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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 08/28/2024 has been acknowledged and considered by examiner.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
As to claims 1, 7, and 8, the limitation that the circuitry is configured to "update an anomaly level based on the inspection data, the amplitude, the statistic, and the exponential moving average value…" (Pg. 1, lines 16-18; Pg. 3, lines 32- 34; Pg. 4, lines 13-15 ) renders the claim unclear. The specification at [0072] and Equation 5 explicitly defines the "amplitude" as a direct linear scaling of the "statistic" (σ). Because the amplitude is merely the statistic multiplied by a constant, it is unclear whether these are intended to be two independent variables or if the claim is intended to require a specific mathematical relationship.
The use of both terms "amplitude" and "statistic" as distinct bases for the "anomaly level" calculation, when one is a subset or a derivative of the other, results in a "double inclusion" of the same technical limitation. This creates ambiguity as to the metes and bounds of the claim, as it is unclear if an anomaly level based only on the statistic (which inherently includes its scaled amplitude) would infringe, or if a separate, independent calculation is required for each. MPEP 2173.05
As to claims 3 and 4, the limitations "difference between the inspection data and the exponential moving average value" and updating the anomaly level by "adding [or subtracting] the change level to the anomaly level" fail to establish sequential state boundaries. Because the claims do not explicitly specify that the circuitry utilizes the historical or previous iteration of both the moving average and the anomaly level, disclosed in specification Equations 8 and 9 as yi(n-1) and Se(n-1), respectively the claim limitations describe a mathematically impossible simultaneous loop (X = X + Y). A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to configure physical registers or memory spaces to conform to the claim boundaries.
As to claim 5, the limitation "divide the sum of the inspection data and a first value by a second value," fails to assign the resulting product to any structural variable or functional component. The claim then immediately repeats this identical mathematical instruction word-for-word in the subsequent clause to define a "third value." This redundant and incomplete drafting leaves a structural step hanging without programmatic or physical effect, rendering the computational layout of the circuitry vague and indeterminate.
As to claim 6, the claim requires the "smoothing factor" introduced in parent Claim 5 to be "greater than or equal to 100 and less than or equal to 1,000." Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, a person of ordinary skill in the art must consult the specification to interpret this mathematical term, wherein paragraph [0074] and Equation 6 explicitly define the "smoothing factor" as a fractional constant that must be "greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to 1." Because a single claimed variable cannot simultaneously exist as a fraction less than or equal to 1 and a whole number greater than or equal to 100, the claim is self-contradictory, and its scope cannot be determined.
Claim 2 is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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, 7, and 8 are directed to an anomaly detector, a motor system, and a method respectively, which are considered to be a machine, a machine, and a process. Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 8 fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are directed to an anomaly detector, a motor system, and a method, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under the “Mental Processes” and "Mathematical Relationships" Groupings.
The independent claims recite "acquire... inspection data," "update a statistic," "update an amplitude from an updated statistic," "update an exponential moving average value," and "update an anomaly level based on [the variables]." These limitation(s), as drafted, describe a process of mathematical manipulation and data analysis. Specifically, the claims encompass a series of mathematical equations (as disclosed in the specification as Equations 1–11) to derive a numerical "level". This sequence of collecting data and performing calculations (averages, standard deviations, and cumulative sums) constitutes a mathematical relationship. Furthermore, the logic of updating a value based on a comparison (e.g., as seen in Claim 3 where a value is updated to zero if less than zero) describes a mental process of basic logic that can be performed in the mind or on paper. The mere nominal recitation of "circuitry" does not take the claim limitations out of these groupings as it merely functions to automate the mathematical algorithm. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of "circuitry" and a "motor." The "circuitry" is recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and operates in its ordinary capacity to perform calculations, which does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
While the "motor" is a physical component, its recitation merely describes the environment or field of use (motor monitoring) in which the abstract idea operates. The abstract idea of calculating an anomaly level does not result in an improvement to the motor's physical operation or the functioning of the circuitry itself; rather, it merely generates a piece of information (an "anomaly level") about the motor's state. The claims do not recite a specific implementation that changes the way the motor is driven or controlled in a non-conventional way to overcome a technical problem. Instead, they function to provide a numerical result from a mental process of data analysis.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. To show that the set of additional elements in combination are well-understood, routine, and conventional, the Examiner identifies that the use of standard processors to calculate statistical values (like standard deviation and moving averages) for monitoring industrial equipment is ubiquitous. For instance, KR 20230075513 A (Yuto) and JP 2022061677 A (Akinori) demonstrate that acquiring motor current/voltage and applying recursive statistical filters to detect anomalies are standard practices in the motor control arts. Together, these illustrate that the "circuitry" and the sequence of data-gathering and statistical updating are standard components used in their expected manner.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) indicates that collecting information, analyzing it, and reporting the results is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. The additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-6 do not include any other additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-6 specify the source of the data (rotational speed, duty cycle) or provide the specific mathematical steps (Equations 8-11) for the calculation. Specifying a narrower mathematical formula or the type of data being analyzed does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20230075513 A (Yuto) in view of JP 2022061677 A (Akinori).
With regards to claims 1, 7, and 8, Yuto teaches an anomaly detector for detecting an anomaly of a motor ([0001]), the anomaly detector comprising:
circuitry configured to acquire a characteristic value related to the motor, and process the characteristic value (a measurement circuit and processor for motor diagnosis [0013]),
wherein the circuitry is configured to acquire the characteristic value related to the motor as inspection data (acquiring rotation frequency spectrum values [0033]),
update a statistic of the inspection data (calculating a standard deviation “σ value" [0013], [0028]), …
and update an exponential moving average value of the inspection data (a "moving average buffer" [0033]) …
detecting the anomaly of the motor based on an anomaly level (comparing data to a threshold to determine an "abnormal state" [0039], [0042]).
Yuto does not explicitly teach update an amplitude from an updated statistic and update an anomaly level based on the inspection data, the amplitude, the statistic, and the exponential moving average value.
However, Akinori teaches update an amplitude from an updated statistic (using a threshold value “th” based on the moving deviation [0034]) and update an anomaly level based on the inspection data, the amplitude, the statistic, and the exponential moving average value (calculating a “degree of abnormality” (anomaly level) based on the “number of log occurrences x”, a threshold “th” (amplitude), a moving deviation “σ” (statistic), and a moving average “μ” [0012], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detector of Yuto to incorporate the scoring logic taught by Akinori wherein it update an amplitude from an updated statistic and update an anomaly level based on the inspection data, the amplitude, the statistic, and the exponential moving average value to quantify the degree of decrease in the number of occurrences and detect "silent failures" where clear log messages or signals are not output [0037], [0041].
With regards to claim 2, Yuto teaches wherein the characteristic value includes any one among a current magnitude or a voltage magnitude of power that is provided to the motor (measurement of "current and voltage" [0013]); or a rotational speed of the motor ("rotational frequency band detection" [0027]).
While Yuto does not explicitly teach a duty cycle of a signal to drive the motor, Yuto teaches the use of an inverter to drive the motor [0010]. Because inverter-driven motors inherently utilize Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) to control power, the "duty cycle" is the fundamental control parameter available within the inverter circuitry disclosed by Yuto. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the duty cycle of the drive signal as a characteristic value, as it is the primary correlate to the current and voltage already monitored by Yuto.
With regards to claim 3, Yuto teaches wherein the statistic includes a standard deviation of the inspection data (calculating a standard deviation “σ value" [0013], [0028]).
Yuto does not teach wherein the circuitry is configured to multiply a first value by the amplitude, the first value being obtained by subtracting half of the amplitude from a difference between the inspection data and the exponential moving average value, and divide, by a square of the standard deviation, a second value obtained by multiplying the first value by the amplitude to determine a change level, and wherein the circuitry is configured to update the anomaly level to a third value obtained by adding the change level to the anomaly level, upon occurrence of a condition in which the third value is greater than or equal to zero, and update the anomaly level to zero, upon occurrence of a condition in which the third value is less than zero.
While the specific algebraic steps of Claim 3 are a variation of a Z-score, Akinori teaches the core functional limitation of updating the anomaly level to a value obtained by a change level calculation, upon occurrence of a condition in which the value is greater than or equal to zero, and updating the anomaly level to zero, upon occurrence of a condition in which the value is less than zero (the max (0, − (x−μ) / σ−th)) function [0012]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detector of Yuto to utilize the specific relative distance calculations taught by Akinori wherein the circuitry is configured to multiply a first value by the amplitude, the first value being obtained by subtracting half of the amplitude from a difference between the inspection data and the exponential moving average value, and divide, by a square of the standard deviation, a second value obtained by multiplying the first value by the amplitude to determine a change level, and wherein the circuitry is configured to update the anomaly level to a third value obtained by adding the change level to the anomaly level, upon occurrence of a condition in which the third value is greater than or equal to zero, and update the anomaly level to zero, upon occurrence of a condition in which the third value is less than zero to scale the anomaly level based on the sensitivity requirements of the motor system.
With regards to claim 4, Yuto teaches wherein the statistic includes a standard deviation of the inspection data (calculating a standard deviation “σ value" [0013], [0028]).
Yuto does not teach wherein the circuitry is configured to multiply a first value by the amplitude, the first value being obtained by adding half of the amplitude to a difference between the inspection data and the exponential moving average value, and divide, by a square of the standard deviation, a second value obtained by multiplying the first value by the amplitude to determine a change level, and wherein the circuitry is configured to update the anomaly level to a third value obtained by subtracting the change level from the anomaly level, upon occurrence of a condition in which the third value is greater than or equal to zero, and update the anomaly level to zero, upon occurrence of a condition in which the third value is less than zero.
While Akinori’s function in [0012] targets a sudden decrease in activity, Akinori explicitly teaches that data variations occur symmetrically on either side of the mean, using the absolute distance formula: “Z = | x−μ | / σ” [0034].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detector of Yuto to utilize the specific relative distance calculations taught by Akinori wherein the circuitry is configured to multiply a first value by the amplitude, the first value being obtained by adding half of the amplitude to a difference between the inspection data and the exponential moving average value, and divide, by a square of the standard deviation, a second value obtained by multiplying the first value by the amplitude to determine a change level, and wherein the circuitry is configured to update the anomaly level to a third value obtained by subtracting the change level from the anomaly level, upon occurrence of a condition in which the third value is greater than or equal to zero, and update the anomaly level to zero, upon occurrence of a condition in which the third value is less than zero. Inverting the operators to calculate deviations above the moving average is a predictable application of known statistical formulas to detect failures modes occurring in the opposite direction.
With regards to claim 5, Yuto teaches calculating a moving average of inspection data [0033].
Yuto as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is configured to divide the sum of the inspection data and a first value by a second value, the first value being obtained by multiplying the exponential moving average value by a smoothing factor, and the second value being obtained by adding 1 to the smoothing factor, and update the exponential moving average value to a third value obtained by dividing the sum of the inspection data and the first value by the second value (specific recursive formula). However, this equation represents a standard recursive Exponential Moving Average (EMA). It is common general knowledge in the field of microcontrollers and digital signal processing to implement a moving average using this specific recurrence relation to eliminate the need for storing a large historical data buffer, thereby saving hardware costs and memory as suggested by Yuto’s use of a "buffer" for processing [0013].
With regards to claim 6, Yuto as modified teaches the smoothing (“rotating frequency spectrum value moving average buffer” used to store “values for averaging and calculation processing” and an “averaging operation unit 121” for performing averaging processing (smoothing)).
While Yuto does not explicitly teach wherein the smoothing factor is greater than or equal to 100 and less than or equal to 1,000, the selection of a specific value for a smoothing factor in a moving average calculation is a matter of routine optimization and routine experimentation of a result-effective variable. It is well known in the art of motor diagnostics that a smoothing factor controls the balance between signal stability and responsiveness.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the smoothing factor of Yuto wherein the smoothing factor is greater than or equal to 100 and less than or equal to 1,000 to improve "detection precision" by isolating "changes in operating conditions" from "signs of motor deterioration" [0014].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSAMAH MURSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-9534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11 a.m. 8 p.m. ET..
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/OSAMAH MURSHED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JENNIFER BAHLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights