Ex Parte TANG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13948330 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/948,330 07/23/2013
26158 7590 09/27/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yifan TANG
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
A68348 1340US.l 5980
EXAMINER
MOLL, NITHYA JANAKIRAMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
BostonPatents@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte YIFAN TANG
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a rotor flux estimator and a rotor
flux estimation method using "a rotor flux current model and a rotor flux
voltage model" to "generate[] a first rotor flux vector expressed in a phase
voltage reference frame and a second rotor flux vector expressed in the
phase voltage reference frame, from a stator voltage vector ... , a rotational
speed of a rotor, and a stator current vector" (Spec. Title; Abstract).
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A rotor flux estimator comprising:
an estimation module that generates a first rotor flux
vector expressed in a phase voltage reference frame and a
second rotor flux vector expressed in the phase voltage
reference frame, from a stator voltage vector expressed in a
phase voltage reference frame, a rotational speed of a rotor, and
a stator current vector expressed in the phase voltage reference
frame;
the estimation module including at least one processor,
the estimation module implemented in hardware, firmware, or
software executing on the at least one processor; and
the estimation module including a rotor flux current
model, a rotor flux voltage model, and an estimator regulator
that has a rotor speed-independent gain and forms an estimation
correction factor for the rotor flux voltage model.
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
2
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
enablement requirement.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not
falling within any of the four statutory categories of patentable subject
matter.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to non-statutory subject matter that is a judicial exception without
significantly more.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Chen (US 6,388,419 Bl; issued May
14, 2002).
The Examiner rejected claims 3-5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based upon the teachings of Chen and Geyer (US 2012/0161685 Al;
published June 28, 2012).
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 9, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based upon the teachings of Chen and Jansen (US 6,137,258; issued Oct. 24,
2000).
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based upon the teachings of Chen and Virtanen (US 2012/0119712 Al;
published May 17, 2012).
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon
the teachings of Chen, Virtanen, and Nashiki (US 2008/0129243 Al;
published June 5, 2008).
3
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon
the teachings of Chen, Virtanen, and Corcelles Pereira (US 2008/0150285
Al; published June 26, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon
the teachings of Chen, Geyer, and Corcelles Pereira.
ANALYSIS
Rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 US.C. § l l 2(a)
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a),
finding there is no written description support in Appellant's Specification
for enabling a skilled artisan to make: "an estimator regulator that has a
rotor speed-independent gain" (recited in claim 1 ); "an estimator regulator
that has gain independent of the rotational speed of the rotor" (recited in
claim 8); and an "estimation correction factor having a gain that is
independent of the rotational speed of the rotor" ( recited in claim 16) (Final
Act. 5-7). The Examiner finds Appellant's Specification describes an
estimator regulator 408, but the Specification "merely provides a cursory
mention of what it [regulator 408] does (generates a correction factor) and
what it may include (a PI [proportional-integral] controller)" with "no
enabling disclosure regarding either speed dependency or independency"
(Final Act. 6 (citing Spec. ,r 38)).
Appellant contends the Examiner errs as the Specification provides
"the Estimator Regulator 408 can be embodied using a PI (proportional-
integral) controller ... , which applies a proportion to the input. ... [t]he
proportion, in classical PI controllers, is a constant gain" thus "not
4
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
dependent upon rotational speed of the rotor" (Reply Br. 5 ( citing Spec.
,r,r 38, 50, Fig. 6); App. Br. 9).
We have reviewed the sections of the Specification cited by Appellant
and the Examiner. We concur with Appellant the Specification provides
sufficient evidence to show possession of the invention and would enable a
skilled artisan to make the claimed estimator regulator. Particularly, we
agree with paragraphs 38 and 50 and Figure 6 of the originally filed
Specification, which Appellant cited as support (App. Br. 10-11). These
paragraphs provide for an "estimator regulator 408 includ[ing] a PI
(proportional-integral) controller" described "with reference to Fig. 6," the
PI controller having "a proportional module and an integral module, the
outputs of which are summed to form the estimation correction factor" (see
Spec. ,r 38). As Appellant explains, it is well known to one of ordinary skill
in the art that "a PI (proportional-integral) controller ... applies a
proportion to [an] input and an integral to the input," and the ''proportion, in
classical PI controllers, is a constant gain, and the integral is another
constant gain" (Reply Br. 5 ( emphases added); see also Controlguru.com
and Wikipedia). 1 Further, we note "what is conventional or well known to
one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail (see Hybritech
Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
1 See, e.g., https://controlguru.com/integral-action-and-pi-control/ and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID controller; see also US 2003/0225465 Al
(published Dec. 4, 2003) to Eric G. Gettinger, describing a "proportional,
integral controller" 13 8 pictured in the sole Figure, the controller having
"constant gains ... Kp 132, Ki 134, and Kd 136 are the proportional,
integral and derivative gains respectively that constitute the PID
[proportional, integral, derivative] controller 138. PID controllers are very
well known to those skilled in the control system art" (Gettinger, ,r,r 22-23).
5
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
see also Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("The
'written description' requirement must be applied in the context of the
particular invention and the state of the knowledge. . . . As each field
evolves, the balance also evolves between what is known and what is added
by each inventive contribution.").
Appellant's Specification describes an estimation correction factor is
obtained from an "error term" routed to (i) the PI controller's proportional
module "which produces a factor that is proportional" to the error term, and
(ii) the PI controller's integral module "which produces a factor that is
proportional to the integral" of the error term (see Spec. ,r,r 38, 50
(emphases added), Fig. 6). Thus, "the gain of the [PI controller's]
proportional module is a constant" producing the factor proportional to the
error term (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5). Therefore the PI controller of the
estimator regulator 408 "has a constant, [rotor] speed-independent gain"
(id.). Therefore, Appellant's Specification satisfies the written description
requirement.
Additionally, we disagree with the Examiner's "lack of enablement"
argument that "Appellant's Figures teaches [sic] the exact opposite" of
rotor speed-independent gain, because "Appellant's Figure [4] teaches that
the entirety of the claimed invention is in fact speed-dependent" (Ans. 4---6
(citing Fig. 4)). As Appellant explains, the "Estimator Regulator 408 [in
Fig. 4 of the Specification] has a rotor speed-independent gain applied to a
rotor speed-dependent input" to "produce an output that is dependent on
rotational speed because the input is dependent on rotational speed, not
because the gain is dependent on rotational speed" (Reply Br. 4--5).
6
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
Thus, we agree Appellant's Specification discloses the contested
limitations of claims 1, 8, and 16, enabling a skilled artisan to make the
claimed estimator regulator.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's written
description and enablement rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of claims 1,
8, and 16 and their dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20.
Rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 US.C. § 101
as not falling within any statutory category
The Examiner rejected independent claims 1 and 8 as "not fall[ing]
within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter
because it is unclear which of the four statutory categories [the claimed]
'rotor flux estimator' should be in" (Final Act. 3--4).
We do not agree with the Examiner's rejection. As Appellant
explains, claim 1 recites a "rotor flux estimator comprising: an estimation
module ... the estimation module including at least one processor" (App.
Br. 4). Thus, claim 1 's rotor flux estimator is directed to one of the four
statutory categories-a machine (App. Br. 4). Claim 8 is similarly directed
to a machine, as it recites a "rotor flux estimator, comprising: a first module
... a second module ... and an estimator regulator ... , wherein at least one
from a set consisting of: the first module, the second module, and the
estimator regulator, includes a processor." Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 and their dependent
claims 2-7 and 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not falling within a statutory
category.
7
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 US.C. § 101
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the subject matter of
claims 1-20 is patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the reasons that:
the "claimed rotor flux estimator [ of claims 1 and 8] and module that
performs the method [ of claim 16] of estimating rotor flux are components
in an electric induction motor controller, which could be used in various
vehicles" (App. Br. 5---6); "the claims recite a meaningful real-world
application (namely, estimating rotor flux for control of an induction motor)
and an improvement in the technology of electric induction motor control"
(App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2-3); the "claim limitations address the technological
problems of how to optimally control an induction motor ... and how to
improve upon direct torque control induction motor controllers and field
oriented control induction motor controllers" (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3); and
the Examiner overgeneralized the claims (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2). We
do not agree.
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347
(2014) identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed
subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
According to Alice step one, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims
at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea.
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible
concept, the second step in the analysis considers the elements of the claims
"individually and 'as an ordered combination"' to determine whether there
are additional elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78-79). In other
words, the second step "search[es] for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an
8
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Id. ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Examiner finds the claims are directed to "generating a vector
and forming an estimation correction factor for a model," thereby reciting
"mathematical relationships and algorithms ... [which] have been found by
the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams) to be abstract ideas" (Ans. 2;
Final Act. 4) (see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63---64, 67 (1972)
("Benson") (a "method for converting numerical information from binary-
coded decimal numbers into pure binary numbers ... [is merely a series of
mathematical calculations or mental steps, and does not constitute a
patentable] 'process"'); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585, 594--96 (1978)
("Flook") (rejecting as ineligible claims directed to the use of an algorithm
to calculate an updated "alarm-limit value" for a catalytic conversion
process variable, and updating the limit with the new value); and In re
Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("Grams") ("[M]athematical
algorithms join the list of non-patentable subject matter not within the scope
of section 101.")). The Examiner further finds "[t]he claims do not recite a
real-world application to bring the abstract into the concrete" (Ans. 2). We
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 8 and 16 are directed to the abstract
idea of manipulating data through mathematical relationships, which is
similar to the computing formula discussed in Flook, and the Arrhenius
formula in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) ("Diehr").
Particularly, Appellant's claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 16,
manipulates and outputs data including: a first rotor flux vector and a
second rotor flux vector expressed in a phase voltage reference frame, a
9
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
stator voltage vector, a stator current vector, a rotational speed of a rotor, a
speed-independent gain value, and an estimation correction factor.
Appellant's Specification describes the vectors as mathematical quantities
having both magnitude and direction in a reference frame (i.e., Euclidean
vectors), the vectors being transformable between multiple reference frames
(see Spec. ,r 2 (p. 6), ,r 7 (p. 7), ,r 13 (p. 9), ,r,r 36-39, 64). The claimed
rotational speed of a rotor, speed-independent gain value, and estimation
correction factor are additional numerical values used to generate the first
and second rotor flux vectors (see Spec. ,r 15 (p. 10), ,r,r 37-38, 56-58). The
claimed "rotor flux estimator," "estimation module," and "estimator
regulator" may be implemented by software executing on a generic
processor (see Spec. ,r,r 19, 33, 35, 38). The processor employs
mathematical models ( a "rotor flux current model" and a "rotor flux voltage
model") to obtain the rotor flux vectors (see Spec. ,r,r 17, 33, 35-37). Thus,
claims 1, 8, and 16 merely require a mathematical simulator performing a
mathematical simulation/algorithm in which the mathematics of motor
control have been modified relative to the prior art, such that the result of the
math can compute a motor's rotor flux more accurately (see Spec. ,r,r 35, 69-
70). Claims 1, 8, and 16 do not recite physical "components in an electric
induction motor controller," and do not require the claimed rotor flux
estimator and module to be "a component in an induction electric motor
controller" as Appellant asserts (App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3). Claims 1, 8,
and 16 also do not require controlling an induction motor, as Appellant
contends (Reply Br. 2).
Appellant's Specification describes a rotor flux estimator may be part
of a digital signal processor (DSP) in an "induction motor controller
10
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
provid[ing] AC (alternating current) electrical power to an induction motor"
to "regulate the torque and the rotor flux of the induction motor" (see Spec.
,r 7 (p. 7), ,r 8 (p. 8), ,r,r 19, 33, 39). Appellant's claims 1, 8, and 16,
however, do not recite such motor control features. Although claims are
interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification
are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Further, even though the claims are for a specific purpose (e.g., "how
to optimally control an induction motor," see Reply Br. 3), this does not
transform the claims into statutory subject matter. As the Supreme Court
has stated, "if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using
a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the
claimed method is nonstatutory." Flook, 437 U.S. at 595 (quoting In re
Richman, 563 F.2d 1026, 1030 (CCPA 1977)).
We also find Appellant's reliance on McRO unavailing (Reply Br. 3
(citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299
(Fed. Cir. 2016))). Particularly, Appellant argues the present claims, like the
claims of McRO, are directed to a real-world application and an
improvement in a technology ( e.g., electric induction motor control
technology) (Reply Br. 3). However, the court determined that McRO's
claim was not directed to an abstract idea because it "allow[ ed] computers to
produce 'accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in
animated characters' that previously could only be produced by human
animators" (see McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313); in contrast, Appellant's claims 1,
8, and 16 employ broadly claimed models (a "rotor flux current model" and
a "rotor flux voltage model") to calculate vector quantities (first and second
11
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
"rotor flux vectors"). The claims are not tied to a real-world application or
actual motor controller; rather, the claims merely require a mathematical
simulator calculating hypothetical rotor flux vectors, as discussed supra.
Because we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to a
mathematical algorithm, the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea.
We now tum to the second step of the Alice framework:
Contrary to Appellant's contentions, we find the claims do not
improve "direct torque control induction motor controllers and field oriented
control induction motor controllers" (Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 7). As explained
supra, any improvement to induction motor controllers that may be
disclosed in Appellant's Specification is missing from claims 1, 8, and 16.
The claims merely recite details of the mathematics involved in calculating
hypothetical rotor flux vectors from models and other vectors. 2 As the
Examiner asserts, and we agree, the "processor" recited in claims 1, 8, and
16 may be a generic computing element performing generic computing
functions (Ans. 3; Final Act. 4; see Spec. ,r,r 19, 33, 39, 72 ("Embodiments
2 If Appellant amends independent claims 1, 8, and 16, incorporating the
practical application recited in the Specification (i.e., requiring the claimed
"rotor flux estimator" and "estimator module" to be components in an
induction motor controller that controls an induction motor), such
amendment claims 1, 8, and 16 would recite the improvements in induction
motor control operations described in paragraphs 19, 35, and 69--70 of
Appellant's Specification. These claim elements would overcome the
Examiner's§ 101 rejection for reasons stated in Visual Memory and Thales.
See Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1253, 1259 (holding that the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea, and instead are directed to a technological
improvement: an enhanced computer memory system); and Thales Visionix
Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348--49 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that
"claims directed to a new and useful technique for using sensors to more
efficiently track an object on a moving platform" are patent eligible),
12
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
described herein may be practiced with various computer system
configurations including hand-held devices, tablets, microprocessor systems,
microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics,
minicomputers, mainframe computers and the like.").
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 16, when considered "both individually
and 'as an ordered combination,"' amount to nothing more than an attempt
to patent the abstract idea embodied in the steps of the claims (see Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78)).
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner's analysis and find
Appellant's arguments insufficient to show error. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's§ 101 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 16, and
dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 for which no separate arguments are
provided.
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 16, and 19 under 35 USC§ 102(a)(l)
and claims 3-6, 9-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 US. C. § 103
The Examiner, among other things, finds Chen teaches the limitation
"an estimator regulator that has a rotor speed-independent gain," as recited
in claim 1 (Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 8). Particularly, the Examiner finds
"Appellant's Figure [4] teaches that the entirety of the claimed invention is
in fact speed-dependent" (Ans. 5), thus "Appellant's disclosure is in fact
enabling for speed-dependent gain" and the Chen reference has been applied
(Final Act. 8; Ans. 6). That is, Chen "requires that an estimation correction
factor with rotor-speed dependent gain, i.e. K( cor), is formed for the rotor
flux voltage model" and "[t]herefore, Chen anticipates the claims" (Ans. 6-7
(emphasis added)). We do not agree.
13
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
As discussed supra with respect to the enablement and written
description rejections of claim 1, Appellant's Specification shows possession
of the invention, and would enable a skilled artisan to make the claimed
"estimator regulator that has a rotor speed-independent gain." As Appellant
further explains, Chen only discloses a regulator whose estimation
correction factor has "a speed-dependent gain" K that is a function of the
rotational speed (co) of the rotor (r) and is applied between a current model
62 and a voltage model 64 (see Chen col. 9, 11. 5-8 (emphasis added); App.
Br. 12-14 (citing Chen col. 9, 11. 5-8, col. 11, 11. 15-32, Figs. 8 and 11)).
Thus, Chen's regulator has a rotor speed-dependent gain, which is the
opposite of what is recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 6).
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 16, and claims 2, 7, and 19 dependent
therefrom. The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Geyer, Jansen, Virtanen, Nashiki, and Corcelles Pereira, used in the rejection
of dependent claims 3---6, 9-15, 17, 18, and 20, cure the above-noted
deficiencies of Chen (App. Br. 17-18). Thus, for the reasons set forth above
with respect to claims 1, 8, and 16, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 3---6, 9-15, 17, 18, and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement is reversed.
14
Appeal 2018-002637
Application 13/948,330
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as not falling within any of the four statutory categories is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3-6, 9-15, 17, 18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-20. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
15