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 .
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 12 is a system claim. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to ineligible software per se (see MPEP 21.06.03(I)). It is noted that under Step 1, claim 15, is not directed to a statutory category, as explained in the software per se and signals per se, however for the purpose of compact prosecution claim 15 is further evaluated for subject matter eligibility as discussed below.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1, 12 and 15 recite concepts related to methods of organizing human activity and human practices (i.e. obtaining and storing data) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The concepts of obtaining and storing data are considered methods of organizing human activity and human/commercial practices, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 12 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of obtaining first sampling data by sampling a performance parameter of the frequency inverter based on a first predetermined sampling period; obtaining second sampling data by sampling a performance parameter of the frequency inverter based on a second predetermined sampling period, the first predetermined sampling period being smaller than the second predetermined sampling period; and
storing, in response to a fault in the frequency inverter, fault data prior to and subsequent to the fault in the frequency inverter, the fault data comprising the first sampling data and the second sampling data. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a frequency inverter, a first and second sampling data determination module, a storage module, a processor and a computer program, wherein these elements are found to be merely generic computer hardware and/or software components, e.g. see Fig. 11-12 and Spec. [0009]: “The frequency inverter includes: a memory; a processor; and a computer program stored on the
memory and executable on the processor. The processor is configured to execute the computer
program to implement the method described in the embodiments.”, and therefore merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering and processing and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “obtaining second sampling data by sampling a performance parameter of the frequency inverter based on a second predetermined sampling period, the first predetermined sampling period being smaller than the second predetermined sampling period”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method/apparatus. For instance, nothing is done with the stored fault data.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-14 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claim 1, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Further, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to ineligible software per se and a storage medium.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product and storage mediums typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer program product, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.
Applicant is suggested to amend claim 15 to add the limitation “non- transitory” to the claim to overcome the non-statutory subject matter rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. CN 105738737A, hereinafter Xing (see attached translation), and further in view of West et al. (US 2016/0056750 A1, hereinafter West).
Regarding claims 1, 9-10, 12-14 and 15, Xing discloses a method/apparatus and storage medium for performance parameter recording, applied in a frequency inverter and comprising:
obtaining first sampling data by sampling a performance parameter based on a first predetermined sampling period (see para. 0009, 0012-0013);
based on a second predetermined sampling period, the first predetermined sampling period being smaller than the second predetermined sampling period (see para. 0017-0018, in the example the first/second sampling periods can vary from 50-500 milliseconds either smaller or greater periods); and
storing, in response to a fault, fault data prior to and subsequent to the fault in the system, the fault data comprising the first sampling data and the second sampling data (see para. 0013, 0016 and 0018).
However, even though Xing discloses that the invention is geared towards power systems, he fails to expressly disclose that the method is applied to a frequency inverter.
West discloses that frequency inverters systems (i.e. systems with variable frequency drive) can store error codes in its memory and may provide information that identifies the failure that occurred (see para. 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xing’s invention to apply its system to a system with a frequency inverter as described by West for the benefit of identifying a fault.
Regarding claim 9, Xing in view of West discloses the method for performance parameter recording according to claim 1, wherein the performance parameter of the frequency inverter comprises one or more performance parameters of one or more motors of the frequency inverter (see West para. 0016, 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 10, Xing in view of West discloses the method for performance parameter recording according to claim 9, wherein the performance parameter comprises at least three of a current, a voltage, a motor speed, or a motor back electromotive force voltage (see West para. 0016, 0026-0027).
Regarding claim 13, Xing in view of West discloses a frequency inverter, comprising: a memory (see West para. 0017); a processor (see West para. 0049); and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to implement the method according to claim 1 (see West para. 0047).
Regarding claim 14, Xing in view of West discloses an air conditioner, comprising the frequency inverter according to claim 13 (see para. 0052).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing, West and further in view of Fancellu et al. (US 2020/0186062 A1, hereinafter Fan).
Regarding claim 2, Xing in view of West discloses the method for performance parameter recording according to claim 1, prior to said sampling the performance parameter of the frequency inverter based on the first predetermined sampling period.
However, Xing in view of West fails to disclose determining the first predetermined sampling period based on a motor speed of the frequency inverter.
Fan discloses that period samples are determined based on motor speed (see para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xing in view of West invention to incorporate the teachings of Fan for the benefit of decreasing the number of false pulses.
Regarding claims 3-8 and 11, the prior art does not discloses these features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights