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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/23/2026 has been entered. Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending for examination.
The examiner maintains rejections under § 101 as detailed below.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicant argues that changing the word “transforming” to its synonym “converting” makes the limitation at issue not a mathematical concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although applicant argues that a “mathematical algorithm or formula is not recited in the claim,” the word “converting” in claim 1 refers to a transformation like a Park and Clarke transformation, which is a mathematical relationship. (See, e.g., PgPub 20240045000 ¶ [0074] and Altahir, Park and Clark Transformations: A Short Review, available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ali-Altahir/publication/340681625_Park_and_Clark_Transformations_Park_and_Clark_Transformations_A_Short_Review/links/5e98bb8a4585150839e3768b/Park-and-Clark-Transformations-Park-and-Clark-Transformations-A-Short-Review.pdf, last accessed Feb. 5, 2026.) Therefore, the limitation is an abstract idea and the claim stands rejected.
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 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method for detecting a short circuit. Thus, these claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Claim 1 recites:
A method for detecting a short circuit in a winding of a plurality of windings an electric motor being driven by a drive, the method comprising the following steps:
providing electric power to each of the windings of the electric motor,
measuring respective phase currents of each of the windings,
converting each of the phase currents to negative sequence components, [the examiner finds these elements to be Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; see PgPub 20240045000 ¶ [0012]: “Transformation to negative sequence components can especially be done by a suitable transformation, e.g. a Fourier transformation, for example as explained further below.”]
determining if the drive is operating in a resonance band,
generating a short circuit warning and/or alarm signal if the drive is not operating within the resonance band if any of the negative sequence components deviate more than a respective absolute or relative threshold from the respective baseline value, and
generating a short circuit warning and/or alarm signal if the drive is operating within the resonance band and if any of the negative sequence components deviate less than a respective absolute or relative threshold from the respective baseline value.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: “providing electric power to each of the windings of the electric motor” (generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use), “measuring respective phase currents of each of the windings” (data gathering), “determining if the drive is operating in a resonance band” (data gathering), and the two limitations reciting “generating a short circuit warning and/or alarm signal” (generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein converting the phase currents to negative sequence components is performed using a rotating reference frame, rotating at an output frequency of the drive” merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 3 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein each of the negative sequence components corresponds to a current component or harmonics rotating in opposite direction to a main rotating magnetic field” does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “measuring a dc link voltage of the drive” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (data gathering).
Claim 7 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 5 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 5 above.
Claim 8 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 7 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 7 above.
Claim 9 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 7 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 7 above.
Claim 10 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 9 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 9 above.
Claim 11 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 7 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein a short circuit warning and/or alarm is generated if the drive operates in a resonance band and no grid unbalance is detected based on the resonance signature” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea.
Claim 13 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 12 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a control unit for an electric motor, the control unit being configured to perform the method according to claim 1” does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 15 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 2 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 2 above.
Claim 16 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 2 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 2 above.
Claim 17 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 3 and does not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “measuring a dc link voltage of the drive” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (data gathering).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “measuring a dc link voltage of the drive” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (data gathering).
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “measuring a dc link voltage of the drive” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (data gathering).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 would be allowable if § 101 rejections above were resolved favorably. The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest:
in claim 1, “A method for detecting a short circuit in a winding of a plurality of windings of an electric motor being driven by a drive, the method comprising the following steps: . . . generating a short circuit warning and/or alarm signal if the drive is not operating within the resonance band, and if any of the negative sequence components deviate more than a respective absolute or relative threshold from the respective baseline value, and generating a short circuit warning and/or alarm signal if the drive is operating within the resonance band and if any of the negative sequence components deviate less than the respective absolute or relative threshold from the respective baseline value,”
in combination with all other limitations.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p 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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857