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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
2. The amendment filed on 12/29/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The listing of references in the specification for example, NPL references listed in the paragraph [0072], [0076], [0094] is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claim 1 recites “A fast and high-fidelity insulation fault model for a permanent magnet synchronous motor comprising: a model permanent magnet synchronous motor;
an equivalent resistance simulation to simulate a number of turns of stator windings in the model permanent magnet synchronous motor; at least one feature extraction for motor winding fault diagnosis and prognosis; at least two different sampling frameworks; and further comprising at least four modules comprising a stator voltage balancing module, a motion module, an electromagnetic torque module and an inductance generating module;”.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation:
Specification paragraph [0069], [0087], and [0111] of PG PUB states:
[0069] The current disclosure provides for creating a fast and high-fidelity insulation fault model of PMSM and creating a fast and high-fidelity motor model under Simulink environment which can simulate the dynamic performance of a motor accurately.
[0087] A complete three phase PMSM model is established in Simulink as shown in FIG. 2 based on the physical law and equivalent circuit of the motor analyzed above. The three-phase PMSM model includes four modules of stator voltage balancing module, motion module, electromagnetic torque module and inductance generating module, respectively.
[0111] The last section built a PMSM model based on the physical law and the equivalent circuit of the motor. The winding insulation fault was then injected to the PMSM model to enable the data analysis and future fault diagnosis. This section aims to present diagnostics and prognostics theory and simulation of motor stator winding insulation faults. In this scheme, the diagnostic feature was extracted using Hilbert transforms theory based on simulation data acquired from the established PMSM model with different severity levels of the stator winding insulation fault. Diagnostic and prognostic algorithms were developed in the Bayesian estimation framework with an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF). Real-time diagnosis and prognosis of PMSM stator winding insulation faults were performed in Simulink. Simulation results demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
5. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, it recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
214
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
140
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The equation does not include sub-elements Lba, Lca, Lcb and what are they? Also what is the sub-element “m” of
PNG
media_image3.png
37
32
media_image3.png
Greyscale
refers?
As per Claim 5, it recites the limitation “
PNG
media_image4.png
85
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” without defining what the sub-elements of iacss and T refer.
As per Claim 12, it recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image5.png
73
406
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
174
653
media_image6.png
Greyscale
without defining what the sub-elements of “m” of
PNG
media_image3.png
37
32
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and θ refer. Further the equation does not include sub-elements Lba, Lca, Lcb and what are they?
As per claim 19, it recites the limitation “
PNG
media_image7.png
82
251
media_image7.png
Greyscale
” without defining what the sub-element of “uk” refers.
As per claim 20, it recites the limitation “
PNG
media_image8.png
46
422
media_image8.png
Greyscale
” which is unclear what the limitation refers as there is no definition of sub-elements of p1, p2 and p3.
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.
6. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
(Step 1) The claim 1, 3-5, and 7-11 is directed a system and fall within the statutory category of machine; and, the claim 12-20 is directed to directed methods and fall within the statutory category of processes.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites: “a model permanent magnet synchronous motor (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
an equivalent resistance simulation to simulate a number of turns of stator windings in the model permanent magnet synchronous motor (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
at least one feature extraction for motor winding fault diagnosis and prognosis (insignificant extra-solution activity - data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
at least two different sampling frameworks (insignificant extra-solution activity -“apply it”); and
further comprising at least four modules comprising a stator voltage balancing module, a motion module, an electromagnetic torque module and an inductance generating module (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); and
wherein the inductance generating module is based on equation:
PNG
media_image9.png
465
746
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept, more specifically mathematical formulas or equations); and
wherein a simulation is generated of the model permanent magnet synchronous motor via the at least four modules to form an automated contingency management development system to mitigate at least one fault effect in the model permanent magnet synchronous motor (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use).
Claim 12 recites: “forming a permanent magnet synchronous motor model (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
injecting at least one fault into the permanent magnet synchronous motor model (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
conducting data analysis (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
conducting future fault diagnosis (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
implementing at least one diagnostic and prognostic algorithm (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it”)” and
further comprising at least four modules comprising a stator voltage balancing module, a motion module, an electromagnetic torque module and an inductance venerating module (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use): and
wherein the inductance generating a module is based on equation:
PNG
media_image10.png
375
695
media_image10.png
Greyscale
((under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical concept, more specifically mathematical formulas or equations) wherein a simulation is generated of the model permanent magnet synchronous motor via the at least four modules to form an automated contingency management development system to mitigate at least one fault effect in the model permanent magnet synchronous motor (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “a model permanent magnet synchronous motor” (Claim 1) and “a permanent magnet synchronous motor model” (Claim 12) which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further the additional elements of “an equivalent resistance simulation to simulate…” (Claim 1) can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), i. e. Simulink environment as described in the paragraph [0069], [0087], [0111], and [0111] of PG Pub of instant application.
Further Claims recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)):
(Claim 1) “at least one feature extraction for motor winding fault diagnosis and prognosis (insignificant extra-solution activity - data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); further comprising at least four modules comprising a stator voltage balancing module, a motion module, an electromagnetic torque module and an inductance generating module (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
wherein a simulation is generated of the model permanent magnet synchronous motor via the at least four modules to form an automated contingency management development system to mitigate at least one fault effect in the model permanent magnet synchronous motor (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)”and
(Claim 12) “injecting at least one fault into the permanent magnet synchronous motor model (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
further comprising at least four modules comprising a stator voltage balancing module, a motion module, an electromagnetic torque module and an inductance venerating module (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use):
wherein a simulation is generated of the model permanent magnet synchronous motor via the at least four modules to form an automated contingency management development system to mitigate at least one fault effect in the model permanent magnet synchronous motor (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)”.
Further the claims recite the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity that is equivalent to “apply it” and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h):
(Claim 1) “at least two different sampling frameworks (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it”);” and
(Claim 12) “implementing at least one diagnostic and prognostic algorithm (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it”)”.
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 2B - inventive concept) 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 a practical application, the additional elements of “a model permanent magnet synchronous motor” (Claim 1) and “a permanent magnet synchronous motor model” (Claim 12) which is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further the additional elements of “an equivalent resistance simulation to simulate…” (Claim 1) can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), i. e. Simulink environment as described in the paragraph [0069], [0087], [0111], and [0111] of PG Pub of instant application. Further as discussed above Claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)): (Claim 1) “at least one feature extraction for motor winding fault diagnosis and prognosis (insignificant extra-solution activity - data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); at least one module (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)
further comprising at least four modules comprising a stator voltage balancing module, a motion module, an electromagnetic torque module and an inductance venerating module (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use):
wherein a simulation is generated of the model permanent magnet synchronous motor via the at least four modules to form an automated contingency management development system to mitigate at least one fault effect in the model permanent magnet synchronous motor (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)” and
(Claim 12) “injecting at least one fault into the permanent magnet synchronous motor model (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
further comprising at least four modules comprising a stator voltage balancing module, a motion module, an electromagnetic torque module and an inductance venerating module (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use):
wherein a simulation is generated of the model permanent magnet synchronous motor via the at least four modules to form an automated contingency management development system to mitigate at least one fault effect in the model permanent magnet synchronous motor (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)”.
Further the claims recite the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity that is equivalent to “apply it”:
(Claim 1) “at least two different sampling frameworks (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it”);” and (Claim 12) “implementing at least one diagnostic and prognostic algorithm (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it”)”.
Further dependent claims 3-5 and 7-11, and 13-20 recite:
3. The model of claim 1, wherein the stator balancing module is based on equation:
PNG
media_image11.png
366
439
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
507
747
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(a mathematical concept, more specifically mathematical formulas or equations– abstract idea)
4. The model of claim 1, wherein the motion module is based on equation:
PNG
media_image13.png
44
242
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
284
297
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(a mathematical concept, more specifically mathematical formulas or equations– abstract idea)
5. The model of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic torque module is based on equation:
PNG
media_image15.png
238
437
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(a mathematical concept, more specifically mathematical formulas or equations– abstract idea)
7. The model of claim 1, further comprising at least one fault index parameter dependent on at least insulation fault resistance, stator resistance, a number of winding turns of a fault, and/or a total number of turns per winding. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)
8. The model of clam 7 wherein a fault is injected into the model permanent magnet synchronous motor via replacing at least one permanent magnet synchronous motor parameter with at least one fault index parameter. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering/inputting and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)
9. The model of claim 8, wherein the fault is based on a relationship of the at least one fault index parameter and a number of fault turns, a total number of turns per winding and/or an insulation fault resistance. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)
10. The model of claim 1, wherein the model permanent magnet synchronous motor has at least one input comprising voltage amplitude or load. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering/inputting and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)
11. The model of claim 1, wherein the model permanent magnet synchronous motor has at least one output comprising three-phase stator current, three-phase stator current, three-phase stator voltage, motor torque, back electromotive force, or rotor speed. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering/outputting and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising amplitude and phase asymmetry of the permanent magnet synchronous motor model reflect non-identical motor parameters containing fault information. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)
14. The method of claim 12, comprising introducing Hilbert transform to evaluate asymmetries in permanent magnet synchronous motor construction. (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it”)
15. The method of claim 14, wherein Hilbert transform creates at least one analytic signal from at least one signal received from the permanent magnet synchronous motor model. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and “apply it”)
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the at least one analytic signal contains at least an amplitude and phase information of the at least one signal received from the permanent magnet synchronous motor model. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)
17. The method of claim 12, further comprising describing variations in winding symmetry via standard deviation of average amplitude of each phase current over a finite time interval to evaluate winding insulation faults in the permanent magnet synchronous motor model. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)
18. The method of claim 12, wherein the at least one diagnostic algorithm and prognostic algorithm is an Extended Kalman Filter(EKF) for nonlinear system dynamics. (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it”)
19. The method of claim 12, further comprising indicating motor winding fault dynamics with nonlinear systems:
PNG
media_image16.png
164
716
media_image16.png
Greyscale
mathematical concept as reciting mathematical formulas or equations– abstract idea)
20. The method of claim 12, further comprising implementing at least one diagnostic and prognostic algorithm via developing a fault growth model given by:
PNG
media_image17.png
115
407
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(a mathematical concept as reciting mathematical formulas or equations– abstract idea)
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 1, 3-5, and 7-20would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Allowable Subject matter:
(Claim 1) “wherein the inductance generating module is based on equation:
PNG
media_image9.png
465
746
media_image9.png
Greyscale
”
(Claim 12) “wherein the inductance generating a module is based on equation:
PNG
media_image10.png
375
695
media_image10.png
Greyscale
”
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Objections in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
As per 101 rejection: as rejected above the additional element of “wherein a simulation is generated of the model permanent magnet synchronous motor via the at least four modules to form an automated contingency management development system to mitigate at least one fault effect in the model permanent magnet synchronous motor” is an insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In particular, the additional elements of “a simulation is generated of the model permanent magnet synchronous motor via the at least four modules” can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), i. e. Simulink environment as described in the paragraph [0069], [0087], [0111], and [0111] of PG Pub of instant application. Thus 101 rejection maintains.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188