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 11/12/2024 has been acknowledged and considered by examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim is missing a terminal period at the end of the sentence.
The phrase “includes to reduce” is grammatically awkward; a possible correction would read “includes reducing the load.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22 and 30 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.
As to claim 22, the claim recites “determining parameters of the extended equivalent circuit from/by using nameplate data.” The use of alternative phrasing, “from/by”, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the parameters are determined “from nameplate data”, “by using nameplate data”, or “from using nameplate data.”. A possible correction would be to amend this to a single, clear phrase, such as “from nameplate data” or “by using nameplate data”.
As to claim 30, the claim recites “an IloT-enabled device.” The phrase “IloT-enabled” is an industry acronym and indefinite. While the specification defines it as “industrial internet of things”, relying on a broad, evolving industry acronym in the claims without reciting the specific structural limitations that make a device “IIoT-enabled” renders the boundaries of the claim unclear. (MPEP § 2173.05(u))
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 16, 29, 32, and 33 are directed to a method, a system, and computer readable mediums respectively, which are considered to be a process, a machine, and articles of manufacture. Therefore, claims 16, 29, 32, and 33 fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 16-33 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 a method, a system, and computer readable mediums, 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 "determining operating point data," "determining a mechanical output power and power losses," "determining a load-dependent energy efficiency," "calculating an energy consumption... for a determined time interval," and "notifying an undercutting of a predetermined threshold." These limitation(s), as drafted, describe a process of mathematical manipulation and data analysis. Specifically, the claims encompass a series of mathematical equations to derive numerical values for power, efficiency, and consumption. This sequence of collecting data and performing calculations constitutes a mathematical relationship. Furthermore, the logic of notifying when a value undercuts a predetermined threshold describes a mental process of basic logic and comparison that can be performed in the mind or on paper. The mere nominal recitation of a "computing device" or "system" 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 a "detector," a "computing device," an "electrical machine," "visualizing," and "notifying." The "detector" and "computing device" are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and operate in their ordinary capacity to gather data and perform calculations, which does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. Mere data gathering via a detector is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
While the "electrical machine" is a physical component, its recitation merely describes the environment or field of use (motor monitoring) in which the abstract idea operates. The steps of "visualizing" and "notifying" constitute mere presentation of information and post-solution activity. The abstract idea of calculating energy efficiency and consumption does not result in an improvement to the electrical machine's physical operation or the functioning of the computing device itself; rather, it merely generates a piece of information about the machine's state. The claims do not recite a specific implementation that changes the way the machine 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 detectors and processors to calculate efficiency and power consumption for monitoring industrial equipment is ubiquitous. For instance, EP3907878A1 (Deeg), US20190267923A1 (Anders), and US20220011763A1 (Negri) demonstrate that detecting stray magnetic fields, acquiring operational data, and calculating efficiency to detect undercutting thresholds are standard practices in the motor control arts. Together, these illustrate that the "detector," "computing device," and the sequence of data-gathering and visualizing 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) indicate 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 17-28, 30, and 31 do not include any other additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 17-22 and 31 specify the source or type of the data (e.g., mechanical vibrations, nameplate data) or provide specific mathematical models (e.g., reference electrical model, extended equivalent circuit) 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. Furthermore, claims 23-28 specify "visualizing a carbon footprint" and "recommending" optimizations, such as "recommending a change of a voltage" or "recommending... to reduce the load." Providing a recommendation or visualizing additional calculated data is merely the presentation of information; the claims do not recite actually executing a physical control action to change the machine's operation. Therefore, claims 16-33 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 16, 20-24, 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3907878A1 (Deeg) in view of US20190267923A1 (Anders) and US20220011763A1 (Negri).
With regards to claims 16, 29, 32, and 33, Deeg teaches a method for monitoring of an electrical machine during its operation under a variable load, the method comprising (“an arrangement for determining the operating behavior of an electric rotary machine… which is connected to an operating voltage…” [0001]):
detecting in a detector a stray magnetic field of the electrical machine (“the sensor device is designed to detect a stray magnetic field” [0008]);
determining operating point data of the electrical machine based on the detected stray magnetic field and on an electrical model of the electrical machine (“from the detected stray magnetic field, wherein an extended equivalent circuit diagram comprising predetermined machine-specific parameters… is stored on the computing device and the computing device... an operating point of the machine is determined from the determined operating behavior” [0008] and [0021]);
determining a mechanical output power and power losses of the electrical machine using the electrical model and the operating point data (“and to calculate a slip frequency f 2 and a synchronous frequency f 1 or synchronous rotational speed from the detected stray magnetic field…” [0008] and [0017]);
determining a load-dependent energy efficiency of the electrical machine from the mechanical output power and from the power losses (“…determine a torque and/or a power, e.g. mechanical shaft power and/or a power factor and/or an efficiency…” [0019] and [0035]) ;
visualizing the load-dependent energy efficiency of the electrical machine as a function of time (“a display device configured to visualize the operating behavior of the machine” [0016], [0030], and [0040]);
Deeg does not teach calculating an energy consumption of the electrical machine based on the mechanical output power and the load-dependent energy efficiency of the electrical machine for a determined time interval.
However, Anders teaches calculating an energy consumption of the electrical machine based on the mechanical output power and the load-dependent energy efficiency of the electrical machine for a determined time interval (“The absorbed electrical energy is determined by way of a time integration function” [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 determining arrangement of Deeg to implement the teachings of Anders wherein it calculates an energy consumption of the electrical machine based on the mechanical output power and the load-dependent energy efficiency of the electrical machine for a determined time interval to “coordinate maintenance intervals or, if necessary, to initiate countermeasures in good time” (Anders [0004]).
Deeg as modified by Anders does not teach notifying an undercutting of a predetermined threshold value when the energy efficiency is lower than the predetermined threshold value.
However, Negri teaches notifying an undercutting of a predetermined threshold value when the energy efficiency is lower than the predetermined threshold value (“Anomaly detector 8108 compares signals and identifies an unhealthy state if the difference exceeds a “given threshold difference” [0139]).
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 determining arrangement of Deeg as modified by Anders to implement the teachings of Negri wherein it notifies an undercutting of a predetermined threshold value when the energy efficiency is lower than the predetermined threshold value to enable preventative maintenance and optimization of operational parameters of electrical machines (Negri [0004]).
With regards to claim 20, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches further comprising: receiving mechanical vibrations of the electrical machine; and using detected mechanical vibrations to determine the operating point data (“the oscillation behavior of the rotor is determined by means of an acceleration sensor or an, in particular optical, vibration sensor… A rotor frequency is advantageously determined from the oscillation behavior…” [0021] – [0023] Anders).
With regards to claim 21, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches wherein the electrical model is designed as an extended equivalent circuit (“wherein an extended equivalent circuit diagram comprising predetermined machine-specific parameters… is stored on the computing device” [0008] and [0036] Deeg).
With regards to claim 22, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches further comprising determining parameters of the extended equivalent circuit from/by using nameplate data (“The characteristic values can be found for example in a datasheet and/or on a type plate…” [0033] Anders).
With regards to claim 23, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches further comprising recommending optimization of the energy efficiency of the electrical machine (“initiate maintenance, repair or operational parameter changes accordingly” [0004] and [0073] Negri).
With regards to claim 24, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches wherein the optimization is recommended regularly (“conducting checks at specific intervals on state variables… in order to coordinate maintenance intervals or, if necessary, to initiate countermeasures in good time” [0004] Anders).
With regards to claim 26, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches wherein the recommending comprises recommending a change of the operating conditions of the machine when the machine works in overload, or to increase the operating conditions when the machine works in underload (“the results of such an analysis may be presented… which the human expert may evaluate the machine state and initiate maintenance, repair or operational parameter changes accordingly“ [0073] Negri).
With regards to claim 27, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches wherein the change of the operating conditions includes a change of a voltage or flux of an inverter of the electrical machine and/or a change of a load, when the machine works in overload, or to increase the load, when the machine works in underload (“for monitoring and automated analysis of the performance of a non-stationary machine… include machines driven by a time varying input, such as, by way of example, a servo motor controlled by a driver modifying the frequency and magnitude of the input power over time” [0056] Negri).
With regards to claim 28, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches a change of the load ("modification of operating parameters of the machine based on the state of health" [0016] and "modifying machine parameters such as incoming power and rotation speed" [0111] Negri). Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri does not explicitly teach wherein a change of the load includes to reduce the load.
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 reduced the load of the machine taught by Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri when the machine works in overload. Since it has been held that when there is a design need to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP § 2141.03.
With regards to claim 30, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches wherein the system is designed as an IloT-enabled device (“a system comprising an asynchronous machine and an IIoT infrastructure” [0027] Deeg).
With regards to claim 31, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri teaches wherein the detector comprises a magnetic field detector configured to receive the stray magnetic field of the electrical machine, and an acceleration detector configured to receive mechanical vibrations of the electrical machine (“the oscillation behavior of the rotor is determined by means of an acceleration sensor or an, in particular optical, vibration sensor, which is mounted together with the magnetic field sensor” [0021] Anders).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3907878A1 (Deeg) in view of US20190267923A1 (Anders), US20220011763A1 (Negri), and “Technical and Economic Evaluation of Efficiency Improvement after Rewinding in Low-Power Induction Motors: A Brazilian Case” (Aguiar).
With regards to claim 17, Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri does not teach further comprising: using a reference electrical model of a reference electrical machine and the operating point data of the electrical machine to determine a mechanical output power and power losses of the reference electrical machine; determining a reference efficiency of the reference electrical machine from the mechanical output power and from the power losses; and comparing the reference efficiency with the efficiency of the electrical machine.
However, Aguiar teaches further comprising: using a reference electrical model of a reference electrical machine and the operating point data of the electrical machine to determine a mechanical output power and power losses of the reference electrical machine (“The classical analysis of the three-phase SCIM is performed with the equivalent circuit (EC) per phase… The efficiency calculation with equivalent circuit presented in Figure 1a is based on summation of known losses which can be predicted analytically. Stator losses of the new winding (Ps) are easily calculated” [pages 4-5, sections 2.3-2.4]) determining a reference efficiency of the reference electrical machine from the mechanical output power and from the power losses (“Table 2 presents values of parameters calculated to the useful windings, including efficiency (η) given in (16) for a new winding…” [page 6, equation 16]); and comparing the reference efficiency with the efficiency of the electrical machine (“Finally, we conclude that the motors after rewinding are the best option in relation to motor replacement from an existing SCIMIE2 by a SCIMIE3 or IE4. This conclusion is reached taking into account the number of operating hours and the motor load…” [page 6, section 6.1]).
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 determining arrangement of Deeg as modified by Anders and Negri to implement the teachings of Aguiar wherein further comprising: using a reference electrical model of a reference electrical machine and the operating point data of the electrical machine to determine a mechanical output power and power losses of the reference electrical machine; determining a reference efficiency of the reference electrical machine from the mechanical output power and from the power losses; and comparing the reference efficiency with the efficiency of the electrical machine to perform “an economical and technical viability analysis on motor replacement in the end of the life cycle by another motor which improves its efficiency…” (Aguiar [page 2, Introduction]).
With regards to claim 18, Deeg as modified by Angers, Negri, and Aguiar teaches further comprising recommending use of a more efficient further electrical machine, when the reference electrical machine is more efficient than the electrical machine (“Finally, we conclude that the motors after rewinding are the best option in relation to motor replacement from an existing SCIMIE2 by a SCIMIE3 or IE4. This conclusion is reached taking into account the number of operating hours and the motor load…” [page 6, section 6.1] Aguiar).
With regards to claim 19, Deeg as modified by Angers, Negri, and Aguiar teaches further comprising: calculating a reference energy consumption of the reference electrical machine and an energy consumption of the electrical machine for a predetermined time interval (“Life cycle (m) considered for a 1.5 HP SCIM is 10 years… The viability will be evaluated for 4000 and 8000 operation hours per year… The electricity cost (E) is a function of load (L, p.u.), rated load (Pn, kW), annual operating hours (H, h/year), efficiency in function of load (η, p.u.), and the electricity tariff (T(t), US$/kWh), which varies with time t” [pages 10 and 12, sections 4.1, and 5] Aguiar); and comparing the reference energy consumption of the reference electrical machine with the energy consumption of the electrical machine (“Thus, the method is based on the balance of the increase of investments (for high efficiency option), ∆I, and the saved energy in the same option, ∆E… where Ilower is the investment to maintain option with lower efficiency and Elower is the electricity consumption for option with lower efficiency. The Ihigher is the investment to second option, with higher efficiency and, Ehigher is the electricity consumption for this new option…” [page 11, section 4.2.1.] Aguiar).
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
/JUDY NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights