DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants submitted:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicants submitted: “Examiner has not provided a reasoned explanation regarding what data is gathered and how the data is gathered as a result of the claimed "controlling the machine according to the monitored state of the machine." Examiner reasserts that the claims recite a limitation where the state of the electric machine been monitored by measuring current, predefining a frequency range and an interval; generating a spectrogram of measured current within the predefined frequency range, determining from the spectrogram a frequency position at which the measured current amplitude is at a maximum within the predefined frequency range and the phase difference. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), those steps can be performed by human “naked eye” observing a digital oscilloscope set to Spectrum Analyzer mode (“the current samples were acquired by the LabView software operating on a computer, which implements the synchronous sampling and impulse detection process for detecting mechanical faults of the wind turbine,” Qiao, [0142]) which can perform and display the measured current, a spectrogram within a predefined frequency range, identifying the frequency at which the current amplitude is maximum, and phase content; which amounts to mere data gathering, observing the data content performed as a mental process which is a form of an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims recite an additional element of controlling the machine accordingly; the controlling step is also recited at a high level of generality; no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a controller). Hence, the claims are directed to a mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); thus, claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea, and do not include an inventive concept that is something "significantly more" than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows (see claims analysis below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicants disagreed with regard to Examiner’s mapping claims limitation to prior art. Examiner mapped claim limitations "predefining a frequency range” and “predefining an interval,” “generating a spectrogram of measured current within the predefined frequency range," “determining from the spectrogram, within the predefined frequency range, measured current amplitudes," and "determining a frequency position at which the measured current amplitude is at a maximum and, at the same time, the determined phase relationship between lies in the predefined interval." Examiner asserts that Qiao discloses a controller that can include a current sensor, a low-pass filter and an analog-to-digital converter configured to generate real-time current data (302) by measuring one or more stator currents and current/frequency spectrum (“frequency spectra” 304) known to enable the extract amplitude (“current amplitude demodulated signal
S
a
(
n
)
”), phase, and frequency information (current frequency demodulated signal
S
f
(
n
)
) across a range of intervals (“to obtain current samples C(n), where n=1,2, 3, . . . , N and N is the length of the current measurement” ¶. [0091]- [0101]). Qiao introduce “Fault Signature Extraction and Evaluation” to extract the frequency at which current amplitude is at a maximum (Qiao draw a relationship between magnitude of the current signal at certain frequency and the power (P∝i(t)2) generated at that frequency ¶. [0130]) and determined phase relationship between lies in the predefined interval “the MATLAB function “filtfilt(b, a) was used to implement the forward-backward filter for phase estimation of the current signal, where b=ones(1, 10)/10 and a=1.” (Qiao, ¶. [0144]). Qiao introduce the algorithm of ¶. [0118]- [0121] to estimate the phase angle of the nonstationary sinusoidal current signal in time domain; however, it is silence with regard to determining a phase relationship between a current vector and a voltage vector or between two current vectors (frequency domain/vector control). In the field of the inventor's endeavor; Pramod determining a phase relationship between a current vector and a voltage vector or between two current vectors (column 6). Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Qiao with the teaching of Pramod to implement a reference frame transformation by applying it to a stationary frame (abc) to a synchronous (dq) frame in order to calculate phase difference between current/voltage vectors or current/current phase vectors within the current measurement system to identify phase isolation (Pramod, column 5, lines 47- 67).
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea, and do not include an inventive concept that is something "significantly more" than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows (see claims analysis below).
Re. Claim 1, A computer implemented method for controlling an electric machine comprising:
operating the electric machine;
measuring current with a measurement unit at the electric machine;
predefining a frequency range;
predefining an interval;
generating a spectrogram of measured current within the predefined frequency range;
determining from the spectrogram, within the predefined frequency range, measured current amplitudes;
determining a phase relationship between a current vector and a voltage vector or between two current vectors;
determining a frequency position at which the measured current amplitude is at a maximum and, at the same time, the determined phase relationship between lies in the predefined interval;
assigning the determined frequency position to a state of the electric machine;
monitoring the state of the electric machine as a result of the determined frequency position; and
controlling the machine according to the monitored state of the machine.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Claim 1 recites a series of steps; therefore, is process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The claim recites the limitation of determining:
operating a motor…
measuring current …
predefining a frequency range …
determining from the spectrogram…
determining a phase relationship…
determining a frequency position…
assigning the determined frequency position…
monitoring the state of the electric machine…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept as the determination is done based on some mathematical calculation based on data (frequency range and making a determination or using predefined frequency range data at to make a determination by assigning and monitoring; note - Digitech Image Tech., LLC V. Electronics for Imaging, Inc which has a similar application of generating two data profiles). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical application?
The claim recites an additional element:
controlling the machine…
wherein a generic aspect of controlling step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering calculated values), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The controlling step is also recited at a high level of generality. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a controller).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claims 2- 20 recite additional elements is generic aspect for performing the determining, monitoring and assigning steps at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering computed power values for comparison step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The comparison step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the comparison step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (controller).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US 20160033580 A1) in view of Pramod et al. (US 11283391 B2).
Re. Claim 1, A computer implemented method (process 200 ) for controlling an electric machine (fig. 12) comprising:
operating the electric machine (Fig. 12);
measuring current with a measurement unit at the electric machine (Fig. 3, S302, ¶. [0091]);
predefining a frequency range; predefining an interval;
(¶. [0093]) ;
generating a spectrogram of measured current within the predefined frequency range (¶. [0094]);
determining from the spectrogram, within the predefined frequency range, measured current amplitudes (¶. [0095]);
determining a frequency position at which the measured current amplitude is at a maximum and, at the same time, the determined phase relationship between lies in the predefined interval (refer to “Fault Signature Extraction and Evaluation”);
assigning the determined frequency position to a state of the electric machine ( abnormal impulses (650));
monitoring the state of the electric machine as a result of the determined frequency position (“Rotor Eccentricity,” “Bearing Cage Fault,” and “Gear Fault Detection”¶. [0143]- [0158]); and
controlling the machine according to the monitored state of the machine (¶. [0019].)
Qiao introduce the algorithm of ¶. [0118]- [0121] to estimate the phase angle of the nonstationary sinusoidal current signal in time domain; however, it is silence with regard to determining a phase relationship between a current vector and a voltage vector or between two current vectors (frequency domain/vector control). In the field of the inventor's endeavor; Pramod determining a phase relationship between a current vector and a voltage vector or between two current vectors (column 6). Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Qiao with the teaching of Pramod to implement a reference frame transformation by applying it to a stationary frame (abc) to a synchronous (dq) frame in order to calculate phase difference between current/voltage vectors or current/current phase vectors within the current measurement system to identify phase isolation (Pramod, column 5, lines 47- 67).
Re. claim 2, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses a setting a plurality of different predefined frequency ranges, for each predefined frequency range providing a spectrogram of a current amplitude, and in the spectrogram, identifying a frequency at which a current amplitude having a maximum value and a phase relationship between a current vector and a voltage vector or between two current vectors located in the predefined interval, and setting the identified frequency to be a frequency position that is characteristic of a state of the electric machine within the predefined frequency range (refer to Figs. 15 and 19- 20 of Qiao).
Re. claim 3, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses wherein the different predefined frequency ranges are non-overlapping (refer to Figs. 15 and 19- 20 of Qiao).
Re. claim 4, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses the electric machine is a three-phase machine and the state of the machine is a fault condition or an operating state (Fig. 12 of Qiao and synchronous motor in Fig. 1 of Pramod).
Re. claims 4- 7, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses three-phase machine is an asynchronous machine and the frequency range is determined for a slip (see slip ratio in Qiao ¶. [0075]); except for the slip range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a slip range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. claim 7, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses wherein the three-phase machine is a synchronous machine and the state of the machine is in faulty (abstract).
Re. claims 8- 11, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses wherein the phase relationship is a phase relationship between an α current vector and a β current vector (Pramod, column 6); except the interval range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a interval range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. claim 12, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses the phase relationship is determined from an admittance or an impedance (Qiao, ¶. [0075] and Pramod, column 7- 8).
Re. claim 13- 16, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses measuring the current amplitude over a predefined measurement time (Qiao Fig. 8 is a graph that illustrates the calculation of synchronous sampling times), except the predefined measurement time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a predefined measurement time, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233of between approx. 0.1 second and 10 seconds
Re. claim 17- 18, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program code (Qiao, ¶. [0085])
Re. claim 19, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses a measurement unit configured to measure a current or a voltage of a three-phase machine (Qiao, ¶. [0051]).
Re. claim 20, the combination of Qiao and Pramod discloses a phase filter set such that phase relationships lying outside of the predetermined interval are filtered out (Qiao, ¶. [0018], [0089], and [0107]).
Conclusion
4. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at Colon-Santana. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights