DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 5/5/2023. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 9/13/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN2022111125058 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-7E are blurry and contain text in numerous places which are difficult to discern. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant is directed towards 37 CFR § 1.84 - Standards for drawings:
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. ( 1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1-10 refer to “S100”, “S200”, “S300”, etc. It is unclear what these terms are referring to. It is recommended that the claims be amended to recite “step 1”, “step 2” etc. 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 1-10 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.
The claims are replete with instances of lack of antecedent basis and are generally indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation from a Foreign document. The following is considered to be exemplary of the numerous issues at hand.
Applicant must thoroughly review the entire claim set prior to submitting a response.
Claims 1-10 recite terms such as “STSA_CI”, “STSA_RMS”, “STSA_CF”, etc. It is unclear what these terms are. It is unknown if they are acronyms, programming variables, or something else entirely. All acronyms should be spelled out prior to usage. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-10 recite “for the case”, which should be amended to “when”, or something similar.
Claim 1, line 6, “the type” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 1, line 8, “the gear” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 1, line 19 recites a semicolon and then recites further clarifications. It is unclear if this should be a “wherein” clause, with the clarifications following.
Claim 2, line 2 recites “wherein, preferably”. It is unknown if the following is required for the claim language or not. “Preferably” should be deleted.
Claim 2, line 3, “the detection component is one gear”, it was previously recited that there are a number of detection components.
Claim 2, “the case”, “the following”, “the sampling frequency”, “the rounding operation”, “the positive integer set”, “the bandwidth”, “the sense” “the number of data points”, “the expression”, “the case”, “the rotating speeds”, “the gear 1”, “the case” all lack antecedent support.
Claim 2, the variables “n”, “y”, “x”, are not clearly defined. All variables must be defined before usage.
Claim 3, line 2, “the detection component is one rotor”, it was previously recited that there are a number of detection components; “the case” lacks antecedent support.
Claim 3, “the sampling frequency”, “the rounding operation”, “the positive integer set”, “the bandwidth”, “the sense” “the number of data points”, “the expression”, “the case”, “the rotating speeds”, “the rotor 1”, “the case”, “the 3 rotors” all lack antecedent support.
Claim 3, the variables “n”, “y”, “x”, are not clearly defined. All variables must be defined before usage.
Claim 4 “the signal”; there are previously many different signals recited.
Claim 4, the variables “n”, “y”, “x”, are not clearly defined. All variables must be defined before usage.
Claim 5 contains a semicolon before “i is a vector”, which should be a comma.
Claim 5 recites “;and it is noted that although p, ω and w appeared above have different definitions and forms in different algorithm application objects, their mathematical meanings and dimensions are the same when they are applied to a sparse model. For the sake of simplicity, the disclosure no longer distinguishes the different forms of these variables in each application object of the algorithm”. This type of language does not belong in the claim set and is copied directly from the disclosure. This language should be deleted.
Due to the numerous issues present in the claim set, the entire claim set cannot be analyzed thoroughly due to time constraints. The above is to be considered merely exemplary of what must be addressed in Applicant’s response.
The Examiner requests one copy that contains marked up amendments and one separate clean copy.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-10, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 1 claims a method. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A fault detection method for a rotating machine based on sparse time synchronous averaging, comprising the following steps:
S 100, collecting a vibration signal and a rotating frequency or rotating frequency pulse signal of the rotating machine and performing analog-to-digital conversion to obtain the vibration signal and rotating speed information by a sensor;
S200, according to the type and number of detection components in the rotating machine, constructing a component-aware comb vector g based on the vibration signal and rotating speed information, wherein the type includes the gear, rotor and bearing (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi));
S 300, constructing a quasi-time synchronous average vector w based on the component-aware comb vector g (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi));
S400, constructing a sparse time synchronous averaging model F by using the quasi-time synchronous average vector w (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi));
S500, solving the sparse time synchronous averaging model F with an optimization solution algorithm to obtain a sparse spectrum and a reconstruction time signal (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)); and
S600, constructing an STSA_CI index according to the sparse spectrum and time signal for fault diagnosis, wherein, for a gear fault, the STSA_CI index comprises a root mean square value STSA_RMS, a crest factor STSA_CF, a kurtosis index STSA_KurV, an engaging frequency amplitude STSA_OMX, a feature frequency amplitude STSA_FQ and an envelope kurtosis index STSA_NB4; for a rotor fault, the STSA_CI index comprises a rotating frequency amplitude STSA_AR, a root mean square value STSA_RMS, an average amplitude STSA_MA and a square root amplitude STSA_RA, and for a bearing fault, the STSA_CI index comprises a feature frequency amplitude STSAFQ, a crest factor STSA_CF or a kurtosis index STSA_KurV (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts"
grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or
equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that
recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical
concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as
multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or
number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP
2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts"
groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “S 100, collecting a vibration signal and a rotating frequency or rotating frequency pulse signal of the rotating machine and performing analog-to-digital conversion to obtain the vibration signal and rotating speed information by a sensor” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “S 100, collecting a vibration signal and a rotating frequency or rotating frequency pulse signal of the rotating machine and performing analog-to-digital conversion to obtain the vibration signal and rotating speed information by a sensor” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting and data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 2-9.
Claims 2-9 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 are overcome.
The closest prior art of record teaches:
US 9510787 B2: A method reconstructs a signal by sampling the signal using a sampling procedure to obtain an input signal. A consistent set is determined from the input signal including the first elements such that applying the sampling procedure to the first elements results in the input signal. According to the type of the signal, a guiding set is determined including second elements disjoint from the first elements. A reconstruction set including third elements is generated so that the third elements minimize a sum of a first similarity measure of the third elements to the second elements and a second similarity measure of the third elements to the first elements. A transformed signal that minimizes a function on the reconstruction set is determined. A reconstructed signal is rendered so that a third similarity measure of the reconstructed signal to the transformed signal is smaller than a tolerance.
US 10580228 B2: A fault detection system including one or more sensors onboard a vehicle, the one or more sensors being configured to detect a predetermined characteristic of the vehicle and generate a plurality of sensor signals corresponding to the predetermined characteristic, and a processor onboard the vehicle and in communication with the one or more sensors, the processor being configured to generate an analysis model for the predetermined characteristic, the analysis model being trained by the processor with a training data set of fast Fourier transform vectors that are generated from the plurality of sensor signals obtained under normal operating conditions of the predetermined characteristic, and determine a health of a vehicle component corresponding to the predetermined characteristic with the analysis model.
However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claim 1)
“S 300, constructing a quasi-time synchronous average vector w based on the component-aware comb vector g;
S400, constructing a sparse time synchronous averaging model F by using the quasi-time synchronous average vector w;
S500, solving the sparse time synchronous averaging model F with an optimization solution algorithm to obtain a sparse spectrum and a reconstruction time signal; and
S600, constructing an STSA_CI index according to the sparse spectrum and time signal for fault diagnosis, wherein, for a gear fault, the STSA_CI index comprises a root mean square value STSA_RMS, a crest factor STSA_CF, a kurtosis index STSA_KurV, an engaging frequency amplitude STSA_OMX, a feature frequency amplitude STSA_FQ and an envelope kurtosis index STSA_NB4; for a rotor fault, the STSA_CI index comprises a rotating frequency amplitude STSA_AR, a root mean square value STSA_RMS, an average amplitude STSA_MA and a square root amplitude STSA_RA, and for a bearing fault, the STSA_CI index comprises a feature frequency amplitude STSAFQ, a crest factor STSA_CF or a kurtosis index STSA_KurV”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892.
US 9510787 B2: A method reconstructs a signal by sampling the signal using a sampling procedure to obtain an input signal. A consistent set is determined from the input signal including the first elements such that applying the sampling procedure to the first elements results in the input signal. According to the type of the signal, a guiding set is determined including second elements disjoint from the first elements. A reconstruction set including third elements is generated so that the third elements minimize a sum of a first similarity measure of the third elements to the second elements and a second similarity measure of the third elements to the first elements. A transformed signal that minimizes a function on the reconstruction set is determined. A reconstructed signal is rendered so that a third similarity measure of the reconstructed signal to the transformed signal is smaller than a tolerance.
US 10580228 B2: A fault detection system including one or more sensors onboard a vehicle, the one or more sensors being configured to detect a predetermined characteristic of the vehicle and generate a plurality of sensor signals corresponding to the predetermined characteristic, and a processor onboard the vehicle and in communication with the one or more sensors, the processor being configured to generate an analysis model for the predetermined characteristic, the analysis model being trained by the processor with a training data set of fast Fourier transform vectors that are generated from the plurality of sensor signals obtained under normal operating conditions of the predetermined characteristic, and determine a health of a vehicle component corresponding to the predetermined characteristic with the analysis model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights