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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 10, 20 and 29 are objected to because the following elements lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s):
Claim 4 line 3: “the nearest floor station”
Claims 10, 20 and 29 line 2: “the number of turns”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-10, 16-20 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 21 include the limitation “determine one or more components of a stator coil current at one or more characteristic frequencies from a measurement of the stator coil current of the elevator motor”. However the claims do not describe how the measurement is to be taken. It is unclear whether applicants intend an internal sensor an external sensor, or the computer program to measure the stator coil current. For examining purposes, it is interpreted by examiner that the computer program measures the stator coil current for processing.
Claims 6, 16 and 25 include limitations pertaining to “the characteristic frequencies”. However the claims previously describe one or more characteristic frequencies. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the one or more characteristic frequencies or further limit the one or more characteristic frequencies to a plurality of characteristic frequencies. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as pertaining to “the one or more characteristic frequencies”.
Claims 7, 9, 17, 19 and 28 include limitations pertaining to “the components”. However the claims previously describe one or more components. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the one or more components or further limit the one or more components to a plurality of components. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as pertaining to “the one or more components”.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10, 18, 20, 22-24, 26, 27, 29 and 30 depend from at least 6, 16 or 25 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claims 6, 16 or 25.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 21 recite determining one or more components of a stator coil current at one or more characteristic frequencies, and determining whether a fault occurs in the stator coil based on the one or more components. These limitations are considered processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in the claims, e.g., memory, processor, computer program, stator coil current and elevator motor are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions and components to apply the exception, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since the additional elements are described at a high-level of generality without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites determining one or more components of a stator coil current at one or more characteristic frequencies, and determining whether a fault occurs in the stator coil based on the one or more components. These limitations are considered processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in the claims, e.g., current sampling module, power conversion module, control module, stator coil current, and elevator motor are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions and components to apply the exception, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since the additional elements are described at a high-level of generality without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 and 22-30 include limitations which further define the abstract idea and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 11, 13, 14, 21-23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel (US 2020/0341063 A1) in view of Arabori et al. (US 4,982,815).
Claims 1, 21 and 30: Bickel discloses a fault monitoring device and method for an induction motor (page 8 paragraph [0064]), and a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium that are executed by a processor (page 8 paragraph [0066]) comprising a memory; a processor coupled with the memory, and a computer program stored on the memory and running on the processor to perform a process (page 17 paragraph [0152]). The process includes A. determining one or more components (characteristics) of power data and/or impedance data at one or more characteristic frequencies (specific frequency) (page 4 paragraph [0029]) determined from current data at said one or more characteristic frequencies (page 13 paragraph [0121]). The current data is obtained from a measurement of an inrush/starting current of the motor (page 1 paragraph [0010]) representing an amount of current in the motor’s stator coils (windings) (page 8 paragraph [0064]). The process further includes B. determining, based on the one or more component, whether a fault (anomalous condition) corresponding to a turn-to-turn short circuit (short between adjacent coils) occurs in the stator coil (page 2 paragraph [0020]). This reference fails to disclose the induction motor to be an elevator motor.
However Arabori et al. teaches a fault monitoring device and method where an elevator motor (column 2 lines 25-28) is shown in FIG. 1 to be an induction motor (6) (column 3 lines 20-21).
Given the teachings of Arabori et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fault monitoring device and method disclosed in Bickel with providing the induction motor to be an elevator motor. Doing so would provide “an improved elevator apparatus having an enhanced level of safety” as taught in Arabori et al. (column 1 lines 7-8).
Claim 2: Bickel modified by Arabori et al. discloses a fault monitoring device as stated above, where the fault monitoring device is disclosed in Bickel to be a computing device independent of other controllers and components (page 8 paragraph [0066]). The computing device then is independent of an elevator controller and a power control device used to control the elevator motor.
Claims 3 and 22: Bickel modified by Arabori et al. discloses a fault monitoring device and method as stated above, where the running of the computer program is disclosed in Bickel to further cause: C. sending a message to a controller that the turn-to-turn short circuit has occurred in the stator coil to stop the motor (page 5 paragraph [0036]) at nearest floor when the message is sent to the elevator controller as taught in Arabori et al. (column 5 lines 30-36).
Claims 4 and 23: Bickel modified by Arabori et al. discloses a fault monitoring device and method as stated above, where the elevator controller is shown in Arabori et al. to generate a control command to stop an elevator car at a nearest/specified floor station based on the message that the turn-to-turn short circuit has occurred in the stator coil for rescue (column 5 lines 30-36). The passengers then are able to evacuate the elevator car after stopping the elevator car.
Claim 11: Bickel discloses a power control device for controlling an induction motor (page 8 paragraph [0064]) comprising a current sampling module to measure current applied to the motor (page 2 paragraph [0014]) and a controller module coupled with the current sampling module (page 2 paragraph [0021]) configured to perform a process. The process includes A. determining one or more components (characteristics) of power data and/or impedance data at one or more characteristic frequencies (specific frequency) (page 4 paragraph [0029]) determined from current data at said one or more characteristic frequencies (page 13 paragraph [0121]). The current data is obtained from a measurement of an inrush/starting current of the motor (page 1 paragraph [0010]) representing an amount of current in the motor’s stator coils (windings) (page 8 paragraph [0064]). The process further includes B. determining, based on the one or more component, whether a fault (anomalous condition) corresponding to a turn-to-turn short circuit (short between adjacent coils) occurs in the stator coil (page 2 paragraph [0020]). This reference fails to disclose the induction motor to be an elevator motor and a power conversion module, where the control module is coupled with the power conversion module.
However Arabori et al. teaches a power control device where an elevator motor (column 2 lines 25-28) is shown in FIG. 1 to be an induction motor (6) (column 3 lines 20-21). A control module (control device 7) is coupled with a power conversion module (PWM inverter) (column 3 lines 23-26).
Given the teachings of Arabori et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power control device disclosed in Bickel with providing the induction motor to be an elevator motor and a power conversion module, where the control module is coupled with the power conversion module. Doing so would provide “an improved elevator apparatus having an enhanced level of safety” as taught in Arabori et al. (column 1 lines 7-8).
Claim 13: Bickel modified by Arabori et al. discloses a power control device including a power conversion module, as stated above. The process includes: C. sending a message to a controller that the turn-to-turn short circuit has occurred in the stator coil to stop the motor (page 5 paragraph [0036]) at nearest floor when the message is sent to the elevator controller as taught in Arabori et al. (column 5 lines 30-36). The power conversion module then is controlled based on a control command generated based on the message that the turn-to-turn short circuit has occurred in the stator coil and received from the elevator controller to provide a required voltage and frequency regulated power supply to the elevator motor in order to drive the motor to the nearest floor, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 14: Bickel modified by Arabori et al. discloses a power control device where the control command controls the power conversion module in order to drive the motor to the nearest floor, as stated above. The control command then is a control command to stop an elevator car at a specified floor station (nearest floor).
Claims 5, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel (US 2020/0341063 A1) modified by Arabori et al. (US 4,982,815) as applied to claims above, further in view of Sachs et al. (US 12,184,208 B2).
Claims 5, 15 and 24: Bickel modified by Arabori et al. discloses a fault monitoring device, power controller device and method as stated above, but fails to disclose the stator coil current to be a q-axis current of the elevator motor.
However Sachs et al. teaches a monitoring device, power controller device and method where a stator coil current is a q-axis current of a motor (column 6 lines 12-17).
Given the teachings of Sachs et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fault monitoring device, power controller device and method disclosed in Bickel as modified by Arabori et al. with providing the stator coil current to be a q-axis current of the elevator motor. Doing so would allow monitoring for “maximum torque” via “generate[d] magnetic fields in stator windings” as taught in Sachs et al. (column 3 line 66 through column 4 line 3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel (US 2020/0341063 A1) modified by Arabori et al. (US 4,982,815) as applied to claims above, further in view of Stolt (US 8,757,328 B2).
Claim 12: Bickel modified by Arabori et al. discloses a power controller device as stated above, but fails to disclose the power control device to be a frequency converter.
However Stolt teaches a power control device to be a frequency converter (column 1 lines 37-40).
Given the teachings of Stolt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fault monitoring device, power controller device and method disclosed in Bickel as modified by Arabori et al. with providing the power control device to be a frequency converter. Doing so would allow “adjusting the power supply between the [elevator motor] and the electricity network, [such that] the speed of the elevator car can be changed steplessly” as taught in Stolt (column 1 lines 40-43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-10 and 25-29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6, 16 and 25: Although the prior art (US 2020/0341063 A1) teaches a fault monitoring device and method for a motor (page 8 paragraph [0064]), and a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium that are executed by a processor (page 8 paragraph [0066]) comprising a memory; a processor coupled with the memory, and a computer program stored on the memory and running on the processor to perform a process (page 17 paragraph [0152]) including A. determining one or more components (characteristics) of power data and/or impedance data at one or more characteristic frequencies (specific frequency) (page 4 paragraph [0029]) determined from current data at said one or more characteristic frequencies (page 13 paragraph [0121]) representing an amount of current in the motor’s stator coils (windings) (page 8 paragraph [0064]) and B. determining, based on the one or more component, whether a fault (anomalous condition) corresponding to a turn-to-turn short circuit (short between adjacent coils) occurs in the stator coil (page 2 paragraph [0020]), the prior art does not teach nor suggest the characteristic frequencies to take values of 2nxMEF, wherein n is a natural number and MEF is a Motor Electrical Frequency of the elevator motor. The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate nor make obvious applicant's claimed invention.
Claims 7-10, 17-20 and 26-29 depend from claims 6, 16 or 25 and therefore inherit all allowed claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 March 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights