DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on December 05, 2024.
Claims 1-3 are presented for Examination. Claim 1 is independent.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “measurement module,” and “ an image output module” in claim 1, “a generation module”, “storage module” and “ a detection module “ in claim 2, and “ a matching rate measurement module”, “ a threshold input module” in claim 3.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited “module” limitations of claims 1-3 use generic time being terminology and are defined by the functions they perform. Accordingly, the limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
For the claimed function of measuring a matching rate between a real-time current waveform and a reference current waveform, the specification fails to disclose corresponding structure, including a computer-implemented algorithm, sufficient to perform the claimed function. The disclosure merely states that the module “matches” the waveforms and measures a rate. See paragraphs [0025], [0026], and [0038]. It does not disclose steps, equations, data processing operations, or an algorithm for calculating the matching rate.
Because the specification lacks corresponding structure for the claimed, “measurement module,” and “ an image output module” in claim 1, “a generation module”, “storage module” and “ a detection module “ in claim 2, and “ a matching rate measurement module”, “ a threshold input module” in claim 3, the scope of the claim cannot be determined (See MPEP § 2181).
Claim 1 recites “ the current value” in line 6 which has lack of antecedent issues.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Since the independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and hence the dependent claims of 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 of this title, 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel et al. (US 2020/0341063 A1; “Bickel”) in view of Mayleben et al. (US 2022/0025894 A1; “Mayleben”).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Bickel teaches that a smart motor control center with a predictive maintenance function which protects a motor and a related loading device, comprising:
one or more current measurement modules which measure a real-time current value flowing in a power supply line for supplying power to the motor and transmit measured current value information to a detection server (Bickel discloses a motor-monitoring system including an intelligent electronic device (“IED”) electrically coupled to a motor and electrical power system. The IED includes a current module 114 having a sensor for measuring current flowing into induction motor 102, and one or more controllers 120 for processing the measured current information (Bickel, ¶¶ [0064]–[0065], Fig. 1). Thus, Bickel teaches the claimed current measurement module configured to measure a real-time current value in a power line supplying power to a motor and transmit the current-value information to a detection server);
the detection server which detects a real-time operation state of the motor on the basis of the current value information measured and transmitted from the current measurement module (controller processes captured time-domain energy-related signals, including motor-current signals or waveforms, to determine an operating state of the motor and identify a motor issue (Bickel, ¶¶ [0045]–[0048], [0115]–[0122], Fig. 7). Bickel expressly teaches that motor current signals reflect motor conditions, including broken rotor bars, dynamic eccentricity, and bearing damage (Bickel, ¶¶ [0051], [0114]).); and
an image output module which outputs and provides the real-time operation state of the motor detected by the detection server in a form of an image (Bickel teaches an alarm module 130 coupled through interface 132 to an external system including a display device for displaying motor-condition information (Bickel, ¶ [0067], Fig. 1). Mayleben more specifically teaches an integrated smart controller located between a power supply and motor, the controller including a notifier and visual display for presenting motor-test results and motor health status to a user (Mayleben, ¶¶ [0029]–[0031], Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0034]–[0035], Fig. 2). Mayleben also teaches graphical user interfaces that display a motor or pump health status and a detected fault condition (Mayleben, ¶¶ [0096]–[0098], Figs. 14A–14D). Thus, Mayleben teaches the claimed image output module configured to output the detected real-time motor operating state as an image.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bickel’s motor-monitoring system to include Mayleben’s local visual notifier/display arrangement. Such a modification would have predictably enabled an operator to immediately view motor-health, fault, or abnormal-condition information at the controller, rather than requiring review solely through a remote or external system. Mayleben expressly identifies visual indicators, digital displays, and GUI-based health-status reporting as mechanisms for informing users of detected motor conditions (Mayleben, ¶¶ [0030]–[0035], [0048], [0089]–[0098]).
Further, Bickel teaches that IEDs may be installed in electrical power transmission or distribution systems and may be embedded in circuit breakers, relays, or other electrical apparatus (Bickel, ¶¶ [0039], [0043]). Therefore, locating the current-sensing, processing, threshold-detection, and display functionality in, on, or as part of a motor-control-center enclosure would have been an obvious matter of equipment arrangement and integration for compact installation in a motor power-distribution environment.
Regarding claim 2,
Bickel teaches that wherein the detection server includes:
a generation module which lists the current values measured and transmitted from the current measurement module over time to construct a real-time current waveform for the motor;
a storage module which stores and manages a reference current waveform which is constructed by listing current values consumed in the motor in a normally driven state of the motor over time; and
a detection module which detects the real-time operation state of the motor on the basis of the real-time current waveform of the motor constructed in the generation module and the reference current waveform stored in the storage module ((Bickel, ¶¶ [0102]–[0104], [0111]). Bickel also teaches comparing measured motor data against historical data from the same motor (Bickel, ¶¶ [0013], [0016], [0025], [0107]). Therefore, Bickel teaches or renders obvious storing a normal-operation reference data set for comparison against subsequently measured real-time motor data.
Regarding claim 3,
Bickel fails to teach but Mayleben teaches that wherein the detection server further includes:
a matching rate measurement module which measures a matching rate of the real-time current waveform to the reference current waveform by matching the real-time current waveform constructed in the generation module and the reference current waveform stored in the storage module; and
a threshold input module which inputs and sets a threshold value for the matching rate of the real-time current waveform to the reference current waveform and a threshold value for a current value of the current waveform, respectively, and
when the matching rate measured by the matching rate measurement module exceeds the threshold value for the matching rate set to the threshold input module or the current value of the real-time current waveform exceeds the threshold value for the current value set to the threshold input module, the detection module detects that the motor is in an abnormal stat( Mayleben expressly teaches evaluating current draw against predetermined thresholds and identifying motor failure conditions when the current exceeds such thresholds. For example, Mayleben teaches a high-current condition and an exceeded high-current limit associated with motor health warnings or critical failure status (Mayleben, ¶¶ [0089]–[0093], Table 1). Mayleben also teaches that threshold values may be adjusted depending on motor type, application, and desired warning criteria (Mayleben, ¶ [0058]). It would have been obvious to apply Mayleben’s threshold-based current monitoring to Bickel’s current-monitoring and motor-diagnostic system to provide a direct current-limit abnormality criterion in addition to Bickel’s baseline-comparison criterion.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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 on 571-272-2060. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights