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 § 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/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.
With respect to Claim(s) 4, the limitation states
“…
wherein
the detection of an implausible temperature measured value is signaled by an optical or acoustic signal
and/or
the operating mode of the electrical machine is adapted accordingly by reducing the power in order to avoid overheating of the component of the electrical machine”.
First, the limitation ‘the operating mode of the electrical machine’ lacks antecedent basis.
Second, it is unclear how the underlined limitation further limits the method of claim 1. Examiner understands the claimed invention to be a method of determining/validating/checking the plausibility/quality of a measured temperature value in comparison to a modeled temperature value. Is there a controlling action taking place on the monitored electrical machine based on a particular plausibility result? In what particular scenario in view of the claimed invention would the monitored electrical machine reduce it’s power? It is unclear how the action of “reducing the power” is being defined. Without defining the electrical machine being monitored, it is unclear what the scope of that action is.
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(s) 1-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, 13 recites
check the plausibility of a temperature measurement,
by:
monitoring a current in the electrical machine;
upon detecting a steady-state load operation,
providing a first temperature measured value of a temperature of the component of the electrical machine, the duration of the steady-state load operation, and an ambient temperature;
detecting a second temperature measured value at the end of steady-state load operation;
determining a modeled temperature value using a data-based temperature model dependent on the first temperature measured value, the duration, and the ambient temperature,
wherein
the temperature model is trained to associate the first temperature measured value, the duration and the ambient temperature with a modeled temperature value;
and
checking the plausibility of the second temperature measured value with the modeled temperature value
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 2-10 recite(s)
a steady-state load operation is detected when a current into or out of the electrical machine is constant for a predetermined minimum duration and for a predetermined maximum duration or does not deviate from an average value of the current during the duration by more than a predetermined tolerance amount.
the data-based temperature model is further configured to
assign an electric current at the steady-state load to the modeled temperature value,
the modeled temperature value is determined depending on the first temperature measured value, the duration, the ambient temperature, and the constant electric current.
the detection of an implausible temperature measured value is signaled by an optical or acoustic signal.
the temperature model is calculated in a control unit for the electrical machine in a technical device.
when a plausible second temperature measured value is determined,
the data-based temperature model is further trained or retrained based on the first temperature measured value, the duration, the ambient temperature, and the second temperature measured value.
the data-based temperature model is designed as a probabilistic regression model,
the further training is only performed if a confidence value is determined at a data point determined by the first temperature measured value, the duration, and the ambient temperature using the data-based temperature model which is less than a predetermined confidence threshold value.
the temperature model is calculated in a central unit remote from the device, which is in communication with a plurality of technical devices with the electrical machines.
upon detecting a plausible second temperature measured value in one of the plurality of technical devices,
the data-based temperature model is further trained or re-trained based on the first temperature measured value, the duration, the ambient temperature, and the second temperature measured value.
the data-based temperature model is designed as a probabilistic regression model,
the further training is only performed if a confidence value is determined at a data point determined by the first temperature measured value, the duration, and the ambient temperature using the data-based temperature model, which is less than a predetermined confidence threshold value
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. A method; A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer; An electronic controller configured to; via the electronic controller; the operating mode of the electrical machine is adapted accordingly by reducing the power in order to avoid overheating of the component of the electrical machine);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. generic data acquisition); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. a temperature measurement of a temperature sensor on a component of an electrical machine in a technical device; the operating mode of the electrical machine is adapted accordingly by reducing the power in order to avoid overheating of the component of the electrical machine).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
Allowable Subject Matter (over prior art)
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
Examiner’s closest prior art to the claimed subject matter:
HONKOMP ET AL. (US 20220239169 A1) teaches ‘method for checking a model temperature of an electrical machine ascertained by a temperature model. At least one manipulated variable relating to the electrical machine is specified by a regulation of the electrical machine as a function of a setpoint variable. A model value of the manipulated variable is ascertained as a function of the manipulated variable and the model temperature from a machine model comprising at least one temperature-dependent parameter. A difference between the actual manipulated variable of the regulation and the model value of the manipulated variable and/or a difference between a variable derived from the actual manipulated variable of the regulation and a corresponding further variable derived from the model value of the manipulated variable is ascertained. The difference is compared to a limiting value and, if the limiting value is exceeded, a deviation of the model temperature from an actual temperature of the electrical machine is detected’;
CHOUK ET AL. (US 20180034407 A1) teaches ‘method for operating an electric machine (4), in particular of a motor vehicle (1), having a stator (10) with at least one stator coil. The stator coil is energized in order to set a required torque of the electric machine (4), and a temperature of the stator (10) of the electric machine (4) is detected by means of a temperature sensor (12). The current flowing through the stator coil is monitored in order to plausibility-check the detected temperature. In order to plausibility-check the temperature, the current in the stator coil is increased while maintaining the same torque, and the temperature is monitored for a temperature increase’;
LEE (US 20170155353 A1) teaches ‘a method for determining a rotor temperature of an electric motor, in particular an asynchronous motor, the rotor temperature being determined at least in accordance with reactive powers and/or in accordance with losses of the electric motor. A first rotor temperature is determined in accordance with the reactive powers and, depending on an operating range of the electric motor, plausibility-checked or replaced by a second rotor temperature, which is determined in accordance with the losses’.
None of the cited prior art alone or in combination provides motivation to explicitly teach:
A method;
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer;
An electronic controller
configured to
check the plausibility of a temperature measurement of a temperature sensor on a component of an electrical machine in a technical device,
by:
monitoring a current in the electrical machine;
upon detecting a steady-state load operation,
providing a first temperature measured value of a temperature of the component of the electrical machine, the duration of the steady-state load operation, and an ambient temperature;
detecting a second temperature measured value at the end of steady-state load operation;
determining a modeled temperature value using a data-based temperature model dependent on the first temperature measured value, the duration, and the ambient temperature,
wherein
the temperature model is trained to associate the first temperature measured value, the duration and the ambient temperature with a modeled temperature value;
and
checking, via the electronic controller, the plausibility of the second temperature measured value with the modeled temperature value
of claim(s) 1, 11, 13 (including dependent claim(s)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights