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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Regarding claims 10 & 11, the claims are not in proper dependent form; specifically, they do not "contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed." 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 1-8 recite a method for determining an individual motor parameter. Thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 9 recites an apparatus for determining an individual motor parameter. Thus, the claim is to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 10, recites an electronic device. Thus, the claim is to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, the claim is to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for determining an individual motor parameter, comprising:
testing a first motor parameter of a target type of a current motor in a motor assembly phase, and acquiring a motor parameter set saved in a motor manufacturing phase;
calculating a difference evaluation index between the first motor parameter and a second motor parameter of a corresponding type in the motor parameter set [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements are mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations]; and
determining that all motor parameters in the motor parameter set are effective individual motor parameters if the difference evaluation index is less than or equal to a preset index threshold [the examiner finds that the foregoing elements are mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations].
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: “testing a first motor parameter of a target type of a current motor in a motor assembly phase, and acquiring a motor parameter set saved in a motor manufacturing phase.”
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.
The same analysis above applies mutandis mutatis to the other independent claim, claim 9.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “identifying an identifiable graphic tag attached to the current motor, and acquiring the motor parameter set saved in the motor manufacturing phase” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering).
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “sending a motor parameter acquisition request to a server, and receiving the motor parameter set saved in the motor manufacturing phase that is delivered by the server in response to the motor parameter acquisition request” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 4, the additional elements “sending a preset excitation signal to the current motor in the motor manufacturing phase; measuring a motor voltage, a motor current, and a motor acceleration of the current motor driven by the excitation signal; and calculating motor parameters according to the motor voltage, the motor current, and the motor acceleration, and generating the motor parameter set” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering), and is a further abstract idea (mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), respectively.
Regarding claim 5, the additional elements “generating a plurality of test signals according to voltage amplitudes and integer cycles corresponding to different preset motor resonant frequencies; and splicing the plurality of test signals according to a preset cycle interval length to generate the excitation signal” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 6, the additional elements “calculating deviation values between a plurality of first motor parameters of different target types and second motor parameters of corresponding types in the motor parameter set respectively; and
performing weighted average calculation on the deviation values to obtain the difference evaluation index” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are further abstract ideas (mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Regarding claim 7, the additional element “determining all universal motor parameters in a preset universal motor parameter set to be the effective individual motor parameters if the difference evaluation index is greater than the index threshold” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is a further abstract idea (mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Regarding claim 8, the additional elements “generating a corresponding parameter modifying model based on the difference evaluation index if the difference evaluation index is greater than the index threshold; and modifying all the motor parameters in the motor parameter set based on the parameter modifying model to obtain the effective individual motor parameters” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it is a further abstract idea (mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Regarding claim 10, the additional element “the processor is configured to execute a computer program stored in the memory” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 11, the additional element “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent App. Pub. 20140236501 to Mao et al. in view of United States Patent No. 6014598 to Duyar et al.
Regarding claim 1, Mao teaches a method for determining an individual motor parameter, comprising:
testing a first motor parameter of a target type of a current motor (¶ [0020]), and acquiring a motor parameter set saved (¶ [0016]);
calculating a difference evaluation index between the first motor parameter and a second motor parameter of a corresponding type in the motor parameter set (¶ [0020]); and
determining that all motor parameters in the motor parameter set are effective individual motor parameters if the difference evaluation index is less than or equal to a preset index threshold (¶ [0021]).
But Mao does not teach in a motor assembly phase and in a motor manufacturing phase.
However, Duyar teaches in a motor assembly phase and in a motor manufacturing phase (column 3 lines 41-54).
It 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 to conduct the testing of Mao during the assembly/manufacturing phases in order to identify performance errors before sending the motor out into the field in order to provide more reliable motors to the end user.
Regarding claim 3, Mao in view of Duyar teaches the method as described in claim 1, and Mao further teaches wherein the step of acquiring a motor parameter set saved in a motor manufacturing phase comprises: sending a motor parameter acquisition request to a server, and receiving the motor parameter set saved in the motor manufacturing phase that is delivered by the server in response to the motor parameter acquisition request (¶ [0016]: “Alternatively, the control module may reference a look-up table to obtain the efficiency of the electric motor at the sensed operating conditions.”).
Regarding claim 4, Mao in view of Duyar teaches the method as described in claim 1, prior to the step of acquiring the motor parameter set saved in the motor manufacturing phase, further comprising:
sending a preset excitation signal to the current motor in the motor manufacturing phase (¶ [0014]);
measuring a motor voltage, a motor current, and a motor acceleration of the current motor driven by the excitation signal (¶ [0014]); and
calculating motor parameters according to the motor voltage, the motor current, and the motor acceleration, and generating the motor parameter set (¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 6, Mao in view of Duyar teaches the method as described in claim 1, wherein the step of calculating the difference evaluation index between the first motor parameter and a second motor parameter of a corresponding type in the motor parameter set comprises:
calculating deviation values between a plurality of first motor parameters of different target types and second motor parameters of corresponding types in the motor parameter set respectively (¶ [0018]).
But Mao in view of Duyar does not teach explicitly performing weighted average calculation on the deviation values to obtain the difference evaluation index.
However, using weighted average calculations is a design choice from a finite number of potential solutions to evaluate the data and the applicant has not indicated that there is any particular advantage or criticality to its use; as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try weighted average calculations as a means of evaluating the data.
Regarding claim 7, Mao in view of Duyar teaches the method as described in claim 1, subsequent to the step of calculating the difference evaluation index between the first motor parameter and the second motor parameter of the corresponding type in the motor parameter set, further comprising:
determining all universal motor parameters in a preset universal motor parameter set to be the effective individual motor parameters if the difference evaluation index is greater than the index threshold (¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Mao in view of Duyar teaches the method as described in claim 1, subsequent to the step of calculating the difference evaluation index between the first motor parameter and the second motor parameter of the corresponding type in the motor parameter set, further comprising:
generating a corresponding parameter modifying model based on the difference evaluation index if the difference evaluation index is greater than the index threshold (¶ [0018]); and
modifying all the motor parameters in the motor parameter set based on the parameter modifying model to obtain the effective individual motor parameters (¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Mao teaches an apparatus for determining an individual motor parameter, comprising:
an acquisition module configured to test a first motor parameter of a target type of a current motor (¶ [0020]), and acquire a motor parameter set saved (¶ [0016]);
a calculation module configured to calculate a difference evaluation index between the first motor parameter and a second motor parameter of a corresponding type in the motor parameter set (¶ [0020]); and
a determination module configured to determine that all motor parameters in the motor parameter set are effective individual motor parameters if the difference evaluation index is less than or equal to a preset index threshold (¶ [0021]).
But Mao does not teach in a motor assembly phase and in a motor manufacturing phase.
However, Duyar teaches in a motor assembly phase and in a motor manufacturing phase (column 3 lines 41-54).
It 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 to conduct the testing of Mao during the assembly/manufacturing phases in order to identify performance errors before sending the motor out into the field in order to provide more reliable motors to the end user.
Regarding claim 10, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F and MPEP § 2114(IV)4. Because the limitations of claim 10 are known other than mere basic programming, i.e., merely general purpose computer-based implementation of the method, that limitation does not patentably distinguish the claim over the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see also MPEP § 2143, Exemplary Rationales D and F and MPEP § 2114(IV)4. Because the limitations of claim 11 are known other than mere basic programming, i.e., merely general purpose computer-based implementation of the method, that limitation does not patentably distinguish the claim over the prior art.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20140236501 to Mao et al. in view of United States Patent No. 6014598 to Duyar et al., and further in view of United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20210399613 to Rahman et al.
Regarding claim 2, Mao in view of Duyar teaches the method as described in claim 1, but does not teach explicitly wherein the step of acquiring a motor parameter set saved in a motor manufacturing phase comprises: identifying an identifiable graphic tag attached to the current motor, and acquiring the motor parameter set saved in the motor manufacturing phase.
However, Rahman teaches wherein the step of acquiring a motor parameter set saved in a motor manufacturing phase comprises: identifying an identifiable graphic tag attached to the current motor, and acquiring the motor parameter set saved in the motor manufacturing phase (¶ [0024]).
It 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 to combine the QR code of Rahman with the method of Mao in view of Duyar in order to provide an extremely efficient way to identify the motor under test.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20140236501 to Mao et al. in view of United States Patent No. 6014598 to Duyar et al., and further in view of United States Patent No. 6323658 to Kendig et al.
Regarding claim 5, Mao in view of Duyar teaches the method as described in claim 4, but does not teach explicitly prior to the step of sending the preset excitation signal to the current motor in the motor manufacturing phase, further comprising: generating a plurality of test signals according to voltage amplitudes and integer cycles corresponding to different preset motor resonant frequencies; and splicing the plurality of test signals according to a preset cycle interval length to generate the excitation signal.
However, Kendig teaches prior to the step of sending the preset excitation signal to the current motor in the motor manufacturing phase, further comprising: generating a plurality of test signals according to voltage amplitudes and integer cycles corresponding to different preset motor resonant frequencies (column 9 lines 13-19); and splicing the plurality of test signals according to a preset cycle interval length to generate the excitation signal (column 9 lines 13-19).
It 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 to combine the signal generation of Kendig with the method of Mao in view of Duyar in order to provide multiple test signals, thereby allowing for more data points and more comprehensive evaluation of the motor’s readiness for operation in the field.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20220389912 to Paietta et al. discloses condition monitoring for wind turbines including mathematically extracting one or more such subset signals from the at least one time-series electrical output signal of the generator and associating one or more such subset signals with one or more wind turbine components.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20120136593 to Donaldson et al. discloses a method of identifying the operation of an electrical appliance comprising an induction motor by analyzing real and reactive power supplied to the appliance over time.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20220221514 to Osokin discloses methods and systems for the unsupervised, non-intrusive monitoring of motorized machines on a shop floor using a self-training algorithm.
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