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 .
The amendment filed on August 20, 2026 has been considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 20, 2026 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 1, 19, and 20, “generating the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as concentric regions based on a Mahalanobis distance from a distribution of healthy feature indicators” Is not described in the specification. For instance, the specification discloses “[b]ased on the Mahalanobis distances 203 of the feature indicators 163 and/or corresponding feature points 323 from the health threshold 309, the fault detector 115 may determine 515 if the feature indicators 163 and/or feature points 323 are in the transition region 305. If the feature indicators 163 are not in the transition region 305, the fault detector 115 determines 519 whether the feature indicators 163 and/or feature points 323 are in the fault region 301. If the feature indicators 163 and/or feature points 323 are not in the fault region 301, the fault detector 115 loops to continue determining 511 the feature indicators 163 and/or feature points 323” (paragraph 0117). However, paragraph 0117 does not disclose generating the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as concentric regions based on a Mahalanobis distance. The transition region and the fault region in paragraph 0177 are presumed to have already been generated.
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 1-20 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, 19, and 20, ““generating the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as concentric regions based on a Mahalanobis distance from a distribution of healthy feature indicators” is not supported in the specification. As discussed above, paragraph 0117 discloses based on Mahalanobis distances, the feature indicators are determined to be in the transition region or fault region, but not generating the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as concentric regions.
While examiner interprets the limitation as expressed in the claims, the limitation is not interpreted in light on the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claims 4 and 14, respectively, are in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (CN 107037311) in view of Liang et al. (CN 107607836).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Wan et al. discloses a method and apparatus (fault diagnosis of a transformer, Abstract) comprising
determining fault using a fault detection model for a power transformer type, the fault detection model executed by the processor (page 11, paragraph 6, lines 1-4);
determining the feature indicators of a given power transformer of the power transformer type (calculating fault characteristic reflected traveling waves during fault diagnosis of a transformer, Abstract);
determining whether the feature indicators in the transition region satisfy a fault
condition (fault diagnosis of a transformer, Abstract);
predicting an inter-turn short fault for the given power transformer in response to satisfying the fault condition (predicting turn-to-turn short circuit fault location based on turn-to-turn short circuit fault location, Abstract, lines 10-11) or the feature indicators being in the fault region; and
in response to predicting the inter-turn short fault, automatically mitigating the inter-turn short fault (prompting protective measures, Abstract, lines 11-12).
It is noted that the fault detection model generates the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as concentric regions based on a Mahalanobis distance from a distribution of healthy feature indicators is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
It is noted that predicting an inter-turn short fault for the given power transformer in response to the feature indicators being in the fault region is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
It is noted that predicting an inter-turn short fault for the given power transformer in response to the feature indicators being in the fault region is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Wan et al. does not disclose generating, by use of a processor, a transition region that separates a health region and a fault region in a two-dimensional feature space of two feature indicators for a plurality of operation conditions.
Liang et al. discloses generating, by use of a processor (processor of network fault region locating method, Abstract), a transition region (failure transition area, Abstract, lines 7-8) that separates a health region (non-fault region, Abstract) and a fault region (fault area, Abstract) in a two-dimensional feature space of two feature indicators for a plurality of operation conditions (multidimensional data, e.g., time domain, frequency domain, Abstract) using a fault detection model (Abstract).
While Wen et al. as modified by Liang et al. does not expressly disclose the fault detection model generates the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as half planes bounded by sloped lines defined from the distribution of healthy feature indicators, Liang et al. discloses the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as half planes (separate region/areas in time/frequency domains, Abstract, lines 8-10) defined from the distribution of healthy feature indicators (the region/areas are defined by indicators to distinguish between the degrees of fault/non-fault/transition). The transition region implies that it is between the fault region and the health (non-fault) region, it would have been obvious to provide sloped lines (boundary lines) to separate the region/areas from one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Liang at al. with a transition region for separating a fault region from a health region as disclosed by Liang et al. for the purpose of distinctly defining a fault region for determining a fault. Further, it would have been obvious to provide sloped lines (boundary lines) for separating the region/areas from one another.
Regarding claim 2, Laing et al. discloses determining a fault phase from a fault region of a fault localization map of the inter-turn short fault (the IEEE-57 system is provided with first phase or second phase or third phase fault short circuits for identifying test results, page 6, paragraph 3) and/or a fault severity of the inter-turn short fault as a distance from a health region.
It is noted that determining a fault severity of the inter-turn short fault as a distance from a health region is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. in view of Liang et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 115758247).
Regarding claim 3, Wan et al. as modified by Liang et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except the fault detection model is generated from training data comprising the feature indicators.
Li et al. discloses a fault detection model (Abstract, line 11) is generated from training data comprising the feature indicators (multidimensional data, Abstract, lines 4-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed provide Wan et al. as modified with training data comprising the feature indicators as disclosed by Li et al. for the purpose of training the fault detection model.
Claims 4-13 recite alternative limitations since they depend from the alternative limitation recited in (i) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, while Wen et al. as modified by Liang et al. does not expressly disclose the fault detection model generates the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as the half planes bounded by the sloped lines defined from the distribution of the healthy feature indicators, Liang et al. discloses the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as half planes (separate region/areas in time/frequency domains, Abstract, lines 8-10) defined from the distribution of the healthy feature indicators (the region/areas are defined by indicators to distinguish between the degrees of fault/non-fault/transition). The transition region implies that it is between the fault region and the health (non-fault) region, it would have been obvious to provide the sloped lines (boundary lines) to separate the region/areas from one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Liang at al. with a transition region for separating a fault region from a health region as disclosed by Liang et al. for the purpose of distinctly defining a fault region for determining a fault. Further, it would have been obvious to provide sloped lines (boundary lines) for separating the region/areas from one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 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.
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a method comprising the fault detection model is calculated based on a specified D Intercept as the sloped lines generated from a three-dimensional plot of the D intercept, operational motor frequency, and percent load generated for variations of operating conditions (claim 15) or the fault detection model generates the transition region as the sloped lines based on primary phase voltage and secondary phase voltage feature indicators projected into a αß frame (claim 16) or the feature indicators are average power loss and average motor power, and the health boundary of the health region is a linear regression of healthy feature indicators (claim 17) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
In response to the advisory action, Applicvants argue “the amended claims are sufficiently clear and definite and do not raise any § 112 or claim definition issues.”
However, upon further consideration, the amended claims raise 112 issues as discussed above.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue “[i]ndependent Claims 1, 19, and 20 have been amended to incorporate allowable dependent Claim 4 and Claim 14, as noted above. Accordingly, Applicant submits amended Claims 1, 19, and 20 are allowable over Wan, Liang, and/or Li, for at least the same reasons as previous Claim 4 and/or Claim 14. Claims 2-3 variously depend from amended Claim 1, and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as amended Claim 1.”
Examiner’s position is that, upon further consideration, the fault detection model generates the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as half planes bounded by sloped lines defined from the distribution of healthy feature indicators would have been obvious over Wen in view of Liang as discussed above.
It is noted that the fault detection model generates the health region, the transition region, and the fault region as concentric regions based on a Mahalanobis distance from a distribution of healthy feature indicators is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions and grounds of rejection, as discussed above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights