DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp., 8-10 that the claims cannot recite abstract ideas, because “the human mind is not equipped and is simply not capable of performing the claimed functions”. This argument is not persuasive. Under a broad, reasonable interpretation of the claims, the human mind is equipped and is simply capable of performing the claimed functions. For example, receiving data is an inherently human function, using the basic senses most humans possess. More specifically, receiving at least a portion of the data from the memory can be as simple as a human operator reading the data stored in the memory in the form of a printout or display on a computer screen.
Applicant argues on pp. 10-12 that the alleged abstract ideas, which Applicant says do not exist, but if they did exist, would be integrated into a practical application. This argument is not persuasive. The claims do recite abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, as set forth in the rejection of the claims below, and those claims are not integrated into a practical application. Merely displaying the results of the abstract calculations on the generic display of a generic computer does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, also as set forth in the rejection of the claims below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argue son p. 12 that “Briendl does not teach or suggest at least: (1) generating a graphical user interface (GUI) including a plot encoding both an amplitude and an angle of a selected concentricity vector…” (p. 12). This argument is not persuasive. Briendl explicitly discloses the structure and steps necessary for presenting the measured data graphically, as set forth in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 below. Further, what Applicant asserts is patentable subject matter of particular results of data analysis or particular mathematical graphs of measured and calculated data are merely non-functional descriptive material displayed on a computer screen, and are not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. Applicant’s arguments fail to present any functional relationship between the computer display and the information displayed by the computer display. Applicant should note that while the term “GUI” is used in the claims, there are no claim limitations directed to any actual interaction between the display, the user, and the date displayed, either via well-known touchscreens or input devices such as a mouse, and the user of the display who may be viewing the data presented via the display. That is, there does not appear to be any true GUI functionality recited in the claims, as the term GUI would be generally understood by one familiar with using modern PCs, tablets, or smartphones.
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 1-8, 10, 12-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-9, 10, and 12 are directed to an apparatus.
Claims 13-17 and 19 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 1 recites:
a plurality of data including measurements characterizing an air gap between at least one of a rotor or a stator of a machine correlated with one or more operating parameters of the machine;
at least a portion of the plurality of the data from the memory;
determine, based upon the received data, a concentricity of at least one of the rotor or stator, wherein the rotor or stator concentricity is a vector, including an amplitude and an angle, that characterizes a difference between a location of a predetermined center point and a location of a geometric center point of the rotor or stator, respectively;
receive a concentricity vector selection including at least one of the rotor concentricity vector or the stator concentricity vector;
a selection of one of the correlated operating parameters;
a selection of a plot format;
a plot in the format of the selected plot type, the plot encoding both the amplitude and the angle of the selected concentricity vector as a position relative to the location of the predetermined center point, wherein the amplitude defines a magnitude of displacement of the location of the geometric center point of the rotor or stator from the location of the predetermined center point and the angle defines a direction of the displacement, such that changes in the concentricity of the at least one of the rotor or stator relative to the location of the predetermined center point are displayed across the selected operating parameter in the GUI, and wherein the plot includes an acceptance region having one or more threshold values corresponding to at least one of the amplitude or angle for the rotor or stator, the acceptance region being overlaid upon a portion of the selected concentricity vector within the plot; and
a notification in response to determining, by comparing the determined concentricity to the one or more threshold values, that at least one of the amplitude or the angle of the determined concentricity is outside the acceptance region; and
display the generated notification.
These claim limitations are data and mathematical concepts, which are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 1 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore also recites abstract ideas.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein the plot is a polar plot.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 2 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the plot comprises first and second Cartesian plots, the first Cartesian plot including amplitude of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter, the second Cartesian plot including angle of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter, and wherein the axis of the selected correlated operating parameter is common to the first and second Cartesian plots.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 3 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the operating parameter is time.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 4 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the plot is an XvsY plot of amplitude of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 5 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the plot does not combine the concentricity vector with a profile or shape of the rotor or stator.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 6 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise at least one of rotor speed, rotor temperature, stator temperature, a machine state, a machine output, or hydraulic head.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 7 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 10 recites:
an alarm type corresponding to respective threshold values;
a notification based upon the alarm type.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 10 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites:
wherein the machine is an electrical generator.
This claim limitation is directed to the data used in the mathematical concepts, and is therefore an abstract idea of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 12 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites:
Receiving a plurality of data including measurements characterizing an air gap between at least one of a rotor or a stator of a machine correlated with one or more operating parameters of the machine;
determining a concentricity of at least one of the rotor or stator, wherein the rotor or stator concentricity is a vector, including an amplitude and an angle, that characterizes a difference between a location of a predetermined center point and a location of a geometric center point of the rotor or stator, respectively;
receiving a concentricity vector selection including at least one of the rotor concentricity vector or the stator concentricity vector;
receiving a selection of one of the correlated operating parameters;
receiving a selection of a plot format;
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) including a plot in the format of the selected plot type, the plot encoding both the amplitude and the angle of the selected concentricity vector as a position relative to the location of the predetermined center point, wherein the amplitude defines a magnitude of displacement of the location of the geometric center point of the rotor or stator from the location of the predetermined center point and the angle defines a direction of the displacement, such that changes in the concentricity of the at least one of the rotor or stator relative to the location of the predetermined center point are displayed across the selected operating parameter in the GUI, and wherein the plot includes an acceptance region having one
or more threshold values corresponding to at least one of the amplitude or angle for the rotor or stator, the acceptance region being overlaid upon a portion of the selected concentricity vector within the plot;
the generated GUI;
a notification in response to determining, by comparing the determined concentricity to the one or more threshold values, that at least one of the amplitude or the angle of the determined concentricity is outside the acceptance region; and
updating the GUI to display the generated notification.
These claim limitations are data and mathematical concepts, which are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 13 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the plot comprises first and second Cartesian plots, the first Cartesian plot including amplitude of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter, the second Cartesian plot including angle of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter, and wherein the axis of the selected correlated operating parameter is common to the first and second Cartesian plots.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 14 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 15 recites:
wherein the plot is an XvsY plot of amplitude of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 15 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 16 recites:
wherein the plot does not combine the concentricity vector with a profile or shape of the rotor or stator.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 16 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites:
wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise at least one of rotor speed, rotor temperature, stator temperature, a machine state, a machine output, or hydraulic head.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 17 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Claim 19 recites:
an alarm type corresponding to respective threshold values;
the notification is generated based upon the alarm type.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, as discussed in MPEP §§2106.04(a)(2)(I), and/or mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Therefore, claim 19 recites limitations that fall into the mathematical concept and/or mental process groups of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
a memory configured to maintain a plurality of data; and
an analyzer including one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to:
receive, via a user computing device, one or more operator selections;
generate a graphical user interface (GUI); and
output the generated GUI to the user computer device for display;
generate a notification;
update the GUI to display the notification.
The memory and analyzer are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a computer for performing generic functions of receiving, storing, processing, and outputting, including generating a GUI and outputting an “alarm.” This computer is generically recited, and it represents nothing more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. These limitations 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When viewed individually or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or to improve the functioning of a computer, or improve any other technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole is directed to the judicial exceptions.
Claims 2-8, 10, and 12 each recite only the additional elements recited in claim 1, and are therefore also directed to the judicial exceptions.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of:
an analyzer including one or more processors that receives, determines, generates, outputs, and updates.
The analyzer is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a computer for performing generic functions of receiving, storing, processing, and outputting, including generating a GUI and outputting an “alarm.”. This computer is generically recited, and it represents nothing more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. These limitations 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. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When viewed individually or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or to improve the functioning of a computer, or improve any other technology or technical field. Therefore, claim 13 as a whole is directed to the judicial exceptions.
Claims 14-17 and 19 each recite only the additional elements recited in claim 1, and are therefore also directed to the judicial exceptions.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim provides an inventive concept, i.e., whether the claim recites additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
Regarding claims 1-8, 10, and 12, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of the memory and analyzer amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
Whether considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 1-8, 10, and 12 and claims 1-8, 10, and 12 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 13-17 and 19, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of analyzer amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
Whether considered individually or in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 13-17 and 19 and claims 13-17 and 19 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Briendl et al., US 2003/0011397 A1 (hereinafter Briendl).
Regarding claim 1, Briendl teaches an asset management system, comprising:
a memory configured to maintain a plurality of data including measurements characterizing an air gap between at least one of a rotor or a stator of a machine correlated with one or more operating parameters of the machine (“A memory module which is connected to the analysis module for data transmission purposes is advantageously provided for documentation of the generator data being recorded at any given time,” 0066; “As shown in FIG. 2, measurement data 100 for the radial gap 10 is recorded by means of six sensors 52 in the tenth group 104 which are arranged on the inner envelope surface of the laminated core 16 in a plane which is parallel to the shaft 12 of the rotor 8. The sensors 52 are each connected to an instrument transformer or conditioner 106, which is arranged on the outer envelope surface of the laminated core 16. Furthermore, a key phasor or a phase mark 108 is arranged on the shaft 12 of the rotor 6. If one of the six sensors 52 now measures a specific distance between one pole of the rotor 6 and the stator 8 during operation of the generator 2, then it is possible by means of the signal recorded via the phase mark 108 to electronically identify that pole which is being used for the measurement. The measurement data 100 for the radial gap 10 in the generator 2 can likewise be supplied to the processing module 70 via a data transmission connection 110, as is illustrated in FIG. 1,” ¶ 0078);
an analyzer including one or more processors in communication with the memory (“The processing module 70 is provided for calculating instantaneous characteristic variables 120 from the instantaneous critical variables 50, the instantaneous influencing variables 80 and the instantaneous measurement data 100. To do this, the processing module 70 has a computer module 122, to which the critical variables 50, the influencing variables 80 and the measurement data 100 can be supplied. Analog/digital conversion of the recorded data as well as limit value monitoring or plausibility checking are also carried out in the processing module 70. The processing module 70 is also used for constructing data messages and to form signals for warnings, defects and disturbances,” ¶ 0079) and configured to:
receive at least a portion of the plurality of the data from the memory (“The processing module 70 is provided for calculating instantaneous characteristic variables 120 from the instantaneous critical variables 50, the instantaneous influencing variables 80 and the instantaneous measurement data 100. To do this, the processing module 70 has a computer module 122, to which the critical variables 50, the influencing variables 80 and the measurement data 100 can be supplied. Analog/digital conversion of the recorded data as well as limit value monitoring or plausibility checking are also carried out in the processing module 70. The processing module 70 is also used for constructing data messages and to form signals for warnings, defects and disturbances,” ¶ 0079);
determine, based upon the received data, a concentricity of at least one of the rotor or stator, wherein the rotor or stator concentricity is a vector, including an amplitude and an angle, that characterizes a difference between a location of a predetermined center point and a location of a geometric center point of the rotor or stator, respectively; receive a concentricity vector selection including at least one of the rotor concentricity vector or the stator concentricity vector (“The mean value of the first coefficients which are calculated for each vector in this case describes the mean size of the radial gap, the mean value of each of the second coefficients describes the mean shift of the rotor axis relative to the axis of the stator ("eccentricity of the rotor"), and the mean value of each of the third coefficients describes the mean deformation of the rotor ("ovality of the rotor"). The characteristic variables for the radial gap which are formed using the Fourier coefficients thus intrinsically characterize the shape of said gap,” ¶ 0031; “the additional instantaneous characteristic variables are formed from the second and third coefficients calculated on the basis of the Fourier analysis of the second vector. The second coefficient in this case describes the shift of the stator axis relative to the axis of the rotor ("eccentricity of the stator"), and the third coefficient describes the deformation of the stator ("ovality of the stator"),” ¶ 0037);
receive, via a user computing device, one or more operator selections comprising: a concentricity vector selection including at least one of the rotor concentricity vector or the stator concentricity vector, a selection of one of the correlated operating parameters, and a selection of a plot format; generate a graphical user interface (GUI) including a plot in the format of the selected plot type, the plot including at least a portion of the selected concentricity vector as a function of the selected correlated operating parameter; and in response to receiving the operator selections, the GUI including a plot in the format of the selected plot type, the plot encoding both the amplitude and the angle of the selected concentricity vector as a position relative to the location of the predetermined center point, wherein the amplitude defines a magnitude of displacement of the location of the geometric center point of the rotor or stator from the location of the predetermined center point and the angle defines a direction of the displacement, such that changes in the concentricity of the at least one of the rotor or stator relative to the location of the predetermined center point are displayed across the selected operating parameter in the GUI, and wherein the plot includes an acceptance region having one or more threshold values corresponding to at least one of the amplitude or angle for the rotor or stator, the acceptance region being overlaid upon a portion of the selected concentricity vector within the plot; output the generated GUI to the user computing device for the display (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art. Further, all of the information recited as being displayed is contained within the data gathered by the physical system of Briendl on the status of the rotor and stator, and must merely be selected by the user as the information desired to be displayed graphically).
generate a notification in response to determining, by comparing the determined concentricity to the one or more threshold values, that at least one of the amplitude or the angle of the determined concentricity is outside the acceptance region; and update the GUI to display the generated notification on the user computing device (“At least the instantaneous characteristic variables obtained in step 3 are compared with the corresponding instantaneous reference characteristic variables of the radial gap; and if at least one of the instantaneous characteristic variables differs from the reference characteristic variable by more than a specified amount, a warning is produced,” ¶ 0015; “The processing module 70 is also used for constructing data messages and to form signals for warnings, defects and disturbances,” ¶ 0079).
Regarding claim 2, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the plot is a polar plot (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art).
Regarding claim 3, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the plot comprises first and second Cartesian plots, the first Cartesian plot including amplitude of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter, the second Cartesian plot including angle of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter, and wherein the axis of the selected correlated operating parameter is common to the first and second Cartesian plots (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art).
Regarding claim 4, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the operating parameter is time (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art).
Regarding claim 5, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the plot is an XvsY plot of amplitude of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art).
Regarding claim 6, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the plot does not combine the concentricity vector with a profile or shape of the rotor or stator (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art).
Regarding claim 7, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise at least one of rotor speed, rotor temperature, stator temperature, a machine state, a machine output, or hydraulic head (“The influencing variables are advantageously the current and the voltage of the stator, the field current and the rotation speed of the rotor and the temperature value of the cold cooling air flowing to the stator,” ¶ 0061).
Regarding claim 8, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the analyzer is configured to update the GUI and output the updated GUI in response to receipt of new data (“The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶ 0092).
Regarding claim 10, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the analyzer is further configured to: receive an alarm type corresponding to respective threshold values, and wherein the notification is generated based upon the alarm type when a threshold value is crossed by its corresponding determined concentricity amplitude or concentricity angle; and output the notification (“At least the instantaneous characteristic variables obtained in step 3 are compared with the corresponding instantaneous reference characteristic variables of the radial gap; and if at least one of the instantaneous characteristic variables differs from the reference characteristic variable by more than a specified amount, a warning is produced,” ¶ 0015; “The processing module 70 is also used for constructing data messages and to form signals for warnings, defects and disturbances,” ¶ 0079).
Regarding claim 12, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the machine is an electrical generator (“The invention relates to a method for monitoring the radial gap between the rotor and the stator of an electrical generator,” ¶ 0001).
Regarding claim 13, Briendl teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by an analyzer including one or more processors, a plurality of data including measurements characterizing an air gap between at least one of a rotor or a stator of a machine correlated with one or more operating parameters of the machine (“A memory module which is connected to the analysis module for data transmission purposes is advantageously provided for documentation of the generator data being recorded at any given time,” 0066; “As shown in FIG. 2, measurement data 100 for the radial gap 10 is recorded by means of six sensors 52 in the tenth group 104 which are arranged on the inner envelope surface of the laminated core 16 in a plane which is parallel to the shaft 12 of the rotor 8. The sensors 52 are each connected to an instrument transformer or conditioner 106, which is arranged on the outer envelope surface of the laminated core 16. Furthermore, a key phasor or a phase mark 108 is arranged on the shaft 12 of the rotor 6. If one of the six sensors 52 now measures a specific distance between one pole of the rotor 6 and the stator 8 during operation of the generator 2, then it is possible by means of the signal recorded via the phase mark 108 to electronically identify that pole which is being used for the measurement. The measurement data 100 for the radial gap 10 in the generator 2 can likewise be supplied to the processing module 70 via a data transmission connection 110, as is illustrated in FIG. 1,” ¶ 0078);
determining, by the analyzer based upon the received data, a concentricity of at least one of the rotor or stator, wherein the rotor or stator concentricity is a vector, including an amplitude and an angle, that characterizes a difference between a location of a predetermined center point and a location of a geometric center point of the rotor or stator, respectively (“The mean value of the first coefficients which are calculated for each vector in this case describes the mean size of the radial gap, the mean value of each of the second coefficients describes the mean shift of the rotor axis relative to the axis of the stator ("eccentricity of the rotor"), and the mean value of each of the third coefficients describes the mean deformation of the rotor ("ovality of the rotor"). The characteristic variables for the radial gap which are formed using the Fourier coefficients thus intrinsically characterize the shape of said gap,” ¶ 0031; “the additional instantaneous characteristic variables are formed from the second and third coefficients calculated on the basis of the Fourier analysis of the second vector. The second coefficient in this case describes the shift of the stator axis relative to the axis of the rotor ("eccentricity of the stator"), and the third coefficient describes the deformation of the stator ("ovality of the stator"),” ¶ 0037);
receive, by the analyzer via a user computing device, one or more operator selections comprising: a concentricity vector selection including at least one of the rotor concentricity vector or the stator concentricity vector, a selection of one of the correlated operating parameters, and a selection of a plot format; generate a graphical user interface (GUI) including a plot in the format of the selected plot type, the plot including at least a portion of the selected concentricity vector as a function of the selected correlated operating parameter; and in response to receiving the operator selections, the GUI including a plot in the format of the selected plot type, the plot encoding both the amplitude and the angle of the selected concentricity vector as a position relative to the location of the predetermined center point, wherein the amplitude defines a magnitude of displacement of the location of the geometric center point of the rotor or stator from the location of the predetermined center point and the angle defines a direction of the displacement, such that changes in the concentricity of the at least one of the rotor or stator relative to the location of the predetermined center point are displayed across the selected operating parameter in the GUI, and wherein the plot includes an acceptance region having one or more threshold values corresponding to at least one of the amplitude or angle for the rotor or stator, the acceptance region being overlaid upon a portion of the selected concentricity vector within the plot; output the generated GUI to the user computing device for the display (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art. Further, all of the information recited as being displayed is contained within the data gathered by the physical system of Briendl on the status of the rotor and stator, and must merely be selected by the user as the information desired to be displayed graphically); and
generating, by the analyzer, a notification in response to determining, by comparing the determined concentricity to the one or more threshold values, that at least one of the amplitude or the angle of the determined concentricity is outside the acceptance region; and updating, by the analyzer, the GUI to display the generated notification on the user computing device (“At least the instantaneous characteristic variables obtained in step 3 are compared with the corresponding instantaneous reference characteristic variables of the radial gap; and if at least one of the instantaneous characteristic variables differs from the reference characteristic variable by more than a specified amount, a warning is produced,” ¶ 0015; “The processing module 70 is also used for constructing data messages and to form signals for warnings, defects and disturbances,” ¶ 0079).
Regarding claim 14, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the plot comprises first and second Cartesian plots, the first Cartesian plot including amplitude of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter, the second Cartesian plot including angle of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter, and wherein the axis of the selected correlated operating parameter is common to the first and second Cartesian plots (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art).
Regarding claim 15, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the plot is an XvsY plot of amplitude of the selected concentricity vector and the selected correlated operating parameter (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art).
Regarding claim 16, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the plot does not combine the concentricity vector with a profile or shape of the rotor or stator (“The stored values allow trend calculations to be carried out, and provide information for diagnostic purposes. In this case, record printouts of the instantaneous values can be produced automatically. A representation can also be provided by means of freely configurable graphics for all the stored reference values and for the recorded data,” ¶ 0066; “Records and graphics of the measured data can also be produced by means of the analysis module 126,” ¶ 0081; “The memory module 130 is used to process the result of the analysis or substitute analysis as well as the time profile of the critical variables 50, of the influencing variables 80, of the measurement data 100 and of the characteristic variables 120 in record form, so that trend analyses and graphical representations of the recorded and analyzed variables can be produced,” ¶0092. In this instance, the particular type of plots or data presented on the GUI represent nonfunctional descriptive material that is not functionally related to the substrate, which substrate is, in this case, the GUI, and which plots or data are incapable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2111.05. That is, the particular information displayed on the graphical representations is not capable of patentably distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art).
Regarding claim 17, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise at least one of rotor speed, rotor temperature, stator temperature, a machine state, a machine output, or hydraulic head (“The influencing variables are advantageously the current and the voltage of the stator, the field current and the rotation speed of the rotor and the temperature value of the cold cooling air flowing to the stator,” ¶ 0061).
Regarding claim 19, Briendl teaches the invention of claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above. Briendl also teaches wherein the analyzer is further configured to: receive an alarm type corresponding to respective threshold values, and wherein the notification is generated based upon the alarm type when a threshold value is crossed by its corresponding determined concentricity amplitude or concentricity angle; and output the notification (“At least the instantaneous characteristic variables obtained in step 3 are compared with the corresponding instantaneous reference characteristic variables of the radial gap; and if at least one of the instantaneous characteristic variables differs from the reference characteristic variable by more than a specified amount, a warning is produced,” ¶ 0015; “The processing module 70 is also used for constructing data messages and to form signals for warnings, defects and disturbances,” ¶ 0079).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
11 July 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights