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 .
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
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 12 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding clams 12 and 17, the claims refer to a speed of the electric power converter. It is the examiners understanding that the electric power converter controls a speed of a motor [0066]. It is unclear what an electric power converter speed refers to or how the speed of the electric power converter is controlled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bickford et al1 [Bickford] US Pat No 8712929.
Referring to claim 1, Bickford teaches the method comprising:
obtaining a first batch of input data, wherein the first batch of input data comprises a plurality of samples of one or more operating parameters of the electric power converter during at least one operating state of the electric power converter [col. 11 lines 27-30].
reducing a number of samples of the plurality of samples of the first batch by clustering the plurality of samples of the first batch into a first set of clusters and determining at least one representative sample for each cluster of the first set of clusters [col. 11 lines 3031col. 12 lines 47-54].
providing the representative samples for training the machine learning model and/or training the machine learning model based on the representative samples [col. 11 lines 32-36].
Referring to claim 3, Bickford teaches repeating the collection, reduction and training for each phase in each model [col. 11 lines 37-39]. This is interpreted as obtaining a second batch of data and performing the same on that second batch.
Referring to claim 10, Bickford teaches determining a center for each gaussian distribution [col. 13 lines 4-14].
Referring to claims 20-21, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Bickford teaches the method and therefore teaches the program and device performing the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickford as applied to claims 1, 3, 10 and 20-21 above.
Referring to claim 2, while Bickford teaches using a clustering algorithm for training, the data is not clustered based on a clustering feature tree. Rather, it appears that Bickford clusters according to Gaussian distribution [col. 13 lines 3-5]. The examiner is taking official notice that clustering feature trees are also well-known clustering algorithms such a BIRCH. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try substituting the clustering algorithm in Bickford for a clustering feature tree algorithm because both styles cluster data and a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickford as applied to claims 1, 3, 10 and 20-21 above and further in view of Abdulaal PGPUB 2020/0226490.
Referring to claims 13 and 19, while Bickford teaches training a model using a clustering technique, it is not explicitly taught that the model can monitor a condition determine if an abnormality occurs and alert a user accordingly. Abdulaal teaches that trained models can be used for supervision in real time and can be used to trigger remedial actions or provide an alert to a user [0011-0012, 0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Abdulaal into Bickford because it provides a way to further monitor operation using a model trained via clustering techniques and provide a user with an indication of an abnormal operating state as taught by Abdulaal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 11, 14-16 and 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at 571-272-3667. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 12/27/25
1 Cited by applicant