DETAILED ACTION This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to claims filed 1 1 / 30 /2023. Claims 1-1 2 are pending. The effective filling date is 0 6 /1 6 /2021. 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) submitted on FILLIN "Enter date IDS was filed" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 1 / 30 /2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize the word 'Claim' if necessary and then identify the claim(s) being rejected." s 1-1 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to FILLIN "Identify whether the claim(s) are directed to a law of nature; a natural phenomenon; or an abstract idea." \* MERGEFORMAT abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category Claim 1 is directed to a “computer-implemented method” and, thus, falls within a statutory category (process) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Step 2A(1): Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea) Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for monitoring the temperature of an electromechanical machine by importing data, simulating energy losses and temperature distributions, and outputting a temperature value. The claim, when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical modeling and simulation for monitoring purposes—i.e., a mental process and a mathematical relationship/formula. The claim recites: - Importing data (structural, operating) - Simulating energy losses and temperature distributions using models - Determining and outputting a temperature value for a component These steps amount to collecting information, analyzing it using mathematical models, and reporting results. The Federal Circuit has held that such processes are abstract ideas (e.g., Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Digitech, 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Simulation and modeling steps, even if “spatially resolved,” are mathematical in nature and not tied to a specific technical improvement. The claim recites an abstract idea: mathematical modeling/simulation and mental processes (collecting, analyzing, and reporting data). Step 2A(2): Integration into a Practical Application Does the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application? The claim generically recites that the simulation models are “electrical simulation model,” “thermal simulation model,” etc., but does not require any specific improvement to computer functionality or a particular machine implementation. The claim does not recite details of how the models are implemented or require a particular hardware architecture. The output (monitoring temperature) is a result of the simulation, not a technological transformation. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited “machine controller,” “simulation models,” and “outputting” steps are described at a high level of generality and do not provide any specific improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology. The claim does not: - Improve the functioning of a computer or another technology (cf. Enfish , 822 F.3d 1327) - Effect a transformation of matter - Invoke a particular machine (the “machine controller” is recited functionally, not structurally) The recited steps can be performed by a generic computer and do not amount to more than applying an abstract idea using conventional technology. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: Inventive Concept Do the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea? the claim does not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The steps are no more than generic computer implementation of mathematical modeling and reporting, which are routine and conventional in the art. The additional elements are: - Generic computer implementation (controller, processor, memory) - Use of simulation models (electrical, mechanical, thermal) - Outputting a temperature value All elements are recited at a high level of generality and are routine, conventional activities in the art of machine monitoring and control. There is no indication that the claimed combination yields an improvement to computer technology or any unconventional technical solution. The claim does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claims 2–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more, for the reasons set forth regarding claim 1. The additional limitations in these claims merely recite further mathematical modeling, data processing, or routine post-solution activity, which do not amount to an inventive concept or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more, for the reasons set forth regarding claim 1. The claims merely implement the abstract idea on a generic controller or storage medium, which is not sufficient for eligibility. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2–12 are rejected for similar reasons as they depend from or incorporate the limitations of claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andersson (EP 1 959 532) . Regarding Claim 1: Andersson teaches a computer-implemented method for monitoring the temperature of an electromechanical machine on the basis of electrical operating data of the machine (“sensor-free monitoring… using ambient temperature, torque, rotational speed… as input to a model…”; “real-time thermal model” ¶¶ 12, 16, 44, Fig. 1 ) , wherein a) importing structural data on geometry, thermal conductivity and electrical conductivity of elements of the machine (“model is a thermal network model… parts described as nodes… connections are models of heat flow…”; “thermal resistance,” “thermal capacitance” ¶¶ 21, 22, 55-62, Fig. 5) , b) based on the structural data and the electrical operating data continuously simulating electrical energy losses in the machine in a spatially resolved manner using an electrical simulation model of the machine (“loss calculation module… calculates losses based on speed and torque”; “losses… are function of temperatures… input into loss calculation module” ¶¶ 45, 53, 56-62, Fig. 2,5) , c) based on the structural data and the simulated electrical energy losses, continuously simulating a temperature distribution in the machine using a thermal simulation model of the machine (“real-time thermal model… estimates the temperatures of motor parts”; “thermal network model”; “nodes… connections… heat flow” ¶¶ 12, 46, 54, 56-59 ) , and d) according to the simulated temperature distribution, determining a temperature value for a component of the machine and output for monitoring the temperature thereof ( “output… are a number of temperatures of motor parts (end windings, stator windings, stator, magnets, axis)” ¶¶ 47, 54, 59 ) . Regarding Claim 2: Andersson teaches t he method as claimed in claim 1, wherein mechanical energy losses in the machine are simulated in a spatially resolved manner using the structural data and mechanical operating data of the machine by means of a mechanical simulation model of the machine, and the simulation of the temperature distribution is carried out using the simulated mechanical energy losses ( “loss calculation module… brake losses, friction losses in bearings”; “mechanical losses” implicitly modeled as part of total loss calculation ¶¶ 45, 53, 48, 56, Fig. 2 ) . Regarding Claim 3: Andersson teaches t he method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a rotational speed, a torque, a speed of movement and/or an exerted force of the machine is quantified by the mechanical operating data ( “inputs are… speed, torque”; “parameters… speed, acceleration” ¶¶ 12, 44, 53, 55 ) . Regarding Claim 4: Andersson teaches t he method as claimed in claim 1, wherein an operating current and/or an operating voltage of the machine is quantified by the electrical operating data ( “winding losses… I²R losses”; “current in each phase”; “electric model of motor” ¶¶ 49, 53, 55, 56 ) . Regarding Claim 5: Andersson teaches t he method as claimed in claim 1, wherein structural data on the electrical conductivity and/or the thermal conductivity of the machine elements are modified depending on the simulated temperature distribution, and a simulation of the electrical energy losses and/or the temperature distribution is carried out using the modified structural data ( “parameter estimation algorithm… tune thermal parameters”; “optimization procedure” ¶¶ 45, 66-78, Fig. 6 ) . Regarding Claim 6: Andersson teaches t he method as claimed in claim 1, wherein depending on the temperature value the machine is regulated down, information about optimized operation of the machine is output, and/or a cooling device is activated ( “thermal protection”; “control system… can be implemented within control system or as separate monitoring system” ¶¶ 14, 51, 82 ) . Regarding Claim 7: Andersson teaches t he method as claimed claim 1, wherein at least one of the simulations is carried out using a data-driven surrogate model ( “parameter estimation/optimization procedure”; “model can be tuned/optimized” ¶¶ 66-78, Fig. 6 ) . Regarding Claim 8: Andersson teaches t he method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a position of a respective machine component is determined in each case for a plurality of predetermined machine components on the basis of the structural data, and a component-specific temperature value is output based on the respectively determined position and the temperature distribution ( “output… temperatures of motor parts (end windings, stator windings, stator, magnets, axis)” ¶¶ 47, 54, 59 ) . Regarding Claim 9: Andersson teaches t he method as claimed claim 1, wherein a temperature of the machine is measured at a measuring point, the simulated temperature distribution is used to determine a simulated temperature at the measuring point and its deviation from the measured temperature, and at least one of the simulation models is trained to minimize the deviation ( “model parameters… optimized”; “difference between measured motor temperature from a test run and model output… minimized”; “error measure” ¶¶ 13, 68-78, Fig. 6, 7, 8 ) . Regarding Claim 10: Andersson teaches a machine controller for operating and monitoring the temperature of an electromechanical machine, configured for executing the method as claimed in claim 1 ( “control unit for sensor-free monitoring… comprises means for estimation… using… input to a model”; “control system 103” ¶¶ 15, 31, 82, 83 ) . Regarding Claim 11: Andersson teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system to implement a method configured for executing the method as claimed in claim 1 ( “computer program product… software code portions… for carrying out a method…”; “computer readable medium” ¶¶ 15, 40, 41, 84 ) . Regarding Claim 12: Andersson teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising the computer program product as claimed in claim 11 ( “computer readable medium comprising a computer program…” ¶¶ 40, 41, 84 ) . Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prodic (US 2012/0223692 ): D iscloses a sensorless , self-tuning digital controller for multiphase DC-DC converters. The controller estimates parameters (current, effective resistance, power loss) for each phase using only electrical measurements (input/output voltage, duty cycle), without dedicated current or temperature sensors. It uses these estimates for current sharing, thermal stress equalization, overload protection, and fast transient response. Calibration and self-tuning are performed digitally, including offset and time constant adjustments. Kilman (US 6,042,265): Kilman’s “ Sensorless Estimation of Rotor Temperature in Induction Motors” discloses a r otor temperature in induction motors is estimated without the need for any direct temperature sensors, by using only computer calculations based on data readily available in the motor control center. Thus for any given motor, it is generally possible to predetermine a relationship between rotor temperature and rotor resistance, so that by determining rotor resistance, rotor temperature can be calculated. Rotor resistance, in turn, can be calculated from measured information relating motor slip and motor torque. Any of several methods can be employed for determining torque and slip. Temperature estimation can be obtained by use of equivalent circuit methods, and additional relationships can be obtained from a simplified equivalent circuit. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3324 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Fahd Obeid can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3324 . 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. /FAHD A OBEID/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627