DETAILED 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 2-3 and 15-18 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.
Regarding claims 2-3, the phrase "in particular" 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).
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependence.
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 1-4, 6-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazaki (U.S. Publication No. 20210293665).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki teaches a method for calculation of a mechanical speed of an electric rotational machine, the method comprising: calculating a frequency spectrum from signals measured by at least one vibration sensor attached to the rotational machine (Fig.5, S11 and S13 and paragraph 52), extracting a mechanical speed component from the calculated frequency spectrum, calculating the mechanical speed of the rotational machine as a function of the mechanical speed component (Fig.10 and paragraphs 60-64), wherein the mechanical speed component is extracted as a function of a frequency component that is greater than a given threshold (Paragraph 69, “The controller is further capable of selecting a filter, such as a low-pass filter, a high-pass filter, or a band-pass filter, and limiting the frequency band in which the vibration data is measured”).
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki teaches (as best understood by the Examiner) wherein the threshold is a multiple, in particular a triple, of an average of a plurality of frequencies of the frequency spectrum (Paragraphs 104-105).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki teaches (as best understood by the Examiner) wherein the threshold is a multiple, in particular a triple, of a standard deviation of frequencies of the frequency spectrum (Paragraphs 104-105).
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki teaches wherein the mechanical speed component is extracted as a function of a plurality of frequencies that are greater than the threshold (Paragraph 69, “The controller is further capable of selecting a filter, such as a low-pass filter, a high-pass filter, or a band-pass filter, and limiting the frequency band in which the vibration data is measured”).
Regarding claim 6, Miyazaki teaches wherein the difference between the mechanical speed and the estimated motor speed is minimized by adjusting the control parameters of the rotational machine such that the estimated motor speed approaches to the calculated mechanical speed (Fig.16 and paragraphs 82-85).
Regarding claim 7, Miyazaki teaches wherein the mechanical speed is fed into a mathematical motor model of the rotational machine for controlling the rotational machine (Paragraphs 91-94).
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki teaches wherein a plurality of frequency spectra from multiple signals measured by multiple vibration sensors attached at various locations at the rotational machine are used and the mechanical speed is calculated as a function of the mechanical speed component having the greatest value and/or the smallest variance (Paragraphs 95-107).
Regarding claim 9, Miyazaki teaches wherein the calculated mechanical speed is sent to a safety function as a redundant speed feed-back signal (Paragraphs 91-94).
Regarding claim 10, Miyazaki teaches wherein a fault message is output in case a difference between the calculated mechanical speed and a speed calculated based on a signal measured by an encoder and/or a resolver is greater than a tolerance threshold (Fig.10 and paragraphs 60-64).
Regarding claim 11, Miyazaki teaches an electric rotational machine, the rotational machine comprising: a rotor (Paragraph 34), a number of vibration sensors (Paragraphs 96-97), a processor, wherein the processor is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Miyazaki teaches wherein the number of vibration sensors are part of a monitoring system (Paragraphs 96-97).
Regarding claim 13, Miyazaki teaches wherein the number of vibration sensors comprises at least one acceleration sensor (Paragraphs 96-97).
Regarding claim 14, Miyazaki teaches wherein the electric rotational machine does not comprise an encoder and/or a resolver (No encoder or resolver was mentioned in the reference).
Regarding claims 15-16, Miyazaki teaches wherein the mechanical speed component is extracted as a function of a plurality of frequencies that are greater than the threshold (Paragraph 69, “The controller is further capable of selecting a filter, such as a low-pass filter, a high-pass filter, or a band-pass filter, and limiting the frequency band in which the vibration data is measured”).
Regarding claim 20, Miyazaki teaches wherein the mechanical speed is fed into a mathematical motor model of the rotational machine for controlling the rotational machine (Paragraphs 91-94).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (U.S. Publication No. 20210293665) in view of Matsumoto et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210083602).
Regarding claims 5 and 17-19, Miyazaki teaches all the features of claims 1-4 as outlined above, Miyazaki further teaches minimizing a difference between the mechanical speed and the estimated motor speed by adjusting control parameters of the rotational machine (Fig.16 and paragraphs 82-85).
Miyazaki is silent about estimating a rotor position of a rotor of the rotational machine as a function of at least one electric parameter measured during operation of the rotational machine, determining an estimated motor speed based on the estimated rotor position
Matsumoto teaches estimating a rotor position of a rotor of the rotational machine as a function of at least one electric parameter measured during operation of the rotational machine (Paragraph 35), determining an estimated motor speed based on the estimated rotor position (Paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to detect an estimated motor speed based on Matsumoto’s method because detecting rotor speed using electrical parameters offers significant advantages over physical sensors, primarily by eliminating hardware costs and improving system reliability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights