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(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7, 10, 11, and 13-20 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the estimated speed values and estimated line frequency values" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 4 will be interpreted as “an estimated speed values and estimated line frequency values”.
Claims 5, 10, and 11 depend on claim 4, therefore claims 5, 10, and 11 inherit the same issues as claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation “discard the speed values and line frequency values” in line 4 of the claim. It is unclear if these values are intended to be the estimated or historical values. For examination purposes, “the speed values and line frequency values” will be interpreted as “the estimated speed values and estimated line frequency values”.
Claims 5, 10, and 11 depend on claim 4, therefore claims 5, 10, and 11 inherit the same issues as claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “for example a magnetic flux density root mean square, MFDRMS, or an amplitude of the dominant frequency. The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, “parameter indicative of the strength of a magnetic flux density signal” will be not be interpreted as limited to the listed examples.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the speed values and line frequency values” in lines 5-6 and 9 of the claim. It is unclear if these values are intended to be the estimated or historical values. For examination purposes, “the speed values and line frequency values” will be interpreted as “the estimated speed values and estimated line frequency values”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the estimated speed values and estimated line frequency values" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be interpreted as “an estimated speed values and estimated line frequency values”.
Claims 7 and 13-20 depend on claim 6, therefore claims 7 and 13-20 inherit the same issues as claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein determining the difference" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the difference” in line 1 will be interpreted as “a difference”.
Claims 13-20 depend on claim 7, therefore claims 13-20 inherit the same issues as claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the computer-implemented method of claim 7" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 12.
Claims 14-20 depend on claim 13, therefore claims 14-20 inherit the same issues as claim 13 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the speed values and line frequency values” in lines 4-5, 9-10, and 13 of the claim. It is unclear if these values are intended to be the estimated or historical values. For examination purposes, “the speed values and line frequency values” will be interpreted as “the estimated speed values and estimated line frequency values”.
Claims 16-20 depend on claim 15, therefore claims 16-20 inherit the same issues as claim 15 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "an estimated speed value and an estimated line frequency value" in lines 5-6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “an estimated speed value and an estimated line frequency value” will be interpreted as “the estimated speed value and the estimated line frequency value”.
Claims 17-20 depend on claim 16, therefore claims 17-20 inherit the same issues as claim 16 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 13 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “performing output power estimation only on the basis…”. Claim 7, which is dependent on claim 2, recites the same limitations. Claim 13 does not recite any further limitations which are not found in claim 7. As such claim 13 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 7.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “determining whether…”, “for a pair…” and “determining a difference”. Claim 15, which is dependent on claims 6 and 7, recites the same limitations. Claim 16 does not recite any further limitations which are not found in claim 15. As such claim 16 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 15.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a product or process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A system for obtaining an estimated output power of an electric motor, the system comprising:
a processing unit configured to obtain the estimated output power by performing an output power estimation on the basis of data measured by condition monitoring sensors;
wherein the data includes vibration measurement data and magnetic flux density measurement data.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical calculation, namely a mathematical operation to determine the power output of an electric motor. The lack of specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems.
The additional limitation of “a processing unit” does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)).
The additional limitation of “data measured” is insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitation of “condition monitoring sensors” are generic products and does not integrate into a practical application. The additional limitations of “vibration measurement data” and “magnetic flux density measurement data” only limits the abstract idea to a field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12 is analogous to claim 1. Claim 12 is therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 2-11 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “output power estimation” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Dependent Claim 3 adds the recited “estimate speed values and line frequency values” and “perform the output power estimation” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 4 adds the recited “determine… unreliable” and “discard” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 5 adds the recited “establish a relation”, “determine unreliable”, and “perform the output power estimation” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 6 adds the recited “determine unreliable”, “calculating”, and “comparing the calculated” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 7 adds the recited “determining the difference” and “determining unreliable” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 8 recites “determine whether… available” which is a mental process. Dependent Claim 9 adds the recited “perform output power estimation by means of mathematical model” and “perform output power estimation using an equation” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 10 adds the recited “determine a relation”, “determining magnetic flux density values”, and “performing a fitting step” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 10 additionally recites “performing a plurality of measurements” which is data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Dependent Claim 11 adds the recited “determine an expected value” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 20 adds the recited “using for subsequent calculation to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 20 additionally recites “displaying”, “saving”, and “raising an alarm” is insignificant post-solution activity. Claim 20 additionally recites “using for controlling motor” and “using for controlling other components” which are mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-11 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 13-19 are analogous to claims 2-11, and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hou (CN 110632512 B).
Regarding Claim 1, Hou teaches a system for obtaining an estimated output power of an electric motor, the system comprising:
a processing unit (Para 10: “computing unit”) configured to obtain the estimated output power by performing an output power estimation (Para 47: “the actual load on the motor is estimated”) on the basis of data measured by condition monitoring sensors (Para 2: “condition monitoring technology”);
wherein the data includes vibration measurement data and magnetic flux density measurement data (Para 10: “induction motor monitoring device based on leakage flux and vibration signals, comprising a vibration signal sensor, a leakage flux sensor”).
Regarding Claim 2, Hou teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to perform the output power estimation only on the basis of the vibration measurement data and magnetic flux density measurement data and/or data derived from the vibration measurement data and magnetic flux density measurement data (Para 9: “use a monitoring device to measure the vibration signal of the motor housing and the leakage magnetic signal outside the housing, and to combine the vibration and leakage magnetic signals for monitoring the working status of the motor”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hou teaches estimate speed values and line frequency values from the vibration measurement data and magnetic flux density measurement data to obtain estimated speed values (Para 47: “the rotation frequency is obtained by finding the maximum value in the vibration spectrum search interval”) and estimated line frequency values (Para 47: “The power supply frequency is calculated by taking the maximum value in the spectrum of the leakage flux signal”),
and perform the output power estimation on the basis of at least some of the estimated speed values and at least some of the estimated line frequency values (Para 47: “the actual slip of the motor is solved based on the rotation frequency, the power supply frequency, and the number of pole pairs. Finally, based on the slip and rated load, the actual load on the motor is estimated”).
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are analogous to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are analogous to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are analogous to claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou (CN 110632512 B) in view of Jordaan ("Data Analysis and Confidence based on SVM Density Estimation," The 2006 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Network Proceedings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2006, pp. 1818-1824) and further in view of Preindl (US 20200177117 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Hou teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Hou further teaches estimated speed values (Para 47: “rotation frequency”) and estimated line frequency values (Para 47: “power supply frequency”).
Hou does not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is configured to use data associated with speed values and line frequency values obtained from historical measurements to determine whether any of the estimated speed values and estimated line frequency values are unreliable, and to discard the speed values and line frequency values determined to be unreliable.
Jordaan teaches historical measurements to determine whether any of the estimated values are unreliable (Section II: “The strangeness measure assesses the quality of the prediction based on its strangeness with respect to the historical data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Hou with the determination of Jordaan by using applying the quality assessment of Jordaan to the estimated values of Hou. Doing so would allow for assessment on the quality of estimated values.
Preindl teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to use data associated with speed values and line frequency values (Para 10: “using at least one set of previous estimates”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Hou in view of Jordaan with the method of Preindl by applying the discarding method of Preindl to the unreliable estimated values of Hou in view of Jordaan. Doing so would improve the accuracy of subsequent calculations by only using reliable estimated values.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou in view of Lu (US 20110313717 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hou teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Hou further teaches
Hou does not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine whether a mathematical model of the electric motor that models the output power based on speed values and line frequency values is available.
Lu teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine whether a mathematical model of the electric motor
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Hou with the method of Lu by applying the determination of availability of Lu to the model of Hou. Doing so would ensure the model is only relied upon when it is available.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou in view of Lu and further in view of Hujband (US 20200333400 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Hu in view of Lu teaches the limitations of claim 8, and Hu in view of Lu further teaches wherein when it is determined that the mathematical model of the electric motor is available, perform the output power estimation by means of the mathematical model by inputting the at least some of the estimated speed values and the at least some of the estimated line frequency values into the mathematical model (Para 47: “the actual slip of the motor is solved based on the rotation frequency, the power supply frequency, and the number of pole pairs. Finally, based on the slip and rated load, the actual load on the motor is estimated”), and, when it is determined that no mathematical model of the electric motor that models the output power based on speed values and line frequency values is available,
Hu in view of Lu does not explicitly teach perform the output power estimation using an equation describing a relationship between a line frequency and the output power of the electric motor.
Hujband teaches perform the output power estimation using an equation describing a relationship between a line frequency (Para 13: “synchronous frequency/line frequency (
f
s
)”) and the output power of the electric motor (Para 20: “The first slip is calculated as follows:
S
m
=
(
f
s
-
f
r
)
/
f
s
” and “Then, a value of new power is calculated from measured first slip”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Hou of in view of Lu with the equation of Hujband by performing output power estimation with the equation of Hujband when it is determined the model of Hu in view of Lu is unavailable. Doing so would allow for accurate estimations of output power when the mathematical model is not available.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that Claims 5-7, 10-11, and 15-20 are distinguishable from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 5, Hu teaches using magnetic flux density measurements to calculate speed and line frequency estimates (Para 47). Hu does not teach determining estimates of speed and line frequency as unreliable. Hu does not teach why a relationship between magnetic flux density and historical speed and line frequency would be used in determining estimates as unreliable.
Jordaan teaches using historical data to determine accuracy of predicted values (Section II). Jordaan does not teach speed values, line frequency values, or a parameter indicative of strength of a magnetic flux density.
Preindl teaches filtering estimated speed values of an electric motor using historical values (Para 10). Preindl does not teach a relationship between speed and line frequency values with a parameter indicative of strength of a magnetic flux density signal.
Lee (US 20190190416 A1) teaches calculating motor RPM based on signal of a hall sensor (Abstract). Lee additionally teaches determining noise of a hall sensor based on error size between measured and predicted motor RPM (Para 14). Lee does not teach using a relationship between speed and magnetic flux to determine if speed values are unreliable.
None of the prior art discloses or fairly suggests “establish a relation of speed values and line frequency values obtained from historical measurements to a parameter indicative of the strength of a magnetic flux density signal” and “based on the relation, determine whether any of the speed values and line frequency values are unreliable”.
Regarding Claim 6, similarly to claim 5, Hu, Jordaan, Preindl, and Lee do not teach calculating a parameter indicative of the any of the listed options for a pair of estimated speed and line frequency values. Hu, Jordaan, Preindl, and Lee do not teach comparing the calculated parameter with an expected parameter indicative of the strength of a magnetic flux density signal.
None of the prior art discloses or fairly suggests “for a pair of an estimated speed values and an estimated line frequency value, calculating a value of a parameter indicative of at least one of …” and “from the estimated line frequency value, comparing calculated value of parameter indicative of the strength of the magnetic flux density signal with an expected value of the parameter indicative of the strength of the magnetic flux density signal for a speed value and a line frequency value that are the same as the estimated speed value and the estimated line frequency value”.
Dependent Claim 7 distinguishes over the prior art due to dependence upon claim 6.
Regarding Claim 10, similarly to claim 5, Hu, Jordaan, Preindl, and Lee do not teach determining a relationship between historical speed and line frequency values and a parameter indicative of a magnetic flux density signal and obtaining the parameter indicative of the strength of the magnetic flux density signal as a function of speed and line frequency.
None of the prior art teaches or fairly suggests “determine a relation of speed values and line frequency values obtained from historical measurements to the parameter indicative of the strength of a magnetic flux density signal by performing a plurality of measurements to obtain a plurality of speed values and line frequency values, determining corresponding magnetic flux density values, and performing a fitting step to obtain the parameter indicative of the strength of the magnetic flux density signal as a function of speed and line frequency”.
Dependent Claim 11 distinguishes over the prior art due to dependence upon claim 10.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are analogous to claim 5. Therefore claim 15 distinguishes over the prior art for analogous reasons to claim 5.
Dependent Claims 16-20 distinguish over the prior art due to dependence upon claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (KR 20060014542 A) teaches estimating speed of induction motor based on magnetic flux (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights