DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-14, 16-18, 20, and 22-23 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 11-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Per claim 11, the limitations “the at least one sensor” and “the device” in lines 3-4 lack sufficient antecedent bases. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitations are interpreted as implying “at least one sensor” and “the electrical device,” respectively.
Per claim 12, the phrase “each parameter indicative of cumulative Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) device degradation” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 10, from which claim 12 depends, does not describe the cumulative degradation parameter as being indicative of cumulative UPS device degradation. Appropriate correction is required. To note, claim 11 describes the device as being a UPS device. For the purpose of examination, said phrase in claim 12 is interpreted as implying “each parameter indicative of cumulative electrical device degradation.”
Claim 16 contains an optionally clause that further limits a first alternative recited in this claim. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 16 contains two alternatives. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 contains a first optionally clause in line 3 that further limits a first alternative and a second optionally clause in line 5 that further limits a second alternative. Therefore, it is unclear if the first and second optionally clauses in claim 18 should be interpreted as alternatives. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 14, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galt et al. (US 2007/0299706 – hereinafter “Galt”).
Per claim 1, Galt teaches a computer-implemented method for determining degradation of an electrical device, the method comprising:
retrieving historical service data for a set of one of more electrical devices (Fig. 1; molding system 100; ¶25), the historical service data including, for each electrical device in the set:
historical sensor data indicative of environmental conditions in the vicinity of the respective electrical device during operation, the sensor data including data indicative of at least measured temperature and measured humidity (Sensors 612 are configured to measure temperature and humidity. A trends database 610 is configured to contain trend data including a change in performance over time for a measured value (Fig. 6; ¶43, 49, and 57)); and,
historical degradation data indicative of degradation of the respective electrical device (A frequency database 624 is configured to record the number of times or length of time a component may be operating below a minimum value or above a maximum value (Fig. 6; ¶45 and 57));
determining, based on the historical sensor data, historical values of one or more degradation parameters that are indicative of electrical device degradation caused by environmental conditions (Temperature may be monitored to detect whether it is within normal operational limits (Fig. 6; ¶45, 57, 62));
determining, based on the historical values of the one or more degradation parameters and on the historical degradation data, a threshold value for each degradation parameter, the threshold value being a value of the respective degradation parameter above which an unacceptable level of degradation occurs (An updater module 614 is configured to receive data from the frequency module 624 and the trends database 610 and update real time threshold data 616 based on the received data. Real time threshold data 616 includes operational limit data. For example, an upper temperature limit may be updated (Fig. 6; ¶45 and 62)); and,
using the determined one or more threshold values to determine whether an unacceptable level of degradation is occurring during operation of the electrical device (A comparator module 602 compares real time operational parameters 606 with the real time threshold data 616 to determine if preventative maintenance is required (Fig. 6; ¶49, 51-52, and 62)).
Per claim 2, Galt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein using the determined one or more threshold values comprises: receiving, from at least one sensor in the vicinity of the electrical device, sensor data indicative of environmental conditions in the vicinity of the electrical device, the sensor data including data indicative of at least measured temperature and measured humidity (Sensors 612 are configured to measure temperature and humidity (¶43)); determining, based on the received sensor data, a value of each of the degradation parameters; and, comparing each determined value against the respective threshold value to determine whether an unacceptable level of degradation is occurring (A comparator module 602 compares real time operational parameters 606, which are derived from the sensors 612, with the real time threshold data 616 to determine if preventative maintenance is required (Fig. 6; ¶49, 51-52, and 62)).
Per claim 3, Galt teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein an unacceptable level of degradation is determined to be occurring if at least one of the determined values exceeds the respective threshold value (A temperature may be compared to an upper temperature limit (Fig. 6; ¶52 and 62)).
Per claim 14, Galt teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, if it is determined that an unacceptable level of degradation is occurring during operation of the electrical device, then the method comprises generating an alarm signal (A temperature exceeding an upper temperature limit may trigger an indicator module 604 to generate an alert (Fig. 6; ¶52 and 62)).
Per claim 16, Galt teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein, if it is determined that an unacceptable level of degradation is occurring during operation of the electrical device, then the method comprises generating a control signal to control one or more devices for mitigating the occurrence of electrical device degradation (Performance of the device may be throttled when a temperature exceeds an upper temperature limit (Fig. 6; ¶53)); optionally, wherein the control signal causes an air conditioning unit in the vicinity of the electrical device to activate.
Per claim 22, Galt teaches a system for determining degradation of an electrical device, the system comprising one or more processors, the system being configured to:
retrieve historical service data for a set of one of more electrical devices (Fig. 1; molding system 100; ¶25), the historical service data including, for each electrical device in the set:
historical sensor data indicative of environmental conditions in the vicinity of the respective electrical device during operation, the sensor data including data indicative of at least measured temperature and measured humidity (Sensors 612 are configured to measure temperature and humidity. A trends database 610 is configured to contain trend data including a change in performance over time for a measured value (Fig. 6; ¶43, 49, and 57)); and,
historical degradation data indicative of degradation of the respective electrical device (A frequency database 624 is configured to record the number of times or length of time a component may be operating below a minimum value or above a maximum value (Fig. 6; ¶45 and 57));
determine, based on the historical sensor data, historical values of one or more degradation parameters that are indicative of electrical device degradation caused by environmental conditions (Temperature may be monitored to detect whether it is within normal operational limits (Fig. 6; ¶45, 57, 62));
determine, based on the historical values of the one or more degradation parameters and on the historical degradation data, a threshold value for each degradation parameter, the threshold value being a value of the respective degradation parameter above which an unacceptable level of degradation occurs (An updater module 614 is configured to receive data from the frequency module 624 and the trends database 610 and update real time threshold data 616 based on the received data. Real time threshold data 616 includes operational limit data. For example, an upper temperature limit may be updated (Fig. 6; ¶45 and 62)); and,
use the determined one or more threshold values to determine whether an unacceptable level of degradation is occurring during operation of the electrical device (A comparator module 602 compares real time operational parameters 606 with the real time threshold data 616 to determine if preventative maintenance is required (Fig. 6; ¶49, 51-52, and 62)).
8. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kou (US 2003/0030429).
Per claim 20, Kou teaches a computer-implemented method for determining degradation of an electrical device, the method comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor (Fig. 2A; environmental condition recorder 202; ¶33) in the vicinity of the electrical device, sensor data indicative of environmental conditions in the vicinity of the electrical device, the sensor data including data indicative of at least measured temperature and measured humidity (An environmental condition recorder 202 may be coupled to an electronic component and include a temperature sensing element 204 and a humidity sensing element 206 (Fig. 2A; ¶30 and 33));
determining, based on the received sensor data, values of one or more degradation parameters that are indicative of electrical device degradation caused by environmental conditions (An integral function of sensed ambient moisture content over time is calculated based on the measured values of temperature and humidity to determine an environmental exposure factor (¶23 and claim 63)); and,
comparing each determined value against a respective defined threshold value to determine whether an unacceptable level of degradation is occurring (The environmental exposure factor is compared to a predetermined benchmark value (claim 64)),
wherein the one or more degradation parameters includes at least one cumulative degradation parameter indicative of cumulative electrical device degradation over a defined time period caused by environmental conditions over the defined time period (The environmental exposure factor is calculated as an integral function of sensed ambient moisture content over time (claim 63)).
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Georgescu et al. (US 2015/0371151 – hereinafter “Georgescu”).
Per claim 20, Georgescu teaches a computer-implemented method for determining degradation of an electrical device, the method comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor in the vicinity of the electrical device, sensor data indicative of environmental conditions in the vicinity of the electrical device, the sensor data including data indicative of at least measured temperature and measured humidity (An energy system 110 includes various sensors to measure physical data, such as temperature and humidity (Fig. 1; ¶28));
determining, based on the received sensor data, values of one or more degradation parameters that are indicative of electrical device degradation caused by environmental conditions (An integral of a change in temperature or change in humidity may be recorded (¶28)); and,
comparing each determined value against a respective defined threshold value to determine whether an unacceptable level of degradation is occurring (Actual data is compared to estimated data that is treated as a baseline of energy system 110 performance for fault detection (¶32)),
wherein the one or more degradation parameters includes at least one cumulative degradation parameter indicative of cumulative electrical device degradation over a defined time period caused by environmental conditions over the defined time period (An integral of a change in temperature or change in humidity over a period of time may be recorded (¶28)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galt in view of Shimoyama et al. (US 5,872,453 – hereinafter “Shimoyama”).
Per claim 4, Galt does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 2, wherein, prior to determining the values of each of the degradation parameters, the method comprises applying one or more data filtering processes to the received sensor data, the values of each of the degradation parameters being determined based on the filtered data.
In contrast, Shimoyama teaches a battery remaining capacity measuring apparatus comprising a temperature sensor 5 configured to measure the temperature of a battery 3 wherein a low-pass filter 15 is configured to eliminate noise from the temperature signal (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 11-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt such that one or more data filtering processes are applied to the received sensor data. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of removing a noise from the data (Shimoyama; col. 4, lines 11-17).
Per claim 5, Galt in view of Shimoyama teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the one or more data filtering processes comprises removing unfeasible data included in the received sensor data (In the method of Galt in view of Shimoyama, data corresponding to noise would be removed from the sensor data (Shimoyama; col. 4, lines 11-17)).
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galt in view of Shimoyama, in further view of Drees et al. (US 6,122,605 – hereinafter “Drees”).
Per claim 6, Galt in view of Shimoyama does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 4, wherein the one or more data filtering processes comprises applying a low pass Butterworth filter to the received sensor data.
In contrast, Drees a method for filtering a digital signal comprising a step of filtering a process variable signal through a low pass Butterworth filter (claims 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt in view of Shimoyama such that the one or more data filtering processes comprises applying a low pass Butterworth filter to the received sensor data. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of removing a noise component from a variable signal (Drees; claim 1).
13. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galt in view of Bharti et al. (US 2018/0329406 – hereinafter “Bharti”).
Per claim 8, Galt does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein, prior to determining the historical values of each of the degradation parameters, the method comprises applying one or more data filtering processes to the retrieved historical sensor data, the historical values of each of the degradation parameters being determined based on the filtered data.
In contrast, Bharti teaches a method for determining electrical device degradation wherein data from a meter is parsed and aggregated to remove outliers (¶33 and 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt such that, prior to determining the historical values of each of the degradation parameters, the method comprises applying one or more data filtering processes to the retrieved historical sensor data. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of removing outlier data (Bharti; ¶33 and 41).
14. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galt in view of Berdichevsky et al. (US 7,433,794 – hereinafter “Berdichevsky”).
Per claim 9, Galt does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more degradation parameters includes one or more real-time degradation parameters that include at least one of: a dew point temperature; an equilibrium moisture content; and, a difference between the dew point temperature and the measured temperature.
In contrast, Berdichevsky teaches a method for mitigating thermal runaway in a battery pack wherein a dew point is determined based on humidity and temperature measurements so as to not induce condensation within the battery pack 12 (col. 10, lines 46-49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt such that the one or more degradation parameters includes one or more real-time degradation parameters that include a dew point temperature in the vicinity of the molding system 100. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of identifying a condensation condition (Berdichevsky; col. 10, lines 46-49).
15. Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galt in view of Kou.
Per claim 10, Galt does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more degradation parameters includes at least one cumulative degradation parameter indicative of cumulative electrical device degradation over a defined time period caused by environmental conditions over the defined time period.
In contrast, Kou teaches an environmental condition recorder 202 that is configured to be coupled to an electronic component and includes a temperature sensing element 204 and a humidity sensing element 206. An integral function of ambient temperature and relative humidity over time may be calculated to determine an environmental exposure factor (Fig. 2A; ¶23, 30, 33 and claims 63-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt such that the one or more degradation parameters includes at least one cumulative degradation parameter indicative of cumulative electrical device degradation over a defined time period caused by environmental conditions over the defined time period. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of calculating an environmental exposure factor of an electronic component (Kou; claims 63-64).
Per claim 12, Galt in view of Kou teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein each parameter indicative of cumulative Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) device degradation is one of: cumulative temperature over the defined time period; cumulative humidity over the defined time period; cumulative dew point temperature over the defined time period; and, cumulative equilibrium moisture content over the defined time period (In the method of Galt in view of Kou, an integral function of the ambient temperature and relative humidity over time of the electrical device would be determined (Kou; ¶27)).
Per claim 13, Galt does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the method is implemented by one or more processors located remotely from the electrical device. In contrast, Kou teaches an environmental condition recorder 202 that is configured to be coupled to an electronic component and includes a temperature sensing element 204 and a humidity sensing element 206. A remote device 214 comprising a processor 218 and a memory storage unit 220 is coupled to the environmental condition recorder 202 through a communications channel 224 to receive data from the sensing elements 204, 206 (Fig. 2A; ¶30-33 and 45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt such that it is implemented by one or more processors located remotely from the electrical device. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of using a computer to process sensor data (Kou; 30-33 and 45).
16. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galt in view of Kou, in further view of Rogers et al. (US 2012/0331317 – hereinafter “Rogers”).
Per claim 11, Galt in view of Kou teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein determining the value of each cumulative degradation parameter comprises: retrieving sensor data received from the at least one sensor in the vicinity of the device over the defined time period, determining values of a real-time degradation parameter over the defined time period based on the retrieved sensor data; and, integrating the real-time degradation parameter values with respect to time to determine the associated cumulative degradation parameter value (In the method of Galt in view of Kou, a cumulative degradation parameter would be derived from data from the sensors 612 (Kou; ¶27)).
However, Galt in view of Kou does not explicitly teach the method wherein the device is an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) device. In contrast, Rogers teaches a method for power-capping an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) based on its capacity and states that temperature and humidity are factors that affect an estimate of the UPS’s current capacity (Abstract; ¶28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt in view of Kou such that the device is an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) device. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification because a UPS device is a device that is affected by temperature and humidity (Rogers; Abstract).
17. Claims 17-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Galt in view of Rogers.
Per claim 17, Galt does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the electrical device is an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) device.
In contrast, Rogers teaches a method for power-capping an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) based on its capacity and states that temperature and humidity are factors that affect an estimate of the UPS’s current capacity (Abstract; ¶28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt such that the electrical device is an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) device. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification because a UPS device is a device that is affected by temperature and humidity (Rogers; Abstract).
Per claim 18, Galt does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the electrical device is: a battery, optionally a battery for providing power to an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS); one or more components of a data centre, optionally wherein the components includes a transformer, switchgear, and/or one or more hard disks; or, an electrical substation in a manufacturing plant.
In contrast, Rogers teaches a method for power-capping an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) based on its capacity and states that temperature and humidity are factors that affect an estimate of the UPS’s current capacity (Abstract; ¶28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt such that the electrical device is a battery of an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) device. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification because a UPS device is a device that is affected by temperature and humidity (Rogers; Abstract).
Per claim 23, Galt does not explicitly teach the system according to claim 22, wherein the one or more electrical devices are Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) devices.
In contrast, Rogers teaches a method for power-capping an uninterrupted power supply (UPS) based on its capacity and states that temperature and humidity are factors that affect an estimate of the UPS’s current capacity (Abstract; ¶28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Galt such that the electrical device is an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) device. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification because a UPS device is a device that is affected by temperature and humidity (Rogers; Abstract).
Claim Objections
18. Claim 18 is objected to due to the following informality.
Per claim 18, it appears that the phrase “components includes” in line 5 should be revised to “components include.”
19. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Per claim 7, the prior art of record is silent on the method according to claim 6, wherein the received sensor data comprises asynchronously sampled data, and wherein the one or more data filtering processes comprises: prior to applying the low pass Butterworth filter, appending the received sensor data to a padding data signal comprising non-uniform sampled data to obtain a combined data signal, the low pass Butterworth filter being applied to the combined data signal; and, after applying the low pass Butterworth filter, removing the output response from the low pass Butterworth filter corresponding to the padding data signal prior to determining the values of each of the degradation parameters.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 EST.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights