Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-34, 36-37 and 40-41 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Objections
Claim(s) 21-28 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 21, the claim recites in line 7 “of at least one pe-event harmonic frequency”. The word “pre” is misspelled. For this reason, the claim is objected. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “of at least one pre-event harmonic frequency”.
In regards to claim(s) 22-28, the claim(s) is/are objected due to its/their dependency on objected claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 29-34 and 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 29, the claim recites in line 5 “determine a frequency domain associated with the signal” and in lines 6-7 “based on a comparison between the frequency domain and a pre-event frequency domain”. The claim appears to use the term “frequency domain” as if it means a characteristic of a signal. However, the term “frequency domain” is not a characteristic of a signal instead it is a transformation of the signal from a time domain to a frequency domain. It is unclear what the claim is trying to recite in lines 5-7 because it is unclear what characteristics of the signal are being compared when the claim uses the term “frequency domain”. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. The examiner has not found prior art for the claim as written. However, the examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution:
29. (Currently Amended) One or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to:
detect, from a signal corresponding to an appliance, an event of the appliance;
determine a frequency spectrum associated with the signal in a frequency domain and during the event;
determine a resultant frequency spectrum based on a comparison between the frequency spectrum of the signal and a pre-event frequency spectrum;
determine whether the resultant frequency spectrum meets a set of one or more conditions; and
perform, based on determining that the resultant frequency spectrum meets the set of one or more conditions, an action associated with the appliance.
In regards to claims 30-34 and 36, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement due to their dependency on claim 29.
In regards to claim 31, lines 6-9 of the claim have the same issues described in the rejection of claim 29 above. For this reason, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 27, 37 and 40-41 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 27, the claim recites in line 2 “the characteristic comprises”. Claim 21 defines a resultant characteristic, a pre-event characteristic and a characteristic of the at least one harmonic frequency. It is unclear to which of the previously defined characteristics the limitation of line 2 is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “the characteristic of the at least one frequency harmonic comprises”.
In regards to claim 37, the claim recites in line 13 “based on a comparison between the characteristic”. The claim previously defines a characteristic associated with the signal and a resultant characteristic. It is unclear to which of the previously defined characteristics the limitation of line 13 is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “based on a comparison between the characteristic associated with the signal”.
The claim recites in line 15 “corresponding to the frequency characteristic”. The word “the” in front of the limitation(s) “frequency characteristic” means that the limitation(s) was/were previously defined. However, the limitation(s) was/were not previously defined. For this reason, the limitation(s) lack of antecedent basis and the claim is indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution: “corresponding to the associated with the signal”.
In regards to claims 40-41, the claims are indefinite due to their dependency on indefinite claim 37.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21-34, 36-37 and 40-41 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and/or the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 21, Hashimoto (US-7,555,407) teaches a method and a system for detecting anomalies of an apparatus, wherein an anomaly is detected by comparing power components of portions of a segmented signal with portions of a previous segmented signal and by determining that an anomaly exists when the difference is greater than a threshold value [col. 6 L. 43-52, col. 7 L. 56-65, col. 8 L. 2-7].
Liang et al. (US-8,544,331) teaches a method and a system for detecting faults of rotating machinery, wherein a fault is detected by transforming a signal using a Teager Energy Operator, by transforming the transformed signal into frequency domain and by using frequency harmonics to detect a fault [col. 6 L. 38-46].
Arya et al. (US-9,465,376) teaches a method for detecting an abnormal state of an appliance by analyzing power consumption of the appliance [col. 6 L. 38-49].
However, the cited prior art does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: determining, via the processing circuitry, a resultant characteristic by comparing a pre-event characteristic of at least one pre-event harmonic frequency to a characteristic of the at least one harmonic frequency; determining, via the processing circuitry, whether the resultant characteristic meets a set of one or more conditions; and performing, via the processing circuitry and based on determining that the resultant characteristic meets the set of one or more conditions, an action associated with the appliance.
In regards to claims 22-28, the claims would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 21.
In regards to claim 29, Hashimoto (US-7,555,407) teaches a method and a system for detecting anomalies of an apparatus, wherein an anomaly is detected by comparing power components of portions of a segmented signal with portions of a previous segmented signal and by determining that an anomaly exists when the difference is greater than a threshold value [col. 6 L. 43-52, col. 7 L. 56-65, col. 8 L. 2-7].
Liang et al. (US-8,544,331) teaches a method and a system for detecting faults of rotating machinery, wherein a fault is detected by transforming a signal using a Teager Energy Operator, by transforming the transformed signal into frequency domain and by using frequency harmonics to detect a fault [col. 6 L. 38-46].
Arya et al. (US-9,465,376) teaches a method for detecting an abnormal state of an appliance by analyzing power consumption of the appliance [col. 6 L. 38-49].
However, the cited prior art does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: determine a resultant frequency spectrum based on a comparison between the frequency spectrum of the signal and a pre-event frequency spectrum; determine whether the resultant frequency spectrum meets a set of one or more conditions; and perform, based on determining that the resultant frequency spectrum meets the set of one or more conditions, an action associated with the appliance.
In regards to claims 30-34 and 36, the claims would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 29.
In regards to claim 37, Hashimoto (US-7,555,407) teaches a method and a system for detecting anomalies of an apparatus, wherein an anomaly is detected by comparing power components of portions of a segmented signal with portions of a previous segmented signal and by determining that an anomaly exists when the difference is greater than a threshold value [col. 6 L. 43-52, col. 7 L. 56-65, col. 8 L. 2-7].
Liang et al. (US-8,544,331) teaches a method and a system for detecting faults of rotating machinery, wherein a fault is detected by transforming a signal using a Teager Energy Operator, by transforming the transformed signal into frequency domain and by using frequency harmonics to detect a fault [col. 6 L. 38-46].
Arya et al. (US-9,465,376) teaches a method for detecting an abnormal state of an appliance by analyzing power consumption of the appliance [col. 6 L. 38-49].
However, the cited prior art does not teach either by anticipation or combination the following limitations: extract information from the signal between a start of the event and a stop of the event, inclusive; convert the information from a time domain to a frequency domain; determine a characteristic associated with the signal as a function of the frequency domain and during the event; determine a resultant characteristic as a function of the frequency domain based on a comparison between the characteristic associated with the signal and a pre-event frequency characteristic by subtracting a pre-event frequency peak corresponding to the pre-event characteristic from a frequency peak corresponding to the associated with the signal to determine a resultant frequency peak corresponding to the resultant characteristic; determine whether the resultant characteristic meets a set of one or more conditions; and perform, based on determining that the resultant characteristic meets the set of one or more conditions, an action associated with the appliance.
In regards to claims 40-41, the claims would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 37.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688