DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 1 July 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 5-8, 13-16, 18 and 20; Applicant cancelled claims 4 and 12. No claims were newly added. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0161684) in view of Wiegman, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20212/0161684) and Ward, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0057667).
For claim 1, Tiwari teaches a motor control system, comprising: a motor (see para. 0015); at least one sensor associated with the motor (see para. 0018); and a controller (see Fig. 3, #108) configured to: receive a plurality of sensor data points from the at least one sensor (see para. 0020), each of the plurality of sensor data points being associated with a time (see para. 0030, time window); wherein the sensor data points comprise motor current data (see paras. 0018, 0020); for each of the sensor data points: determine at least (i) a phase negative sequence (see para. 0024), and (ii) a phase zero sequence of the sensor data (see para. 0024); and based at least on the phase negative sequence and the phase zero sequence, generate a motor health indicator associated with the time of the sensor data point (see paras. 0025-0028). Tiwari does not explicitly disclose the machine learning model.
A teaching from Wiegman discloses a machine learning model for machine health (see para. 0048). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Tiwari to include teachings of Wiegman based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve a need to proactively determine the fault conditions and determine performance of individual motor driven pumps for planned maintenance and protection of the motor driven pumps (see para. 0005).
Continuing with the claim, the combination of Tiwari and Wiegman discloses using the machine learning model, estimate a phase negative sequence indicator and a phase zero sequence indicator (see Tiwari, paras. 0021-0022, 0024, sequence indicators estimated); define a band (see para. 0030), including a phase negative sequence band around the phase negative sequence indicator and a phase zero sequence band around the phase zero sequence indicator the band defining a threshold within which the motor is defined as having a healthy operating status (see paras.0023-0024; 0030, negative and zero bands implicit in statistical variability measures for healthy state alarm comparison); determine whether the phase negative sequence and the phase zero sequence determined from the sensor data are within a defined specified range based on the band, wherein any deviation from the phase negative sequence indicator or the phase zero sequence indicator indicates a presence of a fault in the motor and is included in the motor health indicator (see paras. 0034, 0037, 0030, negative and zero phase bands implicit in statistical variability measures or differences therebetween for healthy state alarm comparison); receive each of the generated health indicators, wherein the generated health indicators form a trend (see para. 0028-0030); apply a moving average to the health indicators of the trend (see para. 0030, continuously updating 15 minute-window-mean equivalent to moving average). Tiwari does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Ward discloses a pump coupled to the motor (see paras. 0023, 0057), sensor data points comprise motor current data (see paras. 0023-0024), apply a filter to the averaged health indicators (see paras. 0057-0065); and forecast a remaining useful life of the motor, based on the filtered averaged health indicators (see paras. 0057-0065). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Tiwari to include teachings of Ward based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve the data set used for the sample pump health indicator is captured only when all the received environmental parameter values and the reference environmental parameter values match within a predefined range (see para. 0022).
Referring to claim 2, Ward further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the forecasted remaining useful life is below a threshold period of time (see para. 0069) and automatically send a notification to a user interface (see para. 0069).
With regards to claim 3, Ward further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the forecasted remaining useful life is below a threshold period of time (see para. 0069); and automatically send an alarm to a cockpit (see para. 0069, pilot), wherein the alarm causes a warning light to illuminate in the cockpit (see para. 0069, light equivalent to “indicated via interface”).
With reference to claim 5, Tiwari further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the phase negative sequence does not fall within the phase negative sequence band (see paras. 0025-0030); and determine that there is at least one of a phase-to-phase fault or an interturn fault in the motor (see paras. 0025-0030).
Regarding claim 6, Tiwari further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the phase zero sequence does not fall within the phase zero sequence band; and determine that there is a phase-to-ground fault in the motor (see para. 0027, I0, claims 3, 11).
For claim 7, Tiwari further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the phase zero sequence falls within the phase zero sequence band (see paras. 0035-0037, healthy state, claim 11); determine that the phase negative sequence falls within the phase negative sequence band (see paras. 0035-0037, healthy state, claim 11); and determine that there is no fault in the motor (see paras. 0035-0037, healthy state, claim 11).
Claim 8 defines elements and subject matter that are substantially similar to elements and subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 1.
Claim 9 defines elements and subject matter that are substantially similar to elements and subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 2.
With reference to claim 10, Ward further discloses scheduling the motor for maintenance, based on receiving the notification at the user interface (see para. 0069).
Claim 11 defines elements and subject matter that are substantially similar to elements and subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 3.
With regards to claim 13, Tiwari does not explicitly disclose the detail of the training data. However, Tiwari teaches that healthy states may be obtained by simulations on a model (see para. 0028). Performing multiple simulations for validating and combining data sets is well within the ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform more than one motor model simulation based on the motivation to improve diagnostics of synchronous machines and more specifically to health monitoring of synchronous machines (see para. 0001).
Claim 14 defines elements and subject matter that are substantially similar to elements and subject matter of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 5.
Claim 15 defines elements and subject matter that are substantially similar to elements and subject matter of claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 6.
Claim 16 defines elements and subject matter that are substantially similar to elements and subject matter of claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 7.
Pertaining to claim 17, Ward further teaches altering the operation of the motor based at least on the forecasted remaining useful life (see para. 0070).
Claim 18 defines elements and subject matter that are substantially similar to elements and subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 1.
Claim 19 defines elements and subject matter that are substantially similar to elements and subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 1.
With reference to claim 20, Tiwari does not explicitly disclose multiple motors and pumps. However, incorporating more than one motor and more than one pump and combinations thereof would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the element duplication principle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tiwari to include multiple motors and pumps based on a motivation to improve diagnostics of synchronous machines and more specifically to health monitoring of synchronous machines (see para. 0001).
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights