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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024 and 06/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cicero (BR202020001730).
As to independent claim 1, Cicero teaches an electrical machine (see title) comprising: a stator (13) having a plurality of stator teeth (5) having windings (10) around each tooth (see figure 2); a rotor (8) rotatably mounted within the stator (13); and an optical fibre (3) mounted to the stator (13), wherein the optical fibre (3) comprises a Fibre Bragg Grating , FBG (2), positioned between an adjacent pair of stator teeth (5) and oriented to measure a tangential strain between the pair of stator teeth (5) as shown in figures 1-3.
As to claim 2/1, Cicero teaches wherein the FBG (2) is attached to a yoke of the stator (13) and positioned between roots of the pair of adjacent stator teeth (5) as shown in figures 1-3.
As to claim 3/2, Cicero teaches wherein the optical fibre (3) is a first optical fibre attached to and extending around the stator (13), the first optical fibre (3) comprising a first plurality of FBGs (2), each FBG (2) being positioned between roots of a pair of adjacent stator teeth (5) as shown in figures 1-3.
As to independent claim 10, Cicero teaches method of monitoring an electrical machine comprising: a stator (13) having a plurality of stator teeth (5) having windings (10) around each tooth; a rotor (8) rotatably mounted within the stator (13); and an optical fibre (3) mounted to the stator (13), the optical fibre (3) comprising a Fibre Bragg Grating, FBG (2), positioned between an adjacent pair of stator teeth (5) and oriented to measure a tangential strain between the pair of stator teeth (5), the method comprising: measuring a strain in the stator (13) from the FBG (2) over a frequency range; determining a first peak strain at a frequency twice that of an operating electrical frequency of the electrical machine; and based on the first peak strain, determining a presence or absence of a type of fault in the electrical machine as shown in figures 1-3.
As to claim 20/10, Cicero teaches comprising providing an output indication of the presence or absence of a fault in the electrical machine (see paragraph [35]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicero (BR202020001730)as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Fabian (Journal of Lightwave Technology VOL 36 NO 4).
As to claim 4/3, Cicero teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further comprising a second optical fibre attached to and extending around the stator and comprising a second plurality of FBGs, each FBG being attached to a bridging element connecting a pair of adjacent stator teeth.
However Fabian teaches a second optical fibre (see annotated figure 1(b)) attached to and extending around the stator (see annotated figure 1(b)) and comprising a second plurality of FBGs (1-12), each FBG (1-12) being attached to a bridging element connecting a pair of adjacent stator teeth (see annotated figure 1(b)) as shown in figure 1(b), for the advantageous benefit of providing a high reliability sensor.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero by using a second optical fibre attached to and extending around the stator and comprising a second plurality of FBGs, each FBG being attached to a bridging element connecting a pair of adjacent stator teeth, as taught by Fabian, to provide a high reliability sensor.
As to claim 8/1, Cicero in view of Fabian teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the FBG is attached to a bridging element connecting inner ends of the pair of adjacent stator teeth.
However Fabian teaches the FBG (1-12) is attached to a bridging element connecting inner ends of the pair of adjacent stator teeth (see figure 1(b)) as shown in figure 1(b), for the advantageous benefit of providing a high reliability sensor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero in view of Fabian by using the FBG is attached to a bridging element connecting inner ends of the pair of adjacent stator teeth, as taught by Fabian, to provide a high reliability sensor.
As to claim 9/8, Cicero in view of Fabian teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the optical fibre is attached to and extends around the stator, the optical fibre comprising a plurality of FBGs, each FBG being attached to a bridging element connecting a pair of adjacent stator teeth.
However Fabian teaches the optical fibre (see annotated figure 1(b)) is attached to and extends around the stator (see annotated figure 1(b)), the optical fibre (see annotated figure 1(b)) comprising a plurality of FBGs (1-12), each FBG (1-12) being attached to a bridging element connecting a pair of adjacent stator teeth (see annotated figure 1(b)) as shown in figure 1(b), for the advantageous benefit of providing a high reliability sensor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero in view of Fabian by using the optical fibre is attached to and extends around the stator, the optical fibre comprising a plurality of FBGs, each FBG being attached to a bridging element connecting a pair of adjacent stator teeth, as taught by Fabian, to provide a high reliability sensor.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicero (BR202020001730) and Fabian (Journal of Lightwave Technology VOL 36 NO 4) as applied in claim 4 above, and further in view of Diatzikis (CN102150349).
As to claim 5/4, Cicero in view of Fabian teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except further comprising a third optical fibre mounted to a winding around a tooth of the stator, the third optical fibre comprising an FBG.
However Diatzikis teaches a third optical fibre (42) mounted to a winding around a tooth (14) of the stator (12) , the third optical fibre (42) comprising an FBG (38a) as shown in figures 1-2, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a high utilization level, so as to make the power appliance more economically viable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero in view of Fabian by using a third optical fibre mounted to a winding around a tooth of the stator, the third optical fibre comprising an FBG, as taught by Diatzikis, to allow a high utilization level, so as to make the power appliance more economically viable.
As to claim 6/5, Cicero and Fabian in view of Diatzikis teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the FBG of the third optical fibre is positioned at an inner side of the winding.
However Diatzikis teaches the FBG of the third optical fibre (42) is positioned at an inner side of the winding (30) as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a high utilization level, so as to make the power appliance more economically viable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero in view of Fabian by using the FBG of the third optical fibre is positioned at an inner side of the winding, as taught by Diatzikis, to allow a high utilization level, so as to make the power appliance more economically viable.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicero (BR202020001730), Fabian (Journal of Lightwave Technology VOL 36 NO 4) and Diatzikis (CN102150349)as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Diatzikis (CN102150349) and Liu (CN205120907).
As to claim 7/6, Cicero and Fabian in view of Diatzikis teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the teeth are rectangular in section, the FBG of the third optical fibre being positioned adjacent a corner of the tooth.
However Diatzikis wherein the teeth are rectangular in section as shown in figure 1-2, for the advantageous benefit of allowing a high utilization level, so as to make the power appliance more economically viable.
Liu teaches the FBG of the third optical fibre (6,9) being positioned adjacent a corner of the tooth as shown in figure 2, for the advantageous benefit of providing rapidly repairing large hydraulic generator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero and Fabian in view of Diatzikis by using the teeth are rectangular in section, the FBG of the third optical fibre being positioned adjacent a corner of the tooth, as taught by Diatzikis and Liu, to allow a high utilization level, so as to make the power appliance more economically viable and provide rapidly repairing large hydraulic generator.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicero (BR202020001730)as applied in claim 10 above, and further in view of Morais ( IEEE Sensors Journal VOL 17 NO 12).
As to claim 11/10, Cicero teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the method comprises: determining a ratio between a second peak strain at the operating electrical frequency and the first peak strain; and detecting an inter-turn short circuit fault if the ratio is greater than a predetermined threshold value.
However Morais teaches determining a ratio between a second peak strain at the operating electrical frequency and the first peak strain; and detecting an inter-turn short circuit fault if the ratio is greater than a predetermined threshold value (see pages 3672-3675), for the advantageous benefit of increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero by using a ratio between a second peak strain at the operating electrical frequency and the first peak strain; and detecting an inter-turn short circuit fault if the ratio is greater than a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Morais, to increasing energy efficiency.
As to claim 12/11, Cicero in view of Morais teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the predetermined threshold value is a value between around 0.1 and around 0.7.
However Morais teaches the predetermined threshold value is a value between around 0.1 and around 0.7 (see pages 3672-3675), for the advantageous benefit of increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero in view of Morais by using a ratio between a second peak strain at the operating electrical frequency and the first peak strain; and detecting an inter-turn short circuit fault if the ratio is greater than a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Morais, to increasing energy efficiency.
As to claim 13/10, Cicero teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the method comprises: comparing the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting an open circuit fault if the first peak strain is lower than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor.
However Morais teaches the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting an open circuit fault if the first peak strain is lower than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor (see pages 3672-3675), for the advantageous benefit of increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero by using the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting an open circuit fault if the first peak strain is lower than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor, as taught by Morais, to increasing energy efficiency.
As to claim 14/13, Cicero in view of Morais teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the predetermined factor is between around 25 and 75% and the predetermined peak strain is a measure of the first peak strain in the absence of a fault.
However Morais teaches the predetermined factor is between around 25 and 75% and the predetermined peak strain is a measure of the first peak strain in the absence of a fault (see pages 3672-3675), for the advantageous benefit of increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero in view of Morais by using the predetermined factor is between around 25 and 75% and the predetermined peak strain is a measure of the first peak strain in the absence of a fault, as taught by Morais, to increasing energy efficiency.
As to claim 15/10, Cicero teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the method comprises: comparing the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting an eccentricity fault if the first peak strain is higher than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor and a second peak strain at a mechanical frequency of the electrical machine is above a predetermined threshold value.
However Morais teaches the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting an eccentricity fault if the first peak strain is higher than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor and a second peak strain at a mechanical frequency of the electrical machine is above a predetermined threshold value (see pages 3672-3675), for the advantageous benefit of increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero by using the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting an eccentricity fault if the first peak strain is higher than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor and a second peak strain at a mechanical frequency of the electrical machine is above a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Morais, to increasing energy efficiency.
As to claim 16/15, Cicero in view of Morais teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the predetermined factor is between around 2 and 3 and the predetermined peak strain is a measure of the first peak strain in the absence of a fault.
However Morais teaches the predetermined factor is between around 2 and 3 and the predetermined peak strain is a measure of the first peak strain in the absence of a fault (see pages 3672-3675), for the advantageous benefit of increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero in view of Morais by using the predetermined factor is between around 2 and 3 and the predetermined peak strain is a measure of the first peak strain in the absence of a fault, as taught by Morais, to increasing energy efficiency.
As to claim 17/10, Cicero teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the method comprises: comparing the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting a demagnetization fault if the first peak strain is lower than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor and a second peak strain at a mechanical frequency of the electrical machine is above a predetermined threshold value.
However Morais teaches the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting a demagnetization fault if the first peak strain is lower than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor and a second peak strain at a mechanical frequency of the electrical machine is above a predetermined threshold value (see pages 3672-3675), for the advantageous benefit of increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero by using the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting a demagnetization fault if the first peak strain is lower than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor and a second peak strain at a mechanical frequency of the electrical machine is above a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Morais, to increasing energy efficiency.
As to claim 18/17, Cicero in view of Morais teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the predetermined factor is between around 25 and 50% and the predetermined peak strain is a measure of the first peak strain in the absence of a fault.
However Morais teaches the predetermined factor is between around 25 and 50% and the predetermined peak strain is a measure of the first peak strain in the absence of a fault (see pages 3672-3675), for the advantageous benefit of increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero in view of Morais by using the first peak strain to a predetermined peak strain; and detecting a demagnetization fault if the first peak strain is lower than the predetermined peak strain by more than a predetermined factor and a second peak strain at a mechanical frequency of the electrical machine is above a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Morais, to increasing energy efficiency.
As to claim 19/17, Cicero in view of Morais teaches the claimed limitation as discussed above except wherein the predetermined threshold value is a ratio between the second peak strain and the first peak strain of above around 0.1.
However Morais teaches the predetermined threshold value is a ratio between the second peak strain and the first peak strain of above around 0.1 (see pages 3672-3675), for the advantageous benefit of increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Cicero in view of Morais by using the predetermined threshold value is a ratio between the second peak strain and the first peak strain of above around 0.1value, as taught by Morais, to increasing energy efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 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, OLUSEYE IWARERE can be reached at (571)270-5112. 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.
/JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights