comprises:
a motor controller (Fig.2B:CONT2) configured to apply a control signal to the motor to control the operation of the motor and to receive an operation signal of the motor corresponding to the control signal as feedback to obtain a feedback operation signal; and
an operation signal compensator ([Fig.4A-B and [0073-0074]) configured to generate a normal component signal and a reverse component signal for the feedback operation signal through line drive type signal processing, to determine an error of the feedback operation signal with respect to a normal operation signal of the motor in response to the control signal based on the reverse component signal, and to determine a compensation component for the normal component signal based on the error to compensate for the feedback operation signal (Fig.2B and [0056]).
Regarding claim 12, Tousain discloses that wherein the operation signal compensator comprises:
a signal extraction unit configured to generate a normal component signal, which is a true reflection of the feedback operation signal, and a reverse component signal, which is an inversion of the feedback operation signal; and
an error determination unit configured to add the reverse component signal to the normal operation signal of the motor corresponding to the control signal to determine the error of the feedback operation signal ([0056]).
Regarding claim 13, Tousain discloses that wherein the signal extraction unit generates a normal component signal and a reverse component signal through a differential signal with respect to the feedback operation signal ([0056]).
Regarding claim 14, Tousain discloses that wherein the error determination unit adds the reverse component signal to the normal operation signal to generate an error signal (Fig.2B, SENS2).
Regarding claim 15, Tousain discloses that wherein the operation signal compensator further comprises a signal compensation unit configured to determine a compensation component for the normal component signal based on the error and to compensate for the feedback operation signal based on the compensation component (Fig.2B:CU2; [0072]).
Regarding claim 16, Tousain discloses that wherein the operation signal compensator regards the error as the compensation component for the feedback operation signal, combines the compensation component with the normal component signal to generate a compensation signal, and compensates for the feedback operation signal based on the compensation signal ([0057]), Fig.4A, Fig.4B).
Regarding claim 17, Tousain discloses that wherein the operation signal compensator adds the error signal to the normal component signal to generate a compensation signal and compensates for the feedback operation signal based on the compensation signal (Fig2B:DS2 and [0073]).
Regarding claim 18, Tousain discloses that wherein the signal extraction unit has the normal operation signal of the motor according to the application of the control signal (Fig.2B:RS2).
Regarding claim 19, Tousain discloses that wherein the motor control device individually controls a plurality of motors provided in the semiconductor process equipment to obtain feedback operation signals, generates a component signal through line drive type signal processing for each of the feedback operation signals, and compensates for an error of an operation signal of each of the motors based thereon ([0074]).
Regarding independent claim 20, Tousain discloses that a motor control method for semiconductor process equipment (Fig.1), the motor control method comprising:
a motor operation feedback step of applying a control signal to a motor and receiving a resulting operation signal as feedback to obtain a feedback operation signal;
a component signal generation step of generating a normal component signal, which is a true reflection of the feedback operation signal, and a reverse component signal, which is an inversion of the feedback operation signal, through a differential signal with respect to the feedback operation signal;
an error determination step of adding the reverse component signal to a normal operation signal of the motor in response to the control signal to determine an error of the feedback operation signal and adding the reverse component signal to the normal operation signal to generate an error signal ([Fig.4A-B and [0073-0074]); and
an operation signal compensation step of regarding the error as a compensation component for the feedback operation signal, adding the error signal to the normal component signal to generate a compensation signal, and compensating for the feedback operation signal based on the compensation signal (Fig.2B and [0055]-[0056]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights