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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 02/01/2024. The
submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the
information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because graphical illustrations found in FIGs. 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are presented with incomplete labels for x and y axes, either with units only or data type only. Examiner points to specification in at least [0052], reciting “y-axis is micro-volts (μV) and the x-axis is frequency measured in Hertz (Hz). Shown is a baseline EMI signature data…”. Based on this reading, graphs are interpreted as representing EMI signature data on the y-axis, measured in micro-volts (μV) and frequency on the x-axis, measured in Hertz (Hz). Axes should be labeled with both data type and units as appropriate.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because inn FIG. 2, reference characters 206, 256 has been used to designate both “a neutral” and “a radio frequency current transformer”. Specifically, Examiner points to description of FIG. 2 found in specification paragraph [0046] reciting: “Each AC generator is three-phase 204, 254 and includes a neutral 206, 256 with a radio frequency current transformer coupled to it 206, 256.”
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include reference characters not mentioned in the description. Specifically, the following numbered elements found in drawings are not found in written description: FIG. 1 element 108; FIG. 2 elements 208, 212, 230, and 258. While these numerical labels are found in the figures as notes, the meaning or definition of the numbered elements is not found in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0005] recites: “(for example, all EMI signature associated with 190-210MW power data are collected into one cluster)”. Examiner suggests the word “data” has been inadvertently omitted, i.e., the phrase should read (bold emphasis added): “(for example, all EMI signature data associated with 190-210MW power data are collected into one cluster)”, to be consistent with phrase directly preceding parenthetical text.
Paragraph [0046] recite in second line from bottom: “steam turbine 232”. Examiner suggests the number “232” should be in bold format to be consistent with other instances throughout specification.
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.
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.
Specifically, Claims 1 and 12 recite:
(for example, Claim 1 line 12): “identifying the power data associated with each EMI signature data; using this power data to cluster the EMI signature data; for each EMI signature data cluster,” The term signature is not defined previously in Claim 1. The phrase “receiving a measurement of electromagnetic interference (EMI) data…” is found establishing “EMI data”, but the meaning of “signature” and/or how “signature data” is designated should be included. Review of Specification finds claim limitation repeated in [0005], with additional information regarding how “EMI signature” is clustered. Examiner further finds “EMI signatures” illustrated in FIGs. 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 without further explanation as to how “EMI signature data” is different from “EMI data” or “EMI signatures”. For examination purposes, the term signature will be interpreted using broadest reasonable interpretation and plain meaning with guidance from the written description to mean generally EMI data received from a device.
Claims 2, 5, 13, and 16 recite “accessing recent EMI data” and “comparing the recent EMI data to the baseline data”. Likewise, Claims 3 and 14 recite “recent set of EMI data”. The term “recent” is not defined. Based on dependence to Claim 1 reciting: “receiving a measurement of electromagnetic interference (EMI) data from the at least one radio frequency current transformer over a series of time intervals”, it is not clear which time interval(s) the term “recent” refers to. Further, in view of FIG. 5 and reading of specification [0017]: “FIG. 5 is a graph illustrating the application of the baseline library acquired from FIG. 3 to real-time EMI signature from one device, evaluating its abnormality score using normality zone as a part of the baseline associated with the same operation modes with the real-time data, according to an example”, it is not clear whether the comparative analysis step as claimed in Claim 2 refers to comparison of “real-time EMI signature” as depicted in FIG. 5 and described in [0017]. Further, data depicted in FIG. 10 to illustrate analysis process represents “77 records”, leaving interpretation of “recent” indefinite. For Examination purposes “recent” is interpreted using plain language and broadest reasonable interpretation to mean generally any data received during operation.
Claim 2 recites in line “associated power operational mode”. This term is not found previously. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted to be consistent with the term “electrical power operational mode” as recited in Claim 1, line 5 and Claim 2, line 4. Meaning should be made clear.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "generator unit” and “associated device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The terms to not appear prior to this instance.
Claims 4, 6-11, 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected based on direct or indirect dependency to rejected Claims 1 or 20.
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 held to be patent ineligible.
Specifically, Claim 1 limitations recite abstract ideas (bold emphasis added):
“computer-implemented method for detecting an abnormality on an alternating current (AC) machine, the method comprising:
coupling at least one radio frequency current transformer to one of a ground or a neutral line of an AC machine;
iteratively performing through a series of electrical power operational modes of the AC machine, each of
receiving a measurement of electromagnetic interference (EMI) data from the at least one radio frequency current transformer over a series of time intervals;
receiving a measurement of power data from the AC machine over the series of time intervals to produce a historic set of EMI data and power data over the series of time intervals;
identifying the power data associated with each EMI signature data;
using this power data to cluster the EMI signature data;
for each EMI signature data cluster, calculate a mean value and statistical deviation value;
storing over the series of time intervals each of i) the historic set of EMI data and power information data, ii) the mean value, and iii) the statistical deviation value, thereby establishing the AC machine’s baseline data in a baseline library for normal operations.”
Evaluation steps are explained below.
STEP 1 (Determination of statutory category): Claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101, namely Process (Method).
STEP 2A-PRONG ONE (Determination regarding whether claim recites a judicial exception): Applying broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim limitations noted above with bold emphasis, recite a judicial exception. These limitations are shown in bold emphasis above.
Such limitations constitute a judicial exception of Abstract Idea because under broadest reasonable interpretation and using 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the limitations fall into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematics or mental steps (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C) While performing the mathematical abstract idea involves using at least some generic computer components, as indicated in preamble by reciting “computer-implemented method”, it is possible that some processes may involve mental steps involving pen and paper depending on the complexity of the calculation, as supported in specification in at least [0070]: “information is presented to the user on a graphical on a real-time basis”.
Claim 1 recites a judicial exception of Abstract Idea in the Mathematical Concept and/or Mental Steps grouping.
STEP 2A-PRONG TWO (Evaluation of additional elements to determine whether
the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception):
Claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer
itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Examiner notes additional elements found in Claim 1 limitations, including: “through a series of electrical power operational modes of the AC machine”; “(measurement of) electromagnetic interference (EMI) data from the at least one radio frequency current transformer over a series of time intervals”; “measurement of power data from the AC machine over the series of time intervals”. Examiner notes these additional elements recite necessary data gathering required to provide data for carrying out the judicial exception as defined in analysis above. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Further, Claim 1 limitations recite “storing over the series of time intervals each of i) the historic set of EMI data and power information data, ii) the mean value, and iii) the statistical deviation value” and “establishing the AC machine’s baseline data in a baseline library for normal operations”. Using broadest reasonable interpretation and plain meaning, these limitations are considered as generic output results of carrying out mathematical concept as implemented by a computer, recited at a high level of generality and/or by mental process using the human mind or a pencil and paper.
Examiner notes additional elements reciting: “coupling at least one radio frequency current transformer to one of a ground or a neutral line of an AC machine”, “series of electrical power operational modes of the AC machine”, and “at least one radio frequency current transformer”. Such language is considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, but does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
As noted, identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Individually, or when viewed in combination, additional elements as identified in
Claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Thus,
Claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception.
STEP 2B (Consideration of whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea): Additional elements, as discussed above, do not amount significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, limitations reciting necessary data gathering, even when linked to a particular data source or a type of data, are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. As recited in MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer implementation does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Application/Control Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.)
As noted, identified additional elements in the Claim 1 are recited in generality and represent insignificant field of use limitations that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application. And, as above, other identified additional elements area considered as necessary data gathering required to perform the abstract idea is considered extra solution activity. Claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception and is held to be patent ineligible.
Similar reasoning, rationale in analysis of independent Claim 12 is applied, following the same steps as described above.
STEP 1: Claim 12 is in a eligible statutory category: Machine/Manufacture (Apparatus or System).
STEP 2A-PRONG ONE: Claim 12 recites a judicial exception, reciting limitations
parallel to those discussed above in Claim 1, falling into the grouping of subject matter
that covers performing mathematics or mental steps. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C).
STEP 2A-PRONG TWO: Claim 12 recites additional elements similar to those
recited in Claim 1, with additional generic computer components, including “memory” and “processor”. As above, the limitations recited in Claim 12, using reasoning and rationale as presented above in Claim 1 discussion, recite necessary data gathering required to provide data for carrying out the judicial exception. Further, identified additional elements in Claim 12 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: As found for Claim 1, Claim 12 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner notes Claim 9 includes, in addition to additional elements similar to those found in Claim 1, an additional element of “providing a notification that abnormality is detected”. Such limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Using guidance found in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739,
Thus, Claim 12 is directed to a judicial exception and is held to be patent
ineligible.
Further eligibility consideration includes evaluation of Claims 2-11, with direct or
indirect dependency to Claim 1 and Claims 13-20 with direct or indirect dependency to Claim 12, where limitations are considering individually and as a whole.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 recite limitations which further limit performing the judicial exception identified and described above, in evaluation of Claims 1 and 12, of performing mathematics or mental steps, including: (Claims 2, 13 and 5, 16) “accessing recent EMI data”, “using the corresponding measured associated power operational mode to select a suitable baseline and associated normality zone”, “comparing the recent EMI data to the baseline data”, “classifying level of the abnormality”; (Claims 3, 14) “calculating an abnormality score based on…area…defined by statistical deviation…sum or areas of…data”, “classifying level of the abnormality”; (Claims 4, 17) “settable upper limit being exceeded”; (Claims 5, 16) “select a suitable baseline and associated normality zone”; (Claims 6, 15) “selecting one of a plurality of repair procedures based on the frequency range of the abnormality”. These limitations found in dependent claims are directed to further limiting the abstract idea of performance of mathematical processes or calculations to determine quantitative or qualitative results.
Other additional elements are identified, but do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical idea, including: (Claims 2, 13) “from a radio frequency current transformer from the AC machine”; (Claims 4, 17) “sending a notification”; (Claim 6) “exciter system of the AC machine…a stator groundwall insulation and/or stator slots of the AC machine…an end winding region of the AC machine…high voltage (HV) connection to a bus system of the AC machine”.
Claims 7, 8, 9 and 18, 19 20 recite limitations specifying units, or field of use (instrumentation type) for performing the abstract idea, but do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner notes Claims 10 and 11 recite “displaying on a two-axis graph” and “is displayed in different colors, a y-axis is watts, an x-axis is frequency, and the statistical deviation is displayed as a shaded region”, respectively. These additional elements are considered extra solution activity, with guidance from MPEP section 2106.05(g), “displaying analysis/results” in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, additional elements recited in dependent claims, evaluated individually or collectively are not considered to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7-10, 12, AND 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over NELSON (Nelson, et al., “A Field Assessment of PD and EMI Methodology Applied to Large Utility Generators”, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 17, No. 5; October 2010) in view of ANGELLO (US 20150051847 A1) and further in view of GUPTA (Gupta, et al., “ElectriSense: Single-Point Sensing Using EMI for Electrical Event Detection and Classification in the Home”, UbiComp 2010, September 26–29, 2010).
With respect to Claims 1 and 12, NELSON teaches:
A computer-implemented method and system for detecting an abnormality on an alternating current (AC) machine, (NELSON, Abstract: “application of a variety of diagnostic methods applied to the condition monitoring… condition of a number of operating machines was tracked”, Pg 1423, SS 5.2: “ADVANCED COMPUTER-BASED METHODS”; Examiner interprets “computer-based” methods to include memory and processor components as recited in Claim 12, as would be obvious and understood by one of ordinary skill in the art; and Pg 1414 “2.2 DATA INTERPRETATION…plots can be associated with particular kinds of activity in machines both in the stator slots and in the end-windings”; Examiner notes machines with a stator structure would be known by one of ordinary skill as AC.)
coupling at least one radio frequency current transformer to one of a ground or a neutral line of an AC machine; (NELSON, Pg 1423, SS2.1 “Couplers…(4) RFCT (Radio Frequency Current Transformer) on the neutral”)
iteratively performing through a series of electrical power operational modes of the AC machine, (NELSON, Pg 1419, Figure 11, with Section 3.3.2: “assessments
were made in September 2005 (245 MW, 80 ºC) and compared with those taken earlier in 2003 (255 MW, 91 ºC)”; Examiner interprets “series of electrical power operational modes using BRI and with guidance using Applicant’s written description, as analogous to reference teaching EMI data for varying power modes, i.e., a variation in power as noted by different values measured in “MW”.)
receiving a measurement of electromagnetic interference (EMI) data from the at least one radio frequency current transformer over a series of time intervals; (NELSON, Pg 1421, Section 3.3.3, FIG. 17 EMI in frequency domain; and as above, Pg 1419, Figure 11, depicting EMI data at various times.)
receiving a measurement of power data from the AC machine over the series of time intervals (NELSON as above, Pg 1419, Section 3.3.1, with Figure 11)
identifying the power data associated with each EMI signature data (NELSON, as above, Pg 1419, Section 3.3.1, with Figure 11; Examiner interprets “signature” as discussed above using BRI and plain meaning with guidance from written description to mean generally, data received from a device.)
NELSON does not teach:
produce a historic set of EMI data and power data over the series of time intervals
using this power data to cluster the EMI signature data;
for each EMI signature data cluster, calculate a mean value and statistical deviation value;
storing over the series of time intervals each of i) the historic set of EMI data and power information data, ii) the mean value, and iii) the statistical deviation value, thereby establishing the AC machine’s baseline data in a baseline library for normal operations
ANGELLO teaches:
produce a historic set of EMI data and power data over the series of time intervals (ANGELLO, Abstract: “system and method for anomaly detection…receiving (108) operational and dynamics data (104) from sensors associated with devices (102)…identifying an anomaly based on a deviation of the device data from the baseline data normalized by the expected level of data variation (114)”;)
calculate a mean value and statistical deviation value; storing over the series of time intervals each of i) the historic set of EMI data and power information data, ii) the mean value, and iii) the statistical deviation value, thereby establishing the AC machine’s baseline data in a baseline library for normal operations (ANGELLO [0025]: “computer implemented method for anomaly detection comprises…(c) establishing a set of baseline dynamics data including calculating a reference mean for each dynamic based on identifying historical data values”; and FIG.4 with [0030] “FIG. 4 demonstrates the dependency of a dynamics observable, "Low Frequency Dynamics" amplitude, upon engine power taken over a range of conditions…chart illustrates the interrelation of dynamics and engine power averaged…error bars denote the standard deviation of the Low Frequency Dynamics amplitude across the sixteen combustor cans.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NELSON to include producing a historic set of EMI data and power data over the series of time intervals and calculating a mean value and statistical deviation value; storing over the series of time intervals each of i) the historic set of EMI data and power information data, ii) the mean value, and iii) the statistical deviation value, thereby establishing the AC machine’s baseline data in a baseline library for normal operations, as taught by ANGELLO because this would further the goal of achieving a database/library for data comparison when combined with the EMI acquisition and analysis method and system taught by NELSON. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of using the detailed steps for archiving and accessing historical data for use in data analysis found in ANGELLO reference as a way to strengthen and broaden method and system disclosed by NELSON.
NELSON, as modified by ANGELLO and taught above, does not teach:
using power data to cluster the EMI signature data
for each EMI signature data cluster, calculate a mean value and statistical deviation value
GUPTA teaches:
using power data to cluster the EMI signature data; (GUPTA teaches clustering of EMI data for analysis, Pg 146, Fig. 8, showing EMI data clusters recorded over time.)
for each EMI signature data cluster, calculate a mean value and statistical deviation value (GUPTA, Pg 147 FIG. 9) (GUPTA, Pg 147, Column 1 First paragraph – discussion of mean and variance (i.e., “statistical deviation”) analysis for EMI data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NELSON, as modified by ANGELLO as taught above to include the analysis steps of using power data to cluster the EMI signature data; and for each EMI signature data cluster, calculate a mean value and statistical deviation value, as taught by GUPTA because, as noted in GUPTA, doing so would facilitate the establishment of a dynamic baseline to enable EMI profiles in a collective analysis method, while still maintaining unique signatures for individual devices. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate the more advanced analysis technique of clustering as taught by GUPTA to improve the EMI analysis method and system taught by NELSON , as modified by ANGELLO to include historic reference data, efficient and anomaly detection would be made more efficient, and more accurate.
With respect to Claims 7 and 18, NELSON, in view of ANGELLO and GUPTA, teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
NELSON teaches:
electrical power operational modes are measured in watts output. (NELSON, Figure 11.)
With respect to Claims 8 and 19, NELSON, in view of ANGELLO and GUPTA, teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
NELSON teaches:the alternating current (AC) machine is one of a generator and a transformer. NELSON, Pg. 1411 Section 1 PROJECT SCOPE “assess the condition of the stator insulation of large form-wound generators and motors”; Examiner notes interpretation of “a generator and a transformer” to be analogous to reference, as one of ordinary skill would understand structure of an induction motor.)
With respect to Claims 9 and 20, NELSON, in view of ANGELLO and GUPTA, teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
NELSON teaches:
wherein the EMI data is measured in microVolts and hertz, and power information data is measured in watts. (NELSON, Figure 11.)
With respect to Claim 10, NELSON, in view of ANGELLO and GUPTA, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
NELSON teaches:
displaying on a two-axis graph for one or more of the electrical power operational modes over a series of time intervals, each of i) the set of EMI data and power information data, ii) the mean value, and iii) the statistical deviation. (NELSON, Figure 11.)
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over NELSON in view of ANGELLO and GUPTA and further in view of BERGMAN (Bergman, et al., “Classification-based anomaly detection for general data”, ICLR 2020.)
With respect to Claims 2 and 13, NELSON, in view of ANGELLO and GUPTA, teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
NELSON teaches:
accessing recent EMI data from a radio frequency current transformer from the AC machine and corresponding measured associated electrical power operational mode; (As above, NELSON, Pg 1421, Section 3.3.3, FIG. 17 EMI in frequency domain; and as above, Pg 1419, Figure 11)
ANGELLO teaches as discussed above,
using the corresponding measured associated power operational mode to select a suitable baseline and associated normality zone from the AC machine’s baseline data from the baseline library, each baseline in these libraries are acquired with a historic set of EMI data for the corresponding power operational mode;
comparing the recent EMI data to the baseline data from the baseline library and normality zone;
NELSON as modified by ANGELLO and GUPTA as taught above, does not teach:
classifying level of the abnormality using an abnormality score.
BERGMAN teaches:
classifying level of the abnormality using an abnormality score. (BERGRMAN is in a related field directed at general data analysis for anomaly classification and detection, Pg 1 “anomaly detection which unifies current state-of-the-art methods that use normal training data only and are based on classification”; and see Pg 2-3 Section 2 “Classification-based anomaly detection… Test data is classified as anomalous if the following normality score is positive (equation)”; Examiner asserts one of ordinary skill would find reason to consult reference for anomaly detection, where “abnormality” is interpreted as analogous to reference term “anomaly”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NELSON, as modified by ANGELLO and GUPTA, as taught above to include the step of classifying level of the abnormality using an abnormality score, as taught by BERGMAN because this technique would provide reliability and consistency when considering data sets from a broad range of system components and data types. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of the detailed method taught by BERGMAN as a way to improve EMI data analysis because, as suggested by BERGMAN, developing a consistent and well defined ranking or scoring system for data analysis is an effective way to reduce or eliminate undesired or spurious noise distractions that may be present in frequency domain data acquired over time. Relying on a well-define scoring system allows for a more automated and efficient detection of a potential abnormality in a system, and would be seen as an advantage for developing a reliable EMI analysis abnormality detection method and system with a broad range of potential applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 11, and 14- 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to Claim 3 and 14, NELSON, in view of ANGELLO and GUPTA, teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 13. However, prior art identified and relied upon above, along with prior art discovered in additional search, does not teach individually or in an obvious combination the limitations recited in Claim 3: “ calculating an abnormality score based a ratio between i) an area of the normality zone defined by the statistical deviation for the historic set of EMI data and power data over the series of time intervals and ii) a sum or areas of the recent set of EMI data and power data that is above a settable upper limit of the normality zone; and classifying level of the abnormality using the abnormality score.”
With respect to Claims 4 and 17, further search did not reveal prior art to overcome deficiencies identified in Claim 3 to which Claim 4 depends or that would further suggest or teach the limitations recited in claim 4, specifically the detailed frequency ranges associated with a unique component abnormality.
With respect to Claims 5 and 16, NELSON, in view of ANGELLO and GUPTA, teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12. NELSON teaches as above “for each generator unit and associated device, accessing recent EMI data from a radio frequency current transformer from a different AC machine and corresponding measured associated electrical power operational mode”
However, prior art relied upon as applied above, and additional search did not
reveal prior art which individually or in an obvious combination teaches the limitations of
“using the corresponding measured associated power operational mode to select a suitable baseline and associated normality zone from the AC machine’s baseline data from the baseline library, each baseline in these libraries are acquired with a historic set of EMI data for the corresponding power operational mode;
comparing the recent EMI data from the different AC machine to the
baseline data from the baseline library and normality zone; and classifying level of the abnormality using an abnormality score.”
With respect to Claims 6 and 15, with dependency to Claims 4 and 14, further search did reveal prior art to overcome the deficiencies discussed above for Claim 4 or Claim 3, such that individually or in an obvious combination would teach the limitations recited in Claim 6. Similarly to Claim 4 detailed frequency ranges associated with a unique component abnormality and a specific repair protocol was not discovered.
With respect to Claim 11, NELSON, in view of ANGELLO and GUPTA, teaches the limitations of claim 10. NELSON further teaches graphical data analysis using different colors. Additional search reveal reference by KLAUS, “Fundamentals of Data Visualization”, Section 16.3 teaches “statistical deviation is displayed as a shaded region” (reference listed below as prior art made of record) Examiner asserts these are examples of well-known and standard data analysis and visualization methods as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, prior art as applied above and additional prior art discovered in further search does not teach individually or in an obvious combination the limitation of “electrical power operational modes is displayed in different colors, a y-axis is watts, an x-axis is frequency” .
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CHEN (US 20100235798 A1) – teaches analysis of EMI characteristics from an integrated circuit using frequency domain range and comparison of data with a criteria range for determination of data validity.
CHEN (US 20150233998 A1) – teaches monitoring and analysis of EMI signals for sensing environmental variations; signal processing in frequency domain and statistical analysis including comparison with mean values from data collected over time.
KLAUS (Fundamentals of Data Visualization, available online) – teaches full details on multiple data visualization methods. Screenshot from WAYBACK is included with snapshot from 2023.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights