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(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2025 07/10/2025, 05/07/2025, 02/27/2025, 12/17/2024 and 06/16/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a term “during normal operation” in end of line 9. Examiner suggest amending the term to recite “during the normal operation” to restore clarity.
Claim 16 recites a term “normal operation spectrums” in line 10. Examiner suggest amending the term to recite “the normal operation spectrums” to restore clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1 and 16 of instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10, respectively, of U.S. Patent Number: 11662384. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 1 of the instant application (18962928) is a genus type and hence anticipated by corresponding species type Claim 1 of the reference patent (11662384) as illustrated in the table below (See MPEP §804.03, § 2131.02: "A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus." The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989)):
18962928 (instant app.)
US Patent 11662384 (reference doc.)
1. a motor malfunction monitoring device for detecting a malfunction of a drive motor, comprising:
vibration sensors for detecting vibration in a component of the drive motor in a first direction and a second direction, wherein the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the second direction;
a voltage sensor for detecting a voltage of the drive motor or a current sensor for detecting a current of the drive motor; and
a data storage storing a database of normal operation spectrums of vibration during a normal operation of the drive motor, and the voltage or the current during normal operation of the drive motor;
wherein the motor malfunction monitoring device is configured to acquire operation data of the drive motor, extract operation data spectrums from the operation data, compare the operation data spectrums with corresponding normal operation spectrums to obtain a similarity, and when the similarity is lower than a predetermined threshold, determine that the drive motor is malfunctioning.
1. A motor malfunction monitoring device for monitoring a malfunction of a drive motor, comprising:
vibration sensors for detecting for one or more components of the drive motor transverse vibration in a direction parallel to a mounting plane of the drive motor and perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the drive motor and longitudinal vibration in a direction perpendicular to both the mounting plane and the longitudinal direction of the drive motor;
a voltage sensor and a current sensor for detecting a voltage and a current of the drive motor, respectively; and
a data storage storing a database of normal operation spectrums of the transverse vibration, the longitudinal vibration, the voltage, and the current during a normal operation of the drive motor;
wherein the motor malfunction monitoring device is configured to acquire operation data of the drive motor, extract acquired operation data spectrums of the acquired operation data, compare the acquired operation data spectrums with corresponding normal operation spectrums to obtain a similarity, and when the similarity is lower than a predetermined threshold, determine that the drive motor fails; and
wherein the data storage stores a database of known malfunction spectrums of different types of malfunctions of the drive motor, and the motor malfunction monitoring device is further configured to, when determining that the drive motor fails, compare the acquired operation data spectrums with the known malfunction spectrums and determine a malfunction type of the drive motor.
16. a method for monitoring malfunction in a drive motor, comprising:
pre-storing a first database of normal operation spectrums obtained during a normal operation of the drive motor;
detecting vibration in one or more components of the drive motor in a first direction and a second direction;
detecting a voltage or a current of the drive motor;
acquiring operation data of the drive motor, wherein the operation data comprises a vibration signal and at least one of a voltage signal and a current signal;
extracting operation data spectrums from the operation data; and comparing the operation data spectrums with normal operation spectrums in the first database to obtain a similarity, when the similarity is lower than a predetermined threshold, determining that the drive motor is malfunctioning; and when determining that the drive motor is malfunctioning, comparing the operation data spectrums with known malfunction spectrums stored in a second database comprising known malfunction spectrums of different types of malfunctions of the drive motor, and determining a malfunction type of the drive motor.
10. A motor malfunction monitoring method for monitoring a malfunction of a drive motor, comprising:
pre-storing a database of normal operation spectrums obtained during a normal operation of the drive motor;
detecting for one or more components of the drive motor transverse vibration in a direction parallel to a mounting plane of the drive motor and perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the drive motor and longitudinal vibration in a direction perpendicular to both the mounting plane and the longitudinal direction of the drive motor;
detecting a voltage and a current of the drive motor, respectively;
acquiring operation data of the drive motor, wherein the acquired operation data comprises a transverse vibration signal corresponding to the transverse vibration, a longitudinal vibration signal corresponding to the longitudinal vibration, a voltage signal corresponding to the voltage, and a current signal corresponding to the current;
extracting acquired operation data spectrums of the acquired operation data; and comparing the acquired operation data spectrums with corresponding normal operation spectrums in the pre-stored database of normal operation spectrums during the normal operation of the drive motor, to obtain a similarity, when the similarity is lower than a predetermined threshold, determining that the drive motor fails; and when determining that the drive motor fails, comparing the acquired operation data spectrums with known malfunction spectrums stored in a database comprising known malfunction spectrums of different types of malfunctions of the drive motor, and determining a malfunction type of the drive motor.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neti et al. (US 20140167810; hereinafter Neti) in view of VAN DEN BERG et al. (US 20110035094).
Regarding claim 1, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 a motor malfunction monitoring device for detecting a malfunction of a drive motor, comprising:
vibration sensors (vibration sensor 180; fig. 2) for detecting vibration in a first direction and a second direction (para. 18 - Vibration sensors 180 effectively sense radial vibrations compared to sensing torsional vibrations; vibration signal signature 210) in a component of the drive motor (rotor 110 with drive 140), wherein the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the second direction;
a voltage sensor (170) for detecting a voltage or a current sensor (171) for detecting a current of the drive motor; and
a data storage (memory 200; fig. 1) storing a database of normal operation spectrums (para. 21 - determining a spectrum of the vibration signal …determining a spectrum of at least one of the electrical signals) of vibration during a normal operation of the drive motor (para. 34 - signal signatures are determined for an electromechanical device operating under normal conditions without any faults); and the voltage or the current during normal operation of the drive motor (para. 34 - A plurality of current and voltage signals for baseline conditions and fault detection conditions are measured for each component and corresponding threshold values are set);
wherein the motor malfunction monitoring device is configured to acquire operation data of the drive motor (para. 26 - operating parameters of the drivetrain may include, rotor speed, rotor excitation frequency, stator output frequency, load and shaft speed of the electromechanical device), extract operation data spectrums from the operation data (para. 26 - frequency range corresponding to the vibrational signal model or the electrical signal model adopted in determining the fault; para. 28 - a frequency transformation signal A(f) is determined as the second signal signature 308 based on the measured vibration signal), compare the acquired operation data spectrums with corresponding normal operation spectrums to obtain a similarity (within 9dB range is considered similar for healthy gearbox; fig. 5; para. 35 - spectrum peak 402 of the curve 406 representative of the stator current due to the gearbox fault is higher compared to the spectrum peak 404 of the curve 412 representative of the stator current of the healthy gearbox), and when the similarity is lower (para. 29 - If the value of the amplitude of the vibration signal is less or equal to the threshold value; para. 35 - If spectrum difference within 9dB is interpreted as considered full similarity between ideal and actual spectrum waves for healthy indication and >9dB is interpreted less than similarity for faulty indication) than a predetermined threshold (similarity based on predefined threshold 314 in fig. 3 or spectrum difference 9dB in fig. 5), determine that the drive motor is malfunctioning (clm. 16 - controller based device is configured to determine the fault of the mechanical device by comparing the diagnostic parameter with a predefined threshold value).
Neti does not teach explicitly similarity is lower.
However, VAN DEN BERG teaches in figure(s) 1-3 similarity is lower (similarity matrix step 140; fig. 2; para. 50 - A higher score is indicative of a strong similarity while a lower score indicates little or no similarity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Neti by having similarity is lower in order to provide computation matrix for data comparison as evidenced by "similarity matrix is a matrix of scores representing the degree of similarity between two PID … grouping the diagnostic sensed data into clusters, where each cluster represents similar data. Each cluster is then independently analyzed by an outlier technique to determine any abnormalities" (paras. 6,50,57 of VAN DEN BERG).
Regarding claim 2, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the motor malfunction monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the data storage is updated with the operation data spectrums of the drive motor (para. 16 - memory 200 may be encoded with a program to instruct the controller based device 190 to enable a sequence of steps to determine a fault of the drivetrain 140).
Regarding claim 3, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the motor malfunction monitoring device according to claim 2, wherein the data storage expands the database with the operation data spectrums of normal operational drive motor, and expands the database with the operation data spectrums of malfunctioning drive motor (para. 34 - A possible gearbox fault may be detected if there is a variation between the stator current spectrum and the determined warning threshold value. To avoid misjudgment due to insufficient data, the controller based device measures a plurality of samples of the stator current, for example, around 30-50 samples of measurement values. When the RMS value of the stator current value exceeds the pre-defined threshold value, a drivetrain fault condition in the gearbox is determined. Similarly, corresponding to each type of the drivetrain fault, one or more additional threshold values are determined to identify severity of the fault).
Regarding claim(s) 4-6 Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the motor malfunction monitoring device according to claim(s) 1-3, respectively, wherein the motor malfunction monitoring device comprises an alarm device, wherein the alarm device sends out an alarm when the motor malfunction monitoring device determines that the drive motor is malfunctioning (para. 17 - signal 216 may be indicative of bearing fault of the drivetrain 140 such as HS shaft bearing fault, high speed intermediate shaft (HSIS) fault, low speed intermediate shaft (LSIS) fault, planet bearing fault, or the like; para. 34 - a warning threshold value for the Root Mean Square (RMS) value of the stator current spectrum of the gearbox is determined).
Regarding claim 7, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the motor malfunction monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein the component to be detected comprise a bearing or a base of the drive motor (para. 15 - a main bearing 120, and a main shaft 130; para. 16 - monitor and detect fault conditions of various components, for example, the bearing faults of the drivetrain 140, within the EMM 160).
Regarding claim 8, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 a drive motor system, comprising: a drive motor (rotor 110 and drive train 140), a variable frequency drive for regulating an input current to the drive motor and the motor malfunction monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein variable frequency drive regulates the input current (para. 34 - A possible gearbox fault may be detected if there is a variation between the stator current spectrum and the determined warning threshold value) to the drive motor (para. 18 - analyzing frequency components of the vibration signal 202 measured from the drive train 140 and measuring the amplitude of the harmonic frequency components of the sideband of the vibration signal 202, and comparing with the amplitudes of adjacent harmonic frequencies) based on a determining result of the motor malfunction monitoring device (para. 30 - f.sub.s is the stator current frequency, f.sub.fundamental is the stator output frequency, k is a constant corresponding to different failure modes).
Regarding claim 10, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the drive motor system according to claim 8, wherein the data storage is updated with the operation data spectrums of the drive motor (para. 16 - memory 200 may be encoded with a program to instruct the controller based device 190 to enable a sequence of steps to determine a fault of the drivetrain 140).
Regarding claim 11, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the drive motor system according to claim 10, wherein the data storage expands the database with the operation data spectrums of normal operational drive motor, and expands the database with the operation data spectrums of malfunctioning drive motor (para. 34 - A possible gearbox fault may be detected if there is a variation between the stator current spectrum and the determined warning threshold value. To avoid misjudgment due to insufficient data, the controller based device measures a plurality of samples of the stator current, for example, around 30-50 samples of measurement values. When the RMS value of the stator current value exceeds the pre-defined threshold value, a drivetrain fault condition in the gearbox is determined. Similarly, corresponding to each type of the drivetrain fault, one or more additional threshold values are determined to identify severity of the fault).
Regarding claim(s) 12 and 14 Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the drive motor system according to claim(s) 8 and 10, respectively, wherein the motor malfunction monitoring device comprises an alarm device, wherein the alarm device sends out an alarm when the motor malfunction monitoring device determines that the drive motor is malfunctioning (para. 17 - signal 216 may be indicative of bearing fault of the drivetrain 140 such as HS shaft bearing fault, high speed intermediate shaft (HSIS) fault, low speed intermediate shaft (LSIS) fault, planet bearing fault, or the like; para. 34 - a warning threshold value for the Root Mean Square (RMS) value of the stator current spectrum of the gearbox is determined).
Regarding claim 15 Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the drive motor system according to claim 8, wherein one or more components to be detected comprise bearings or bases of the drive motor (para. 15 - a main bearing 120, and a main shaft 130; para. 16 - monitor and detect fault conditions of various components, for example, the bearing faults of the drivetrain 140, within the EMM 160).
Regarding claim 16, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 a method for monitoring a malfunction in a drive motor, comprising:
pre-storing a first database of normal operation spectrums (para. 29 – pre-defined threshold for health condition) obtained during a normal operation of the drive motor (rotor 110 with drivetrain 140; fig. 2);
Detecting vibration (@vibration sensor 180; fig. 2) in one or more components of the drive motor (rotor 110 with drive 140) in a first direction and a second direction (para. 18 - Vibration sensors 180 effectively sense radial vibrations compared to sensing torsional vibrations; vibration signal signature 210);
detecting a voltage (@170) or a current (@171) of the drive motor;
acquiring operation data (para. 31 - frequency corresponding to an outer race fault of the intermediate gear is determined based on the physical and operational parameters of the drivetrain; para. 34 - controller based device measures a plurality of samples of the stator current) of the drive motor (rotor 110 with drive 140; fig. 2), wherein the operation data comprises a vibration signal (para. 18 - Vibration sensors 180 effectively sense radial vibrations compared to sensing torsional vibrations; vibration signal signature 210) and at least one of a voltage signal and a current signal (@voltage sensor 170, current sensor 171);
extracting operation data spectrums from the operation data (para. 21 - determining a spectrum of the vibration signal …determining a spectrum of at least one of the electrical signals); and
comparing the operation data spectrums with normal operation spectrums in the first database (para. 34 - Root Mean Square (RMS) value of the stator current spectrum of the gearbox is determined. A possible gearbox fault may be detected if there is a variation between the stator current spectrum and the determined warning threshold value), to obtain a similarity (within 9dB range is considered similar for healthy gearbox; fig. 5; para. 35 - spectrum peak 402 of the curve 406 representative of the stator current due to the gearbox fault is higher compared to the spectrum peak 404 of the curve 412 representative of the stator current of the healthy gearbox), when the similarity is lower (para. 29 - If the value of the amplitude of the vibration signal is less or equal to the threshold value; para. 35 - If spectrum difference within 9dB is interpreted as considered full similarity between ideal and actual spectrum waves for healthy indication and >9dB is interpreted less than similarity for faulty indication) than a predetermined threshold (similarity based on predefined threshold 314 in fig. 3 or spectrum difference 9dB in fig. 5), determine that the drive motor is malfunctioning (clm. 16 - controller based device is configured to determine the fault of the mechanical device by comparing the diagnostic parameter with a predefined threshold value).
And when determining that the drive motor is malfunctioning, comparing the operation data spectrums with known malfunction spectrums stored in a second database comprising known malfunction spectrums of different types of malfunctions of the drive motor (para. 26 - plurality of diagnostic parameters are generated for determining types of the fault related to the drivetrain), and determining a malfunction type of the drive motor (para. 26 - diagnostic parameters may be determined based on the signal signatures, for frequency bands corresponding to various drivetrain faults under consideration. Frequency bands corresponding to drivetrain faults detected using vibration sensors are derived from the vibration signal signature 320. Similarly, frequency bands corresponding to drivetrain faults detected by electrical sensors are derived from the electrical signal signature 322).
Neti does not teach explicitly similarity is lower.
However, VAN DEN BERG teaches in figure(s) 1-3 similarity is lower (similarity matrix step 140; fig. 2; para. 50 - A higher score is indicative of a strong similarity while a lower score indicates little or no similarity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Neti by having similarity is lower in order to provide computation matrix for data comparison as evidenced by "similarity matrix is a matrix of scores representing the degree of similarity between two PID … grouping the diagnostic sensed data into clusters, where each cluster represents similar data. Each cluster is then independently analyzed by an outlier technique to determine any abnormalities" (paras. 6,50,57 of VAN DEN BERG).
Regarding claim 17, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the method according to claim 16, further comprising storing the operation data spectrums of the drive motor (para. 16 - memory 200 may be encoded with a program to instruct the controller based device 190 to enable a sequence of steps to determine a fault of the drivetrain 140).
Regarding claim 18, Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the method according to claim 17, further comprising: expanding the first database with the operation data spectrums of normal operational drive motor, and expanding the second database with the operation data spectrums of malfunctioning drive motor (para. 34 - A possible gearbox fault may be detected if there is a variation between the stator current spectrum and the determined warning threshold value. To avoid misjudgment due to insufficient data, the controller based device measures a plurality of samples of the stator current, for example, around 30-50 samples of measurement values. When the RMS value of the stator current value exceeds the pre-defined threshold value, a drivetrain fault condition in the gearbox is determined. Similarly, corresponding to each type of the drivetrain fault, one or more additional threshold values are determined to identify severity of the fault).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neti in view of VAN DEN BERG, and further in view of Ghanemi et al. (US 20050241884).
Regarding claim 9, Neti in view of VAN DEN BERG teaches the drive motor system according to claim 8,
Neti does not teach explicitly wherein, the variable frequency drive cuts off the input current when either of the variable frequency drive and the motor malfunction monitoring device determines that the drive motor is malfunctioning.
However, Ghanemi teaches in figure(s) 1-5 wherein, the variable frequency drive (variable freq. drive 118) cuts off the input current (shut down drive 280 in fig. 4) when either of the variable frequency drive and the motor malfunction monitoring device determines that the drive motor is malfunctioning (para. 8 - Once the brake is determined to be in a failed condition, an output alarm condition can be annunciated and the load can be automatically lowered at a safe rate of speed; para. 29 - the motor stopped when motor overcurrent is detected).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Neti by having wherein, the variable frequency drive cuts off the input current when either of the variable frequency drive and the motor malfunction monitoring device determines that the drive motor fails as taught by Ghanemi in order to provide "A controller for a variable frequency drive monitors electrical power from a variable frequency drive motor while a brake is maintaining a load driven or moved by the motor without requiring additional feedback components of a closed loop configuration. If excess electrical power is being generated by the motor, an undesirable condition in the brake is indicated. Support or maintenance of the load is assumed by the motor in that event." (abstract).
Regarding claim 13 Neti teaches in figure(s) 1-5 the drive motor system according to claim 9, wherein the motor malfunction monitoring device comprises an alarm device, wherein the alarm device sends out an alarm when the motor malfunction monitoring device determines that the drive motor is malfunctioning (para. 17 - signal 216 may be indicative of bearing fault of the drivetrain 140 such as HS shaft bearing fault, high speed intermediate shaft (HSIS) fault, low speed intermediate shaft (LSIS) fault, planet bearing fault, or the like; para. 34 - a warning threshold value for the Root Mean Square (RMS) value of the stator current spectrum of the gearbox is determined).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banerjee et al. (US 20130030742) discloses “method and system for monitoring a synchronous machine”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKM ZAKARIA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights