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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Argument and amendment filed on 12/01/2025 are considered. Claims 1, 8 and 14 are amended.
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter is respectfully traversed.
The Present Claims Satisfy Step 2A - The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A. The MPEP requires a two-prong inquiry. In the first prong, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If so, in the second prong, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, then the claim is "directed to" a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
The Office Action at Pages 10-11 alleges certain limitations of Claim 1 fall within the "Mathematical Concepts" and "Mental Processes" groupings of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully disagrees. Specifically, at least the recitations identified by the Office as allegedly reciting an abstract idea are not reasonably construed as mental processes. That is, it would be impractical, if even possible, to perform these steps in the human mind and/or via pen and paper. Therefore, Applicant submits no mental processes are recited in at least the independent claims.
In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended limitations of (i) establishing, via a communication interface, a wireless communication channel with a remote system, (ii) transmitting, via the communication interface, the compressed frequency domain data set, having a reduced size compared to the time-domain samples, to the remote system for high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set, and (iii) controlling operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis, recite none of the judicial exceptions identified by the courts.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites eligible subject matter, as do independent Claims 8 and 14 that are amended to include similar limitations, as well as the claims depending therefrom.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the above the mentioned limitations are considered to be an extra solution activity which do not provide any meaningful inventive concept to the independent claims. Since, examiner does not find the clear support of the step “controlling operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis” in the specification. This limitation is also considered an insignificant one because the applicant referred paragraphs suggests the system uses a high-resolution stator current signature analysis to monitor the electric motor rather than a control function that controls or adjusts the motor operation condition based on the signature analysis during operation of the motor. Therefore, controlling operation of the electric machine… is considered to be a new matter in the application.
Courts have also identified such limitations with an insignificant extra-solution activity do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For example, testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982). Please refer to MPEP 2106.05 (g) (3).
Regardless, even assuming the independent claims recite a judicial exception (which Applicant does not concede), the present claims are subject-matter eligible under the second prong of Step 2A.
In the second prong, the Office evaluates whether a claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by. (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Applicant argues “Claim 1 recites (i) a current sensor configured to measure stator current of a stator of an electric machine during operation of the electric machine driving a load, and (ii) a microprocessor, installed on the electric machine, periodically collecting the measured stator current during operation of the electric machine driving the load, and transmitting a limited amount of the time- domain measured stator current to memory - that is, only the "symmetric factors" (e.g., so-called "Twiddle factors"). Based upon this limited time-domain data, and other actions, the microprocessor generates a compressed frequency domain data set by filtering a frequency domain, establishes a wireless communication channel with a remote system, and transmits data (that is, the compressed frequency data set having the reduced data size) from the microprocessor to the remote system.
That is, the actions performed by the claimed microprocessor represent a technical improvement. The claimed invention provides an improved signal for transmission, which exhibits a higher resolution and a reduced data size compared to conventional microprocessors and their respective processing functionality. These improved steps results in an improved signal, output from the claimed microprocessor, collectively representing a significant technology improvement.
In particular, as explained at paragraph [0005] of the published application, in known systems, "health monitor circuits may be further limited in the volume of data that can be collected and transmitted for remote processing," due to limitation to the speed, resolution, or storage of a heath monitor circuit. Further, paragraph [0016] of the published application highlights that the health monitor circuit of the present application has "improved data compression for transmission of collected data to remote systems," while paragraph [0030] emphasizes the technical effects of "improving data compression for storage and/or transmission" and "enabling high-resolution stator current signature analysis."
As such, the remote system may perform such high-resolution stator current signature analysis using the reduced-size frequency domain data set rather than the time-domain data set, and operation of the electric machine (motor) may be controlled based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis.”
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits representative Claim 1 includes "a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved" and includes additional elements, outside any alleged abstract idea, that enable the claims to address the technical problems related to health monitor circuits described above.
Here, "a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and ... the claim reflects the asserted improvement," which is sufficient to establish a practical application. See USPTO October 2019 Guidance, Section IIIB.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits the Office has dismissed hardware limitations as "recited in generality," but these hardware limitations are essential to technical advantages provided by the claimed invention and are not "required" by "all uses" of the identified judicial exception (a mathematical calculation). For example, "all uses" of a mathematical calculation do not "require" a current sensor, a communication interface, and/or a microprocessor. Rather, these hardware components are particular to the technical problem being solved by the claimed invention - namely, the transmission of data from an electric machine, which includes the recited health monitor circuit having the current sensor, communication interface, and microprocessor, to a remote system. Therefore, far from being hardware merely "recited in generality," these hardware components limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment in which the specific technical problem being solved actually arises.
Likewise, the "transmit" action appears to be dismissed as "extra-solution activity," but when considered in the context of the claim as well as the technical field of the present application, this action is not "extra-solution" but forms part of the inventive, patent-eligible process implemented with the claimed microprocessor.
Therefore, when these additional elements are considered in combination and the claim is considered as a whole, the technical advantage of improved microprocessor storage and transmission capabilities are clearly realized.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-22 are additionally or alternatively patent-eligible under the second prong of Step 2A and requests the § 101 rejection be withdrawn.
The Present Claims Satisfy Step 2B - Significantly More
Based on the claim recitations discussed above, even assuming for the sake of argument that the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims are directed to something "significantly more" than the idea itself.
There is no indication that it was well-understood, routine, or conventional to generate a frequency domain result by performing a fast-Fourier transform (FFT) on symmetric (time- domain) factors retrieved from a memory, extrapolate the frequency domain result to produce a frequency domain waveform having a higher resolution than the frequency domain result, and generate a compressed frequency domain data set by filtering the frequency domain waveform to remove data points in the frequency domain waveform having peaks below a configurable threshold, for improved data storage, compression, and transmission over conventional systems.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-22 are additionally or alternatively patent-eligible under Step 2B and requests the § 101 rejection be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited mathematical concepts are well know in the field of signal processing. Transforming signal from time domain to frequency domain using Fourier transform. Compressing or filtering frequency domain data or signal for easy storage and transmission are also well-known mathematical steps (please see prior art rejections) implemented by generic computer processor. The use of processor can still be considered of mental step.
MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2): As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’)
Therefore, taking the claims as whole examiner does not view the claimed invention integrate into practical application and provide improvement in the field of art. MPEP 2106.04 (d) (1) Examples of claims that improve technology and are not directed to a judicial exception include: Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1691-92 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the independent and the dependent claims do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S. C 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C 103:
Applicant argues “The rejection of Claims 1, 6-8, 13, 14, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0400745 (Qi) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0155002 (Janczak), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0079248 (Short), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0166582 (Binder), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2005/0064912 (Yang) is respectfully traversed.
Initially, Applicant respectfully submits the Office has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness to combine all five of the above references to arrive at the claimed invention.
It is the Office's obligation to set forth a reasoned rationale for the combination of each and every reference, such as a motivation or suggestion to combine. The Office does not present any such rationale.
Rather, the Office only presents the text of the claim limitations as an alleged "purpose" for combining references. This approach makes clear that the Office has only applied impermissible hindsight to make the present rejection, because the only justification offered is a restatement of the claim limitations. See Office Action, page 17 (the Office alleges it would be "obvious" to modify Qi with Janczak for the purpose of performing the claim limitations being rejected); page 18 (the Office alleges it would be "obvious" to modify Qi with Short for the purpose of performing the claim limitations being rejected); page 19 (the Office alleges it would- be "obvious" to modify Qi with Binder for the purpose of performing the claim limitations being rejected); page 19 (the Office alleges it would be "obvious" to modify Qi with Yang for the purpose of performing the claim limitations being rejected).
Therefore, the Section 103 rejection of Claim 1 (and, likewise, of independent Claims 8 and 14 that are rejected under the same rational) is improper. Applicant respectfully submits the Section 103 should be withdrawn and, thereby, the finality of the Office Action should be withdrawn based on the improper rejection.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees the applicant’s concern regarding hindsight, examiner provided a clear combination of prior arts where the arts suggest or teach the specific limitation and the combination of the arts do not require specific modification of the prior art’s fundamental principle. Therefore, the combination of the prior arts was proper.
Applicant argues “Solely in the interest of advancing prosecution, however, Claim 1 is amended herein and recites, in part, a microprocessor installed on an electric machine and programmed to: (i) periodically collect time-domain samples of the stator current measured by the current sensor during operation of the electric machine driving a load, (ii) establish, via the communication interface, a wireless communication channel with a remote system, (iii) transmit, via the communication interface, the compressed frequency domain data set, having a reduced size compared to the time-domain samples, to the remote system for high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set, and
(iv) control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis.
No combination of the cited references discloses or even suggests these recitations.
In particular, Qi is the only reference even remotely directed to electric motors and or the control thereof Qi only describes "off-line" testing of motor circuits, and explicitly describes the distinctions between off-line and on-line testing (see the Background of Qi, for example). Moreover, Qi is silent regarding any wireless communication or transmission of data, nor control of an electric machine (motor) using the transmitted data.
None of the other references remedy these deficiencies, as they are silent regarding motor control.
Accordingly, Claim 1 is submitted to be patentable over Qi, Janczak, Short, Binder, and Yang.
In asmuch as independent Claims 8 and 14 are amended herein to include recitations similar to those of Claim 1, Claim 8 and 14 likewise are submitted to be patentable over Qi, Janczak, Short, Binder, and Yang for at least the same reasons set forth herein with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 19-22 likewise are patentable over Qi, Janczak, Short, Binder, and Yang at least for their dependence from one of independent Claims 1, 8, and 14.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 1, 6-8, 13, 14, and 19-22 be withdrawn.
The rejections of Claims 2, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Qi in view of Janczak in view of Short in view of Binder in view of Yang, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0245397 (Moffatt), and of Claims 4, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Qi in view of Janczak in view of Short in view of Binder in view of Yang in view of Moffatt, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0203588 (Popp) are respectfully traversed.
Neither Moffatt nor Popp remedy the above-described deficiencies of Qi, Janczak, Short, Binder, and Yang.
Therefore, Claims 1, 8, and 14 are submitted to be patentable over any combination of Qi, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang, Moffatt, and/or Popp. Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 15, and 17 likewise are patentable over Qi, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang, Moffatt, and/or Popp at least for their dependence from one of independent Claims 1, 8, and 14.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 15, and 17 be withdrawn.”
Without conceding the fact Qi does not relate to obtaining motor data during operation condition of the motor with a load (Qi with locked rotor position can be considered the rotor with maximum load condition), Examiner considers another reference Ottewill et al (US 20140074427 A1) that clearly teaches monitoring a motor condition while the motor is in operational condition with a load.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-15,17, 19-22 rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 14, examiner do not find a support of the step “controlling operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis” in the specification. The applicant referred paragraphs in remarks suggest the system uses a high-resolution stator current signature analysis to monitor the electric motor rather than a control function that controls or adjusts the motor operation condition based on the signature analysis during operation of the motor.
Therefore, the independent claims are viewed to a new matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112 (a).
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.
Claim 1, 8 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 1, 8 and 14 recite a high-resolution stator current signature analysis. It is unclear as which signal or condition of signal be considered a high resolution. Therefore, for the purpose of examination any signal in prior arts for stator current signature analysis is considered for high resolution.
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 1-2, 4, 6-9,11, 13-15, 17, 19, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A health monitor circuit for an electric machine including a rotor and a stator, the health monitor circuit comprising:
at least one sensor installed on the electric motor, the at least one sensor comprising a current sensor configured to measure a stator current of the stator during operation of the electric machine driving a load;
a communication interface; and
a microprocessor installed on the electric machine and coupled to the at least one sensor, the communication interface, and a memory, the microprocessor programmed to:
periodically collect time-domain samples of the stator current measured by the current sensor during operation of the electric machine driving the load;
transmit symmetric factors of the time-domain samples to the memory;
generate a frequency domain result by performing a fast-Fourier transform (FFT) on the symmetric factors retrieved from the memory;
extrapolate the frequency domain result to produce a frequency domain waveform having a higher resolution than the frequency domain result;
generate a compressed frequency domain data set by filtering the frequency domain waveform to remove data points in the frequency domain waveform having peaks below a configurable threshold for improved transmission of data from the microprocessor;
establish, via the communication interface, a wireless communication channel with a remote system;
transmit, via the communication interface, the compressed frequency domain data set, having a reduced size compared to the time-domain samples to the remote system for high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set; and
control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (machine).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of generate a frequency domain result by performing a fast-Fourier transform (FFT) on the symmetric factors retrieved from the memory (considered as to be mathematical relationships);
extrapolate the frequency domain result to produce a frequency domain waveform having a higher resolution than the frequency domain result (considered as to be mathematical relationships or mental relationships);
generate a compressed frequency domain data set by filtering the frequency domain waveform to remove data points in the frequency domain waveform having peaks below a configurable threshold for improved transmission of data from the microprocessor (considered as to be mathematical relationships);
the compressed frequency domain data set, having a reduced size compared to the time-domain samples to the remote system for high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set (considered as to be mathematical relationships);
is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process or mathematical relationship. These mental or mathematical steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 8 and 14.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional elements/steps are: at least one sensor, a communication interface, wireless communication channel, remote system, a rotor, a stator, current sensor, a microprocessor installed on electric machine, periodically collect time-domain sample, transmit factor…, and transmit, via… The above additional elements/steps are recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A health monitor circuit…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “at least one sensor…”, “a communication interface”, “microprocessor installed…”, “periodically collect time-domain sample…” “transmit factors…”, “establish, via the communication…” and “transmit, via…” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data, storing data and transferring data and do not provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it. Control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis is considered to be in significant extra solution activity because it is considered to be a new matter (please see in claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 (a).
In claim 8, the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1. The additional elements/steps (program/software – method) are recited in generality and represent extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A method for monitoring the health…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “at least one sensor…”, “a communication interface”, “microprocessor coupled…”, “periodically collect time-domain sample…”, “transmit factors…”, “establishing via the communication interface…” and “transmit, via…” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data, storing data and transferring data and do not provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it. Control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis is considered to be in significant extra solution activity because it is considered to be a new matter (please see in claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 (a).
In claim 14, the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1. The additional element in the preamble of “A health monitor system…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it is only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “an electric machine”, “a health monitor circuit…” “at least one sensor…”, “a communication interface”, “microprocessor installed…”, “periodically collect time sample…”, “transmit factors…” “establish, via the communication…” and “transmit, via…” are also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data, storing data and transferring data and do not provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it. Control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis is considered to be in significant extra solution activity because it is considered to be a new matter (please see in claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 (a).
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
However, as evidenced by the prior art of record, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (step 2B analysis).
For example: Ottewill et al US (20140074427 A1), Fischer et al. (US 20200186898 A1), Moffatt et al. (US 20090245397 A1), Sullivan et al. (US 20070217694 A1), Janczak et al. (US 20080155002 A1), Sahara et al. (US 20080033695 A1), Short et al (US 20140079248 A1), Binder (US 20120166582 A1) teach or suggest the data processing technique of FFT, extrapolating data and compressing data. Also, please see prior art rejection below.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims 1, 8 and 14, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims (2, 3, 6, 7, 21, 22), (9, 11, 13) and (15, 17, 19, 20) comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims 1, 8 and 14 respectively (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to claims 1, 8 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 13, 14, 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ottewill et al (US 20140074427 A1) herein after “Ottewill”, in view of Janczak et al. (US 20080155002 A1) herein after “Janczak”, Short et al (US 20140079248 A1) herein after “Short”, Binder (US 20120166582 A1), Yang et al. (US 20150071036 A1) herein after “Yang” and Liu (US 20160266207 A1)
Ottewill teaches A health monitor circuit for an electric machine including a rotor and a stator (para [0020] Referring to FIG. 1, an example application of the present invention and the apparatus of this invention for diagnosing the operating condition of an electromechanical compressor system is presented), the health monitor circuit comprising:
at least one sensor installed on the electric machine, the at least one sensor comprising a current sensor configured to measure a stator current of the stator (para [0023] With reference to the electromechanical network shown in FIG. 1 in step 20 the analog current signals I.sub.a, I.sub.b, I.sub.c of the alternating current that supplies the stator winding for at least one of the phases of the three phase asynchronous electric motor 1 is measured using the current measuring devices 10.
para [0029] FIG. 2 is a plot of the discrete stator current amplitude signal W.sub.D, in the time domain. during operation of the electric machine driving a load (Para [0001] The present invention is concerned …in which electrical rotating machinery is used and in which at least one electrical signal is measured during an operation of the electromechanical system.);
Above examiner views the stator current installed in motor 1 is measured by a current sensor10 during the operation of the electromechanical system (i.e., during operation of the motor driving a load, i.e., compressor)
a communication interface (examiner views the wires or connections between parts as a communication interface, for example please see in Fig. 1 the connections between sensors 10 to computer device 12.); and
a microprocessor installed on the electric machine and coupled to the at least one sensor, the communication interface, and a memory (para [0020] The signal conditioning unit 9 is connected to a computer device 12, with a data processing unit 13 and communication module 14. In the data processing unit 13 a data storage module 15 and a synchronous averaging module 16 are implemented.)
In Fig. 1 examiner views the computer 12 (i.e., microprocessor) is installed on the electrical machine 1 connected through sensor 10 and 11, wires or communication module 14 and storage 15., the microprocessor programmed to:
periodically collect time-domain samples of the stator current measured by the current sensor during operation of the electric machine driving the load (para [0010] The synchronous average of electrical signals consists of components of the measured electric motor current and voltage signals which repeat periodically with each complete rotation of the shaft of the electromechanical system.
Para [0029] FIG. 2 is a plot of the discrete stator current amplitude signal W.sub.D, in the time domain.);
From above paragraphs examiner views a time-domain stator current is periodically collected during operation of the electromechanical system.
Ottewill does not clearly teach transmit symmetric factors of the time-domain samples to the memory;
generate a frequency domain result by performing a fast-Fourier transform (FFT) on the symmetric factors retrieved from the memory;
extrapolate the frequency domain result to produce a frequency domain waveform having a higher resolution than the frequency domain result;
generate a compressed frequency domain data set by filtering the frequency domain waveform to remove data points in the frequency domain waveform having peaks below a configurable threshold, transmission of data from the microprocessor;
establish, via the communication interface, a wireless communication channel with a remote system;
transmit, via the communication interface, to the remote system;
the compressed frequency domain data set, having a reduced size compared to the time-domain samples for high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set; and
control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis.
Janczak teaches transmit symmetric factors of the time-domain samples to the memory (para [0017] The memory 206 may also store configuration data for use in certain operations, such as twiddle factors used in FFT performed via the combined FFT/Matrix circuit 202. Para [0051] For instance, a FFT may be specified for a conversion of the data received via the network 106 by the receiver, such as a conversion of the data from time domain to frequency domain via the signal processing device 116 of FIG. 1.)
Herein twiddle factor (i.e., symmetric factor) of time-domain is stored in memory to convert to frequency domain using FFT;
generate a frequency domain result by performing a fast-Fourier transform (FFT) on the symmetric factors retrieved from the memory (para [0017] The memory 206 may also store configuration data for use in certain operations, such as twiddle factors used in FFT performed via the combined FFT/Matrix circuit 202. Para [0045] Again, input data and twiddle factors are reloaded according to FFT algorithm decomposition such as via the memory 206 of FIG. 2. Para [0051] For instance, a FFT may be specified for a conversion of the data received via the network 106 by the receiver, such as a conversion of the data from time domain to frequency domain via the signal processing device 116 of FIG. 1.)
Herein twiddle factor (i.e., symmetric factor) of time-domain is stored in memory and retrieved from memory to be converted to frequency domain using FFT;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Janczak into Ottewill for the purpose of transmitting factors of time domain signal to memory and performing a frequency domain FFT on the factors, so that the time domain data is transformed into frequency domain.
Ottewill and Janczak does not teach, extrapolate the frequency domain result to produce a frequency domain waveform having a higher resolution than the frequency domain result;
generate a compressed frequency domain data set by filtering the frequency domain waveform to remove data points in the frequency domain waveform having peaks below a configurable threshold, transmission of data from the microprocessor;
establish, via the communication interface, a wireless communication channel with a remote system;
transmit, via the communication interface, to the remote system;
the compressed frequency domain data set, having a reduced size compared to the time-domain samples for high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set; and
control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis.
Short teaches extrapolate the frequency domain result to produce a frequency domain waveform having a higher resolution than the frequency domain result ( para [0049] In accordance with another exemplary and non-limiting embodiment, a method of processing a time domain signal comprises receiving a time domain signal stream and creating a first set of input samples in the time domain and a second set of input samples in the time domain from the signal stream, …converting the first and second input sample windows to a frequency domain and storing the resulting transformed windowed data set for analysis, performing complex spectral phase evolution (CSPE) on the frequency domain data to estimate component frequencies of the frequency domain data at a resolution greater than the fundamental transform resolution of the frequency domain data, using the component frequencies estimated in the CSPE… an extrapolation to the resulting data to provide an improved estimate of the frequency modulation of the underlying signal component, and storing the improved estimate in a further modified high resolution window data set.
Herein examiner views the extrapolation to the transformed resulting data (i.e., the frequency domain result obtained using FFT) provide an improved estimate of the frequency modulation of the underlying signal component (i.e., produce a frequency domain wave form with higher or better resolution) than the transformed result.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Short into Ottewill for the purpose generating a signal with higher resolution by extrapolating the frequency domain result.
Ottewill, Janczak and Short do not teach, generate a compressed frequency domain data set by filtering the frequency domain waveform to remove data points in the frequency domain waveform having peaks below a configurable threshold, improved data transmission of data from the microprocessor;
establish, via the communication interface, a wireless communication channel with a remote system;
transmit, via the communication interface, to the remote system;
the compressed frequency domain data set, having a reduced size compared to the time-domain samples for high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set; and
control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis.
Binder teaches generate a compressed frequency domain data set by filtering the frequency domain waveform to remove data points in the frequency domain waveform having peaks below a configurable threshold, improved transmission of data from the microprocessor ([0001] This disclosure relates generally to an apparatus and method for improved networking or storage security using an address or data scrambling, partitioning and routing in digital data networks, and more particularly, to a secured digital data when it is IP-based communicated over the Internet or when it is stored in a memory.
para [0294] In an alternative arrangement, the power and communication signals are carried over the wires in the cable using Frequency Division Multiplexing (FDM, a.k.a. Frequency Domain Multiplexing). In such an implementation, the power and the communications signals are carried each in its frequency band (or a single frequency) distinct from each other... Such device may also further include a high pass filter coupled between the connector and the transceiver for substantially passing only the communication frequency band, for passing the communication signal between the connector and the transceiver.
Herein the high pass filter compresses (i.e., filters) the frequency domain signal to remove frequencies or data points below a predetermined level (i.e., peak below a configurable threshold) and selects only high amplitude frequencies or data points, so that a compressed signal or data set is generated for better data transmission and storage; and
Establish, via the communication interface, a wireless communication channel with a remote system (para [0008] A Wireless Mesh Network (WMN) and Wireless Distribution Systems (WDS) are known in the art to be a communication network made up of clients, mesh routers and gateways organized in a mesh topology and connected using radio.
transmit, via the communication interface to the remote system (please see above in paragraph [001] and [00294] suggest transmitting compressed or filtered signal, via the communication interface to the remote system (for example storage)
para [0342] The invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network.).
Herein examiner views the communication network (i.e., interface) establish wireless communication links or channel with remote processing system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Binder into Ottewill for the purpose filtering or compressing a frequency domain signal by removing points or data below a predetermined threshold and create communication networks with channel for remote system, so that the filtered or compressed signal can be effectively transmitted to remote locations or devices through communication network.
Ottewill, Janczak, Short and Binder do not clearly teach the compressed frequency domain data set, having a reduced size compared to the time-domain samples,
high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set; and
control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis.
Yang teaches the compressed frequency domain data set, having a reduced size compared to the time-domain samples (para [0010] amplitude filtering is normally a mathematical process in which components in the amplitude spectrum with an amplitude above and/or below a cutoff threshold) value are removed.)
In above paragraph examiner views the amplitude filtering of the amplitude spectrum (i.e., frequency domain) generates a compressed frequency domain data set. Amplitude filtering reduces the size of the frequency domain signal as compared to original time domain. Instant application also uses amplitude filtering to generate a compressed signal as discussed in paragraph [0028].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Yang into Ottewill for the purpose filtering or compressing a frequency domain signal, so that the filtered or compressed signal can have size reduced than the original time domain signal and the signal can be stored or transmitted easily through communication network.
The combination of Ottewill, Janczak, Short, Binder, and Yang do not clearly teach high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set and
control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis
Liu teaches high-resolution stator current signature analysis of the electric machine using the compressed frequency domain data set (para [0033] FIG. 4 shows a system for operating an induction motor having a stator and rotor bars. The system includes a power supply 410 for powering the stator of the induction motor with a stator current having a fundamental frequency.
Para [0034] A processor 430 determines, in a frequency domain, a set of frequencies with non-zero amplitudes, such that a reconstructed signal formed by the frequencies with non-zero amplitudes approximates the signal measured in the time domain. The determining includes searching within a subband including the fundamental frequency subject to condition of a sparsity of the signal in the frequency domain.
para [0036] For example, in spectral analysis with a fewer amount of measurements, the compressive sensing can help to reconstruct the same high resolution frequency spectrum. Furthermore, compressive sensing with the same amount of measurements can achieve higher resolution than the direct signal reconstruction.).
Herein examiner views the compressed set of frequencies (i.e., from compressive sensing) of stator current frequency is used for high resolution stator current spectral analysis.
control operation of the electric machine, based on the high-resolution stator current signature analysis (para [0024] The analysis includes performing current signature analysis (CSA) to detect faults within the induction motor 100 using a compressive sensing. In some embodiments, upon detecting the fault, the controller 110 interrupts the operation of the induction motor for further inspection or repair.).
Examiner views the high-resolution stator current signature analysis is used to interrupt the operation of motor (i.e., control the operation by turning off).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Liu into Ottewill for the purpose using filtering or compressing a frequency domain signal to determine a stator current analysis, so that an accurate condition of a motor can be obtained for proper control of the motor.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ottewill, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang and Liu teach the health monitor circuit of Claim 1, Ottewill teaches wherein the at least one sensor further comprises at least one of an ambient temperature sensor, an ambient humidity sensor, a barometric pressure sensor, and an acceleration sensor (para [0020] A sensor, or a group of sensors that are capable of measuring speeds or accelerations of the shaft 3, not presented in the drawing).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ottewill, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang and Liu teach the health monitor circuit of Claim 1, Ottewill teaches wherein the microprocessor is communicatively coupled to a motor controller of the electric machine via the communication interface (para [0020] The signal conditioning unit 9 is connected to a computer device 12, with a data processing unit 13 and communication module 14)
Examiner views the data processing unit 13 (microprocessor) within the computer (motor controller) connected to each other via wire (i.e., communication interface).
Claim 8 is rejected as claim 1 above containing same claim limitations/elements.
Claim 13 is rejected as claim 6 above containing same claim limitations/elements.
Claim 14 is rejected as claim 1 above containing same claim limitations/elements.
Claim 19 is rejected as claim 6 above containing same claim limitations/elements.
Claim 20 is rejected as claim 7 above containing same claim limitations/elements.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ottewill, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang and Liu teach the health monitor circuit of Claim 1, Binder teaches wherein the remote system is external to the electric machine (para [0256] The remote computer can load the instructions into its dynamic memory and send the instructions over a telephone line using a modem.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Binder into Ottewill for the purpose of having a remote system/computer external to the electric machine, so that the remote computer can transmit instructions and monitor the machine in real and flexible time.
Regrading claim 22, the combination of Ottewill, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang and Liu the health monitor circuit of Claim 1, Janczak suggests wherein the microprocessor is further configured to offload the compressed frequency domain data set from the memory by the transmitting of the compressed frequency domain data set to the remote system (para [0014] a hardware accelerator 124 may be provided for various internal data processing tasks of a client 102, one example of which is a hardware accelerator 124 which is included with a graphics processor 134. Graphics processor 134 may provide functionality to compress/decompress data and/or render data on the display device 114 from one or more application module 136 which may be stored in memory 112 and may also be executed on processor 110 of the client 102. A variety of other examples of signal processing devices 116 which may include a hardware accelerator 124 are also contemplated.)
In Fig. 2 examiner views the graphic processor (which is included with a hardware accelerator 124) compresses data/signal in frequency domain (see Fig. 2 FFT in looped 216) and send or offload the output signal 214 or 220 from memory 206 via control module 204. Examiner views these outputs/results are sent to remote system (for example in a computer to display the result).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Janczak into Ottewill for purpose of performing FFT and compressing data in a memory and send the compressed data from the memory to display the result or status of a monitored machine.
Claim 2, 9, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over ,the combination of Ottewill, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang and Liu in view of Moffatt et al. (US20090245397A1) herein after Moffatt.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ottewill, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang and Liu the health monitor circuit of Claim 1, however the combination do not explicitly teach wherein the microprocessor is further configured to generate a time domain data set based on the factors of the time samples.
Moffatt teaches wherein the microprocessor is further configured to generate a time domain data set based on the factors of the time-domain samples (para [0048] The IFFT circuit performs the reverse process and transforms the spectrum of the amplitude and phase into a time domain signal. For example, an IFFT circuit can convert a set of complex data points into a time domain signal of the same number of points. Each complex input point will result in an integral number of sinusoid and cosinusoid cycles represented by the same number of points as were input to the IFFT. Each sinusoid known as the in-phase component, and cosinusoid known as the quadrature component, will be orthogonal to all other components generated by the IFFT). Examiner views the sinusoidal/cosinusoidal signal (complex data) as the factors, where IFFT generates a time domain signal based on the samples of complex data.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to have incorporated Moffat (directed to generating time domain signal) into Ottewill (directed to monitoring an electrical machine) for the purpose of studying the condition of electric machine by converting a complex data into time domain supplied by the sensor(s).
Claims 9, 15 are rejected as claim 2 above containing same claim limitations/elements.
Claim 4, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ottewill, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang, Liu and Moffatt in view of Popp (US 20190203588 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ottewill, Janczak, Short, Binder, Yang, Liu and Moffatt the health monitor circuit of Claim 2, however the combination do not explicitly teach wherein the compressed data is orders of magnitude smaller in units of memory than the time domain data set.
Popp teaches wherein the compressed data is orders of magnitude smaller in units of memory than the time domain data set (Para [0049] The compressed data can then be stored in reduced data sizes (e.g., occupy less memory space) and/or transmitted as smaller transmission packets that are easier to transmit in real time.
[0095] At block 304, a processor located downhole receives the time-domain data to process the downhole dynamic event data to convert the time-domain data into frequency-domain data in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure.
Para [101] That is, the frequency-domain content of digital filters is compressed as compared to time-domain content.).
Examiner views the compressed data set as the frequency domain data which takes less space in memory than the time domain data.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to have incorporated Popp (directed to data compression) into Ottewill (directed to monitoring an electrical machine) for the purpose of reducing the magnitude of frequency domain data by utilizing a data compression technique so that the compressed data would take smaller space in the memory of a device for proper storage of frequency domain data.
Claim 11 is rejected as claim 4 above containing same claim limitations/elements.
Claim 17 is rejected as claim 4 above containing same claim limitations/elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 20200348207 A1) discusses monitoring fault in motors.
Anders (US 20190267923 A1) discusses monitoring rotating machine.
Qiao (US 20160033580 A1) discusses monitoring faults in turbine generators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863