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 .
Response to Amendment/Argument
Argument filed on 06/22/2026 are considered. No claims are amended.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 101:
Applicant argues “Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicant traverses the rejection.
Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is evaluated using the two-step framework
established by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). Under this framework, the Court first determines whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception such as an abstract idea (Step 2A). The USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance divides Step 2A into two prongs: Prong 1 asks whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and Prong 2 asks whether the claim integrates the exception into a practical application. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, the Court then determines whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Independent claims 1, 8, and 9, along with their respective dependent claims, are patent eligible under both Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
A. Step 2A, Prong 2: The Claims Are Integrated into a Practical Application
Even assuming arguendo that certain claim limitations recite a mathematical concept or mental process, the claims as a whole integrate any such concept into a practical application of monitoring an electrical machine.
The Action characterizes the independent claims as reciting "a simple measurement of temperature of a motor or machine component and then estimated temperature values of the motor using a model" followed by "repetitive calculations of values, storing and retrieving the calculated values for next cycle to monitor a machine." The Action asserts that these steps can be performed using "basic computer used calculations" and that monitoring the machine "without any meaningful result or outcome is considered to be mental step."
This characterization fails to account for the specific technical improvement that the claims provide. The Specification identifies a concrete problem in the prior art: analytical thermal models such as LPTNs rely on parameters derived from the machine's geometry and material properties, but these parameters change throughout the life of the machine due to wear or ambient conditions, causing inaccurate temperature estimation. (Specification, pars. [0002]-[0005].) The claims recite a specific technical solution to this problem: iteratively optimizing weight parameter values (correction matrices that multiply the thermal model's physical matrices) during live machine operation, so that the thermal model continuously adapts to the machine's actual thermal behaviour. (Specification, pars. [0007]-[0008], [0018]-[0019], [0042], [0051]-[0052], [0060]- [0061].) This is not a generic mathematical calculation applied to generic data. The claimed method is tied to a specific physical system (an electrical machine with temperature sensors at multiple locations), operates on a specific type of model (a thermal model with weight parameter values), performs a specific optimization (minimizing the difference between sensor measurements and model predictions by finding optimal weight parameters), and achieves a specific technical result (a self-correcting thermal model that remains accurate despite physical degradation). The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to specific improvements in technology are not abstract. See Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a specific improvement in database technology were not abstract); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting a specific process for automating lip synchronization using specific rules were not abstract).
The Action asserts that the step of "monitoring the electrical machine using the thermal model with the new initial parameter values" does not provide a meaningful result. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Monitoring with updated weight parameter values means monitoring with a thermal model whose internal parameters have been recalibrated to reflect the machine's current physical state. This is the practical application: the thermal model's accuracy is maintained over the machine's lifetime despite changes in thermal resistance (e.g., due to dust accumulation on the frame), thermal capacitance (e.g., due to material aging), and power loss characteristics (e.g., due to winding insulation degradation). (See, e.g., Specification, pars. [0065]-[0071].) The output of the monitoring step is not a bare mathematical result but an assessment of the machine's physical condition that can trigger maintenance actions.
Furthermore, the claims do not preempt all methods of monitoring electrical machines using thermal models. The claims are directed to one particular approach: iteratively optimizing weight parameter values (correction matrices) that multiply the thermal model's physical matrices.
Other approaches to thermal model calibration, such as one-time tuning during commissioning (as disclosed in Sciascera et al., cited in the Specification background), or Kalman-filter-based state estimation (as disclosed in Yuan), remain available to others.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s above argument. From the independent claims 1, 8 and 9, examiner does not view the claim limitation are directed to a practical application of the invention.
The claim limitations provide steps of obtaining measured temperature sensor data, estimating temperature data using a thermal model (thermal model with weight parameters), minimizing a difference between the measured and the estimated values by finding an optimal weight parameters, storing the initial weight parameter and updating the optimal weight as new weight values. Repeating the above steps again and again and monitor the electrical machine using the model with new updated value.
Above, there is no additional element or limitation that relates to the practical application of the invention. Applicant has argued for the limitation of “monitoring the electrical machine using the thermal model with the new initial parameters” as for practical application of the invention. This limitation basically can be understood as observing or watching (i.e., a mental step and an insignificant activity) the machine that is being runed by using a thermal model with new parameters (i.e., mathematical parameters or values).
The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Similarly, 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).
Examiner suggests the applicant include a limitation in the independent claims that can provide a practical application of the invention that relates to monitoring of machine (For example: control an operation related to a machine speed based on a monitored degradation of the machine winding insulation due to the thermal stress).
Applicant argues “B. Step 2B: The Claims Recite Significantly More Than the Judicial Exception
Even if the claims were directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A (which Applicant does not concede), the claims recite additional elements that, taken as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
The Action states that the claim limitations are "well-understood, known in the field of monitoring machine" and cites the prior art rejections under §§ 102 and 103 as evidence. Applicant notes, however, that the Step 2B inquiry asks whether the additional elements are "well- understood, routine, and conventional," and this is a question of fact. Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As demonstrated in the § 102 and § 103 arguments below, the cited prior art does not disclose the claimed approach of optimizing weight parameter values (correction matrices) of the thermal model. Yuan teaches Kalman filter state estimation, which adjusts filter gain, not thermal model parameters. Sarangapani teaches statistical confidence-based fault diagnosis, not thermal model parameter comparison. Yang teaches a conventional LPTN with fixed parameters, not a corrected LPTN with optimizable correction matrices. The fact that none of the cited references, individually or in combination, discloses the claimed approach confirms that the specific combination of steps recited in the claims is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
The ordered combination of: (i) obtaining temperature measurements from multiple
locations on an electrical machine, (ii) obtaining estimated temperatures from a thermal model that includes weight parameter values (correction matrices), (iii) minimizing the error by optimizing those correction matrices, (iv) storing and updating the correction matrices over successive cycles during live machine operation, and (v) monitoring the machine using the recalibrated model, constitutes a specific, unconventional process that transforms a static thermal model into a dynamic, self-correcting monitoring tool. This ordered combination amounts to significantly more than any underlying mathematical concept. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. Applicant may have believed the limitations in the independent claims of the present invention are unconventional or Novel; examiner views the limitations in independent claims have mathematical and mentals steps. The mathematical and mental steps may be new. The steps are still abstract ideas and insignificant for a Patent. MPEP 2106.05 I also suggests “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” and an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, the claims do not provide inventive concepts. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 will not be withdrawn.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 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 method of monitoring an electrical machine, wherein the method comprises:
a) obtaining, via a plurality of sensors, temperature measurement values of the temperature at a plurality of locations of the electrical machine,
b) obtaining estimated temperatures at said plurality of locations given by a thermal model of the electrical machine, the thermal model initial weight parameter values,
c) minimizing a difference between the temperature measurement values and the estimated temperatures by finding optimal weight parameter values,
d) storing the initial weight parameter values to thereby obtain a storage of used weight parameter values, and updating the optimal weight parameter values as new initial weight parameter values, and
repeating steps a)-d) over and over during operation of the electrical machine.
monitoring the electrical machine using the thermal model with the new initial parameter values.
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 (process).
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 “b) obtaining estimated temperatures at said plurality of locations given by a thermal model of the electrical machine, the thermal model initial weight parameter values (considered to be a mathematical relationships or step to obtain estimated temperatures using thermal model),
c) minimizing a difference between the temperature measurement values and the estimated temperatures by finding optimal weight parameter values (considered to be a mathematical relationships),
monitoring the electrical machine using the thermal model with the new initial parameter values (considered to be a mental step i.e., observing, evaluating machine using thermal model),
These mental process or mathematical relationships steps represent that, under the 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 9.
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 element in the preamble of “A method of monitoring an electric machine” 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 “obtaining via a plurality of sensors, temperature measurement …” is also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements “d) storing the initial weight parameter values…, and
repeating steps a)-d) over and over during …” are also recited to be generality which is insignificant extra solution activity. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 8, the additional element is a non- transitory computer readable medium is recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A non-transitory computer …” 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 “obtaining via a plurality of sensors, temperature measurement …” is also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements “d) storing the initial weight parameter values…, and repeating steps a)-d) over and over during …” are also recited to be generality which is insignificant extra solution activity. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 9, the additional elements are a storage medium comprising computer code and processing circuitry are recited in generality and represent extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A monitoring device for monitoring an electric machine…” 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 “obtaining, via a plurality of sensors, temperature measurement …” is also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements “d) storing the initial weight parameter values…, and
repeating steps a)-d) over and over during …” are also recited to be generality which is insignificant extra solution activity. All uses of judicial exception require it.
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.
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 and 9, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2-7,16, 17 and 9-, 15 and 18 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1 (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 claim 1 and 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
There are no prior art rejections for independent claims 1, 8 and 9. However, examiner cannot comment on their allowability until the rejections under 35 USC 101 is adequately addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al US 20200341062 A1 discusses using thermal model to monitor machine.
Yeh et al. (US 20110050141 A1) discusses motor stator winding temperature estimation.
Genta et al. (US 20120290261 A1) discusses fault diagnosis in motor using thermal
model.
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 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 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights