coDETAILED 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 § 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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the filter network" in “measuring a propagated signal resulting from the injected test signal propagating through the filter network”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
“means for isolating the motor drive from the AC power source; at least one input filter network; means for injecting a test signal to the input filter network of the motor drive; means for measuring a propagated signal resulting from the injected test signal propagating through the input filter network; and means for comparing the propagated signal to a reference signal such that, if the propagated signal differs from the reference signal by sign and/or magnitude, then degradation of at least one component of the input filter network may be identified” in claim 7.
“wherein the means for measuring a propagated signal comprises a motor controller” in Claim 8.
“wherein the means for injecting a test signal to the input filter network of the motor drive comprises a dedicated signal generator” in Claim 10.
“ protection diodes configured to prevent power being fed to the means for injecting a test signal during normal use” in Claim 11.
“wherein the means for injecting a test signal to the input filter network of the motor drive is configured to provide a signal having 28V or less” in Claim 12.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for monitoring degradation of at least one component of an input filter network in a power system comprising a motor drive circuit configured to provide AC power from a power source to power a motor, the method comprising: isolating the motor drive circuit from the power source; injecting a test signal to the input filter network; measuring a propagated signal resulting from the injected test signal propagating through the filter network; comparing the propagated signal to a reference signal; and when the propagated signal differs from the reference signal by sign or magnitude, identify to a user or system that degradation of at least one component of the filter network has occurred.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “measuring a propagated signal resulting from the injected test signal propagating through the filter network;” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “comparing the propagated signal to a reference signal” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: AC power source, motor drive circuit; motor
In Claim 5: power source, motor drive circuit;
In Claim 6, 14 and 15: a plurality of motor drives/motors, reconfiguration matrix
In Claim 7 and 8: AC power source, motor drive, rectifier, DC link capacitor, inverter, motor controller
In Claim 10: signal generator
In Claim 11: protection diodes
The additional element of “AC power source, motor drive circuit; motor; motor drive, rectifier, DC link capacitor, inverter, motor controller, signal generator, protection diodes” are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-15 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhandarkar et al. (US20170149343A1, 2017-05-25) herein referred to as Bhandarkar.
Regarding Claim 1, Bhandarkar teaches a method for monitoring degradation of at least one component of an input filter network in a power system (Abstract) comprising a motor drive circuit (50) (Examiner’s Note: Although (10) is labeled as the motor drive circuit, it is the AC inverter (50) that drives the motor. From a technical standpoint, the inverter is the motor drive circuit and is interpreted by the examiner as such.) configured to provide AC power from a power source (2) to power a motor (6), the method comprising: isolating the motor drive circuit from the power source [0011-0013]; injecting a test signal to the input filter network [0010-0011]; measuring a propagated signal resulting from the injected test signal propagating through the filter network [0011]; comparing the propagated signal to a reference signal [0011]; and when the propagated signal differs from the reference signal by sign or magnitude [0011], identify to a user or system that degradation of at least one component of the filter network has occurred [0017].
Regarding Claim 2, Bhandarkar further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to injecting a test signal to the input filter network of the isolated motor drive circuit, disconnecting the motor from the motor drive circuit, such that test signal is provided through only the input filter network of the motor drive circuit [0012].
Regarding Claim 5, Bhandarkar further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating the test signal by [0010-0011], upon installation of the power system, isolating the motor drive circuit from the power source [0011-0013]; injecting the test signal to the input filter network of the isolated motor drive circuit [0010-0011]; measuring a propagated signal resulting from the injected test signal propagating through the input filter network [0011]; and storing the propagated signal as the reference signal [0002; 0011].
Regarding Claim 7, Bhandarkar further teaches a motor drive for performing the method of claim 1, the motor drive being configured to, in use, connect to an AC power source at its input and drive a motor at its output Fig. 1; [0011-0013], the motor drive comprising: means for isolating the motor drive from the AC power source [0011-0013]; at least one input filter network (20); means for injecting a test signal to the input filter network of the motor drive [0010-0011]; means for measuring a propagated signal resulting from the injected test signal propagating through the input filter network [0011]; and means for comparing the propagated signal to a reference signal [0011] such that, if the propagated signal differs from the reference signal by sign and/or magnitude [0011], then degradation of at least one component of the input filter network may be identified [0017].
Regarding Claim 8, Bhandarkar further teaches the motor drive of claim 7, wherein the motor drive further comprises motor drive electronics [Fig. 1] comprising a rectifier (30), at least one DC link capacitor (40) and an inverter (50), and wherein the means for measuring a propagated signal comprises a motor controller (60/76) [0011].
Regarding Claim 9, Bhandarkar further teaches the motor drive of claim 8, wherein the motor drive electronics are configured to isolate the motor drive from a motor connected at its output [0011-0013].
Regarding Claim 13, Bhandarkar further teaches a system comprising a motor drive as recited in claim 9; the AC power source, wherein the AC power source is configured to provide AC power connected to an input of the motor drive (Fig. 1; [0010-0013]; and the motor, wherein the motor is connected to the output of the motor drive (Fig. 1; [0010-0013].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 10-12 and 14-15 would be allowable if written to overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action and rewritten in independent form to incorporate all the limitations of their base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, Bhandarkar teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. He further teaches a test signal, but along with all other references, fail to specifically that the test signal is a low voltage pulse width modulation signal. It is for this reason, claim 3 would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 4, Bhandarkar teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. He, along with all other references fail to teach wherein comparing the propagated signal to a test signal comprises comparing voltage levels of the propagated signal and the test signal at different timing intervals. It is for this reason, claim 4 would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 6, The method of claim 1, Bhandarkar teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. He, along with all other references fail to teach wherein the motor drive is a first motor drive of a plurality of motor drives, and each of the plurality of motor drives is connected at least one of a plurality of motors via a reconfiguration matrix, and wherein the reconfiguration matrix connects a desired motor drive of the plurality of motor drives to the output of the first motor drive such that the degradation of the input filter network of the desired motor drive may be monitored. It is for this reason, claim 6 would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 10, Bhandarkar teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7. He, along with all other references fail to teach wherein the means for injecting a test signal to the input filter network of the motor drive comprises a dedicated signal generator. It is for this reason Claim 10 would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 11, Bhandarkar teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7. He, along with all other references fail to teach further comprising: protection diodes configured to prevent power being fed to the means for injecting a test signal during normal use. It is for this reason Claim 11 would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 12, Bhandarkar teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7. He, along with all other references fail to teach wherein the means for injecting a test signal to the input filter network of the motor drive is configured to provide a signal having 28V or less. It is for this reason Claim 12 would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 14, Bhandarkar teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7. He, along with all other references fail to teach a system comprising a plurality of motor drives, wherein at least one of the motor drives is a first motor drive, wherein the first motor drive is a motor drive as recited in claim 9; a plurality of motors; wherein each of the plurality of motor drives is connected at least one of the plurality of motors via a reconfiguration matrix. It is for this reason Claim 14 would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 15, Bhandarkar teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7. He, along with all other references fail to teach wherein the reconfiguration matrix is further configured such that one of the plurality of motor drives may be connected to the output of the first motor drive, such that the first motor drive can monitor degradation of an input filter network of any of the plurality of motor drives. It is for this reason Claim 15 would be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Takeda et al. (CONTROL DEVICE AND PROCESSING EQUIPMENT, 2023-08-03) teaches a control device 1 is provided with: a motor control unit (10, 11, etc.) that supplies a drive current to a motor 3, which is a power source of processing equipment, so as to place the motor 3 in a normal operating state, and, in response to multiplexed commands (S1, S2) that are sent from the outside and relate to a safety function operation of the processing equipment, controls the drive current so as to place the motor 3 and the processing equipment in a safety stop state; and a command monitoring unit 16 that monitors whether or not the commands (High/Low of S1, S2) match each other. If the period during which the commands do not match exceeds an allowable value, the command monitoring unit 16 generates a safety stop signal Sd (High) for safely stopping the motor 3, and continuously sends the safety stop signal Sd (High) to the motor control unit. This configuration makes it possible to facilitate the construction of a safety system that uses a control device.
Kako (POWER CONTROL UNIT FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE, 2023-05-01) teaches power control unit for an electric vehicle includes: an inverter which controls a supply voltage to a vehicle driving motor from a high-voltage battery 41; a DC/DC converter 10 which steps down the voltage of the high-voltage battery 41 to a voltage capable charging a low-voltage battery 42 serving as a power source for an in-vehicle auxiliary machine; a circuit board 102 which is mounted with a first electrical circuit element constituting the inverter or the DC/DC converter 10; a heat sink which cools the first electrical circuit element; a water pump which circulates a refrigerant in a refrigerant passage of the heat sink; a water pump control circuit which controls the operation of the water pump.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
