DETAILED ACTION
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
2. 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 1-14 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.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-11 are to a process, claims 12-13 are to a machine, and claim 14 is to an article of manufacture. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claim contains at least the following bolded limitations that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. A computer-implemented method for monitoring faults in an electric machine, the method comprising: obtaining a reference measurement, by a processing unit, from at least one sensing unit associated with the electric machine;
generating a characteristic signature based on the reference measurement using a digital twin of the electric machine, wherein the digital twin is a virtual representation indicating a state of the electric machine in real-time; analyzing the characteristic signature to identify a fault associated with the electric machine; and outputting a notification indicating a visual representation of the fault on an output device.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Thus the limitations of "generating a characteristic signature based on the reference measurement using a digital twin of the electric machine, wherein the digital twin is a virtual representation indicating a state of the electric machine in real-time" amounts to a mathematically-based process to calculate a predicted data output signature using a mathematically-based modeling "twin." As described in the published specification (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0410946), the digital twin comprises a plurality of models that represent operational characteristics associated with the induction motor where "each of the models may include, for example, one or more of physics-based models, hybrid models, artificial intelligence models and so on" (where physics-based models for instance are a type of mathematical model). The limitations of "analyzing the characteristic signature to identify a fault associated with the electric machine" amounts to a mental process to evaluate or recognize data, or a mathematical calculation to solve for a value indicative of a fault. Therefore, it is clear that the independent claim on some level recites an abstract idea of mathematical modeling and/or data analysis as a mental process.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claim is analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the recitation of "a computer-implemented method" and "by a processing unit" amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (2) the recitation of "for monitoring faults in an electric machine" amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); (3) the recitation of "obtaining a reference measurement…from at least one sensing unit associated with the electric machine" amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and (4) the recitation of "outputting a notification indicating a visual representation of the fault on an output device" amounts to insignificant post-solution outputting of a calculation result that is tangential to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claim is considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
The recitation of "a computer-implemented method" and "by a processing unit" does not add significantly more because such limitations amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Also as recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions 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. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94). The recitation of "for monitoring faults in an electric machine" does not add significantly more because such limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), without describing any particular application of the abstract idea to subsequently change the operation or performance of a technology or technical process. The recitation of "obtaining a reference measurement…from at least one sensing unit associated with the electric machine" does not add significantly more because such limitations amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as data must be gathered in any case. The recitation of "outputting a notification indicating a visual representation of the fault on an output device" does not add significantly more because such limitations amount to insignificant post-solution outputting of a calculation result that is tangential to the judicial exception calculations (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The MPEP states that when “whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”, the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)).
Dependent claims 2 and 13 do not provide an integration into a practical application or an inventive concept as they amount to insignificant extrasolution data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and dependent claims 3-10 amount to additional abstract idea mathematical concepts and/or mental processes to describe additional calculations/analysis steps and variable definitions. Dependent claim 11 describes generally controlling operation of the electric machine, but does not provide any detail on how the electric machine is controlled, such that there are no meaningful constraints on the controlling step. Therefore, without further detail on how the electric machine is controlled, claim 11 is understood as no more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Dependent claim 12 and 14 do not provide an integration into a practical application or an inventive concept as they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
3. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements/configurations for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications using the calculated fault to drive a transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehya et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0369634, hereinafter "Ehya") as modified by Miklosovic et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0341901, hereinafter "Miklosovic").
In regards to claim 1, Ehya teaches a computer-implemented method for monitoring faults in an electric machine (Ehya abstract teaches a method of fault detection in synchronous machines (electrical machines) via use of computer aided pattern recognition techniques), the method comprising:
obtaining a reference measurement, by a processing unit, from at least one sensing unit associated with the electric machine (Ehya paragraphs [0006]-[0007] teach obtaining processed measurement parameters (reference measurements) linked to the magnetic field from at least one sensor associated with the electrical machine, and paragraph [0035] teaches a computer processor for performing the method steps including obtaining the measured sensor data);
generating a characteristic signature based on the reference measurement using a digital twin of the electric machine, wherein the digital twin is a virtual representation indicating a state of the electric machine in real-time (Ehya paragraphs [0008], [0026], and [0056] teach generating recognized patterns (characteristic signatures) based on the processed sensor measurements (reference measurements) using computer aided pattern recognition techniques, and Ehya Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0061]-[0063] teach an example of such a technique using a simulated (virtual) representation of a salient pole synchronous generator (SPSG) as a digital twin that represents a state of the electric machine in real-time (such as a transient analysis during a machine's voltage build-up));
analyzing the characteristic signature to identify a fault associated with the electric machine (Ehya paragraphs [0008], [0026], and [0056] teach analyzing the recognized patterns (characteristic signature) to identify and categorize irregularities in the magnetic field that are indicative of a fault in the electric machine). Ehya fails to expressly teach and outputting a notification indicating a visual representation of the fault on an output device.
Miklosovic abstract is analogously related to monitoring for faults in motor drives (electrical machines) in industrial environments, and paragraph [0093] teaches performing digital twin analysis to perform detection of drive level fault conditions. Miklosovic paragraph [0056] teaches providing an output display of detected conditions, including measurements, differences, or percent degradation, in order to provide users a real-time or near-real time indication of the amount of mechanical and electrical degradation over time.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Miklosovic because it would be beneficial to immediately inform an operator of any determined fault conditions. Therefore, it would be advantageous to specify an output display for communicating any indications of faults in real-time or near-real time to a user such that prompt remedial actions can be taken.
In regards to claim 2, Ehya teaches the method wherein the reference measurement corresponds to stray flux outside a casing of the electric machine (Ehya paragraph [0016] teaches using an externally mounted sensor for taking measurements from outside a casing of the electric machine, and paragraphs [0087]-[0088] teaches where the measurements can correspond to the variation of flux density in an air gap outside a casing of the electric machine).
In regards to claim 3, Ehya teaches the method wherein generating the characteristic signature based on the reference measurement using the digital twin of the electric machine comprises: updating the digital twin based on the reference measurement (Ehya paragraph [0026] teaches performing training (updating) the machine learning algorithm based on processed sensor measurements (reference measurement) relating to fault free machines as well as machines with a fault, and paragraph [0061] teaches where simulations of an SPSG (as a digital twin) in healthy and fault conditions are carried out) ;
configuring a simulation model based on the updated digital twin (Ehya paragraph [0061] teaches where the simulation model of the SPSG is configured based on the updated digital twin);
executing the simulation model in a simulation environment to generate a simulation result, wherein the simulation result is indicative of the characteristic signature (Ehya paragraph [0063] teaches executing the simulation model of the SPSG in a simulation environment to generate a simulation result, where the simulation result is indicative of the characteristic signature (such as current being zero indicating a faulty case where a damper bar is broken)).
In regards to claim 4, Ehya teaches the method wherein the simulation result indicates airgap flux associated with the electric machine (Ehya paragraphs [0062] and [0064] teach where the simulation result indicates an air gap flux density associated with the electric machine).
In regards to claim 8, Ehya teaches the method wherein analyzing the characteristic signature to identify the fault associated with the electric machine (Ehya paragraphs [0008], [0026], and [0056] teach analyzing the recognized patterns (characteristic signature) to identify and categorize irregularities in the magnetic field that are indicative of a fault in the electric machine) comprises:
generating a frequency domain representation corresponding to a time-domain signal associated with the operational parameter (Ehya Fig. 13 and paragraphs [0007], [0012], [0023], and [0099]-[0100] teach carrying out processing techniques based on time and frequency to generate a frequency domain signal, such as a frequency spectrum of the air gap magnetic field); and
analyzing at least one feature associated with the frequency domain representation to determine the fault (Ehya paragraph [0100] teaches analyzing at least a fault-related harmonic component at frequencies below the fundamental harmonic to determine a fault).
In regards to claim 9, Ehya teaches the method further comprising:
classifying the fault into one of a mechanical fault and an electrical fault based on the analysis of the characteristic signature (Ehya paragraphs [0009] and [0026] teach categorizing (classifying) the fault into one or more of mechanical faults such as eccentricity and damper winding faults, and electrical faults such as short circuit faults).
In regards to claim 10, Ehya teaches the method according to claim 9 as explained above. Ehya fails to expressly tach further comprising: determining a maintenance activity based on the classifying of the fault; and generating a notification indicating the maintenance activity on the output device.
Miklosovic paragraph [0047] teaches system analytics that may aggregate and contextualize information to detect system level fault conditions and provide insights related to preventative maintenance. Miklosovic paragraph [0082] teaches where early detection of faults can avoid hazardous consequences and allow more time for scheduled maintenance to be performed. Miklosovic paragraph [0097] teaches where system level detection of faults may further communicate with enterprise level detection through which users may monitor conditions via one or more notification applications that include failure prevention and root cause analysis to reduce repair time, reduce common problems, identify the worst problems, and process bottlenecks.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the teachings of Miklosovic to further specify using the determined fault to provide insights for preventative maintenance to avoid hazardous consequences and allow more time for scheduled maintenance to be performed. Therefore, it would be advantageous to provide a notification of such maintenance in response to a fault in order to allow a user to perform a controlled monitoring of the fault conditions in order to reduce repair time, reduce common problems, identify the worst problems, and process bottlenecks.
In regards to claim 11, Ehya teaches the method further comprising: controlling operation of the electric machine in real-time based on the fault identified (Ehya paragraph [0004] teaches where the present invention is used in the context of performing fault detection to improve over existing protection systems that may not detect a gradual defect, such that a protection system can trip automatically (in real-time) to ensure immediate and correct disconnection in the event of a destructive fault in the machine).
In regards to claim 12, Ehya teaches an apparatus for monitoring faults in an electric machine (Ehya paragraph [0035] teaches a general purpose computer device (apparatus) for monitoring faults in a synchronous machine (electric machine)), the apparatus comprising:
one or more processing units (Ehya paragraph [00035] teaches a dedicated processor of the fault detection system); and
a memory unit communicatively coupled to the one or more processing units, wherein the memory unit comprises a fault monitoring module stored in a form of machine-readable instructions executable by the one or more processing units, wherein the fault monitoring module is configured to perform method steps according to claim 1 (Ehya paragraph [0035] and [0037]-[0038] teach a general purpose computer (having a memory) having a fault monitoring software application or computer program product for performing the method steps).
In regards to claim 13, Ehya teaches a system for monitoring faults in an electric machine (Ehya paragraphs [0001] and [0035] teach a fault detection system for monitoring faults in a synchronous machine (electric machine)), the system comprising:
at least one sensing unit configured to provide a reference measurement associated with the electric machine (Ehya paragraphs [0006]-[0007] teach at least one sensor configured to provide measurement parameters (reference measurements) linked to the magnetic field associated with the electrical machine);
an apparatus according to claim 12, communicatively coupled to the at least one sensing unit, wherein the apparatus is configured to monitor faults in the electric machine (Ehya paragraph [0035]-[0036] teach where the general purpose computer apparatus of claim 12 a part of the fault detection system, where the computer is coupled to the sensor to monitor faults in the electric machine).
In regards to claim 14, Ehya 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 according to claim 1 (Ehya paragraph [0035] and [0037]-[0038] teach a computer program product comprising a general purpose computer (having a hardware storage device) storing a fault monitoring software (program code) for performing the method steps).
7. Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehya et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0369634, hereinafter "Ehya") as modified by Miklosovic et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0341901, hereinafter "Miklosovic") as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Danilov (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0163325).
In regards to claim 5, Ehya teaches the method wherein the characteristic signature comprises a time-series signal corresponding to an operational parameter associated with the electric machine, computed from the simulation result using at least one model (Ehya paragraphs [0061]-[0062] teach where the fault signature comprises time harmonics (as a time-series) that are observed in the signal and associated with a direct current (operational parameter) fed into the rotor field winding of the electric machine, where the simulation computations of the fault signature are computed using FEM modeling).
Ehya fails to expressly teach at least one regression model.
Danilov abstract is analogously related to the determining of defects and their geometry by means of reference data sets. Danilov paragraph [0038] teaches where in simulations of a non-destructive measurement of a new defect geometry, a simulation can be carried out by means of a regression model which is based on a database with real or already simulated measurement sets. Danilov paragraph [0038] teaches where other simulation methods including finite element methods, finite difference methods, and/or boundary methods can be used for forward simulation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that multiple types of models can be used to carry out simulations. Therefore, it would only be a matter of ordinary skill to alternatively use a regression model instead of a finite element method for carrying out simulations for the same purpose of identifying a fault.
In regards to 6, Ehya teaches the method wherein the at least one model indicates a relation between the reference measurement and the operational parameter (Ehya paragraph [0062] teaches where the FEM model relates a magnetic field measurement (which is a reference measurement as taught in paragraph [0006]) to the operational parameter of direct current fed into the rotor field winding).
Ehya fails to expressly teach at least one regression model.
Danilov abstract is analogously related to the determining of defects and their geometry by means of reference data sets. Danilov paragraph [0038] teaches where in simulations of a non-destructive measurement of a new defect geometry, a simulation can be carried out by means of a regression model which is based on a database with real or already simulated measurement sets. Danilov paragraph [0038] teaches where other simulation methods including finite element methods, finite difference methods, and/or boundary methods can be used for forward simulation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that multiple types of models can be used to carry out simulations. Therefore, it would only be a matter of ordinary skill to alternatively use a regression model instead of a finite element method for carrying out simulations for the same purpose of identifying a fault.
In regards to claim 7, Ehya teaches the method wherein the operational parameter is at least one of current, temperature and vibration associated with one or more components of the electric machine (Ehya paragraph [0062] teaches where the operational parameter is at least one of direct current fed into the rotor field winding of the electric machine).
Pertinent Art
8. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
D. Zhou et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0123680) discloses a Method for Static Eccentricity Fault Detection of Induction Motors.
E. Hsu et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0159876) discloses Simulation Apparatus and Method.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 8/14/2026
Prosecution Insights