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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025 and 08/01/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 01/09/2025 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to “…measuring first and second DC link currents from the respective first and second DC electrical supplies to the respective first and second power electronics modules; measuring stator currents through phases of the first and second electrical machines; calculating a first ratio from a harmonic component of the first DC link current divided by a harmonic component of the second DC link current; calculating a second ratio from a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; calculating a third ratio from a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; and determining a winding fault in the first or second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of a predetermined range.”, which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process perform by a processor. The additional elements “A method of monitoring first and second multiphase electrical machines driven by respective first and second power electronics modules from respective first and second DC electrical supplies, the method comprising…” are data collection and an extra-solution activity that is simply the outputting the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both elements simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
4.1) Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 1 is directed to a method of monitoring first and second multiphase electrical machines driven by respective first and second power electronics modules from respective first and second DC electrical supplies, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a method (Step 1: YES).
4.2) Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 1 recites: “…measuring first and second DC link currents from the respective first and second DC electrical supplies to the respective first and second power electronics modules; measuring stator currents through phases of the first and second electrical machines; calculating a first ratio from a harmonic component of the first DC link current divided by a harmonic component of the second DC link current; calculating a second ratio from a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; calculating a third ratio from a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; and determining a winding fault in the first or second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of a predetermined range.”, which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Claim 1 do not claim a particular machine in which the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state in which the judicial exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated. Consequently, the claimed mathematical-calculations and/or mental process above are not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process in variety of technologies (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the judicial exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
4.3) Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method of monitoring first and second multiphase electrical machines driven by respective first and second power electronics modules from respective first and second DC electrical supplies, the method comprising…”, which are/is simply routine and conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry that includes microprocessors for acquiring data and outputted the calculated result, which fall in the category of data collection and extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the harmonic component of the first and second DC link currents is a second harmonic component.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the harmonic component of the positive sequence stator current through the first and second electrical machines is a third harmonic component.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the positive sequence stator current for each electrical machine is calculated as
1
3
(
I
a
+
a
*
I
b
+
a
2
*
I
c
)
, where
I
a
,
I
b
,
I
c
are the stator currents through the electrical machine and
a
=
-
0.5
+
j
√
3
2
”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the combined sequence stator current for each electrical machine is calculated as
I
2
a
+
I
b
*
I
c
+
I
c
*
I
b
where
I
a
,
I
b
,
I
c
are the stator currents through the electrical machine.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the winding fault is determined to be in the first electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is above the predetermined range.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the winding fault is determined to be in the second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is below the predetermined range.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the winding fault is determined if the one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of the predetermined range for longer than a predetermined time period.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 9 is directed to “…measure first and second DC link currents from the respective first and second DC electrical supplies to the respective first and second power electronics modules; measure stator currents through phases of the first and second electrical machines; calculate a first ratio from a harmonic component of the first DC link current divided by a harmonic component of the second DC link current; calculate a second ratio from a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; calculate a third ratio from a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; and determine a winding fault in the first or second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of a predetermined range.”, which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process perform by a processor. The additional elements “A power electronics system comprising: first and second electrical machines each comprising a plurality of stator phases; first and second inverters configured to receive a respective first and second DC link current from respective first and second DC supplies and provide AC currents to the plurality of stator phases of the respective first and second electrical machines; a condition monitoring unit configured to…” are data collection and an extra-solution activity that is simply the outputting the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both elements simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
4.1) Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 9 is directed to a power electronics system, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a device (Step 1: YES).
4.2) Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 9 recites: “…measure first and second DC link currents from the respective first and second DC electrical supplies to the respective first and second power electronics modules; measure stator currents through phases of the first and second electrical machines; calculate a first ratio from a harmonic component of the first DC link current divided by a harmonic component of the second DC link current; calculate a second ratio from a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; calculate a third ratio from a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; and determine a winding fault in the first or second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of a predetermined range.”, which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Claim 9 do not claim a particular machine in which the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state in which the judicial exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated. Consequently, the claimed mathematical-calculations and/or mental process above are not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process in variety of technologies (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the judicial exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
4.3) Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 9 recites the additional element(s) “A power electronics system comprising: first and second electrical machines each comprising a plurality of stator phases; first and second inverters configured to receive a respective first and second DC link current from respective first and second DC supplies and provide AC currents to the plurality of stator phases of the respective first and second electrical machines; a condition monitoring unit configured to…”, which are/is simply routine and conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry that includes microprocessors for acquiring data and outputted the calculated result, which fall in the category of data collection and extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the harmonic component of the first and second DC link currents is a second harmonic component.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the harmonic component of the positive sequence stator current through the first and second electrical machines is a third harmonic component.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the condition monitoring unit is configured to calculate a positive sequence stator current for each electrical machine as
1
3
(
I
a
+
a
*
I
b
+
a
2
*
I
c
)
, where
I
a
,
I
b
,
I
c
are the stator currents through the electrical machine and
a
=
-
0.5
+
j
√
3
2
”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the condition monitoring unit is configured to calculate a combined sequence stator current for each electrical machine as
I
2
a
+
I
b
*
I
c
+
I
c
*
I
b
where
I
a
,
I
b
,
I
c
are the stator currents through the electrical machine.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the condition monitoring unit is configured to determine a winding fault in the first electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is above the predetermined range.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the condition monitoring unit is configured to determine a winding fault in the second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is below the predetermined range.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 16 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein the condition monitoring unit is configured to determine the winding fault if the one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of the predetermined range for longer than a predetermined time period.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 16 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 17 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “…wherein condition monitoring unit is configured to determine the winding fault if any two of the ratios are outside of the predetermined range.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 17 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “…a condition monitoring unit configured to: measure first and second DC link currents from the respective first and second DC electrical supplies to the respective first and second power electronics modules; measure stator currents through phases of the first and second electrical machines; calculate a first ratio from a harmonic component of the first DC link current divided by a harmonic component of the second DC link current; calculate a second ratio from a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; calculate a third ratio from a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; and determine a winding fault in the first or second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of a predetermined range.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…a condition monitoring unit configured to: measure first and second DC link currents from the respective first and second DC electrical supplies to the respective first and second power electronics modules; measure stator currents through phases of the first and second electrical machines; calculate a first ratio from a harmonic component of the first DC link current divided by a harmonic component of the second DC link current; calculate a second ratio from a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; calculate a third ratio from a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; and determine a winding fault in the first or second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of a predetermined range.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “measuring unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…a condition monitoring unit configured to: measure first and second DC link currents from the respective first and second DC electrical supplies to the respective first and second power electronics modules; measure stator currents through phases of the first and second electrical machines; calculate a first ratio from a harmonic component of the first DC link current divided by a harmonic component of the second DC link current; calculate a second ratio from a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; calculate a third ratio from a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; and determine a winding fault in the first or second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of a predetermined range.”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…a condition monitoring unit configured to: measure first and second DC link currents from the respective first and second DC electrical supplies to the respective first and second power electronics modules; measure stator currents through phases of the first and second electrical machines; calculate a first ratio from a harmonic component of the first DC link current divided by a harmonic component of the second DC link current; calculate a second ratio from a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; calculate a third ratio from a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; and determine a winding fault in the first or second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of a predetermined range.”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim(s) 9 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Note: This is not a rejection because paragraph [0059] of the Specification discloses “The condition monitoring unit 104 may be a separate component to the inverters 1021, 1022 or, in some arrangements, may be provided as part of one or other of the inverters 1021, 1022. The condition monitoring unit 104 may be implemented using general purpose computer hardware, i.e. with an input/output module for receiving current measurements from current sensors and for providing outputs indicating the condition of the system 100, a processing module for carrying out calculations and a memory module for storing data. The method of monitoring the electrical machines 1011, 1012 may therefore be described as a computer-implemented method and may be embodied by instructions for causing a computer to perform the method.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…measuring stator currents through phases of the first and second electrical machines… calculating a second ratio from a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a harmonic component of a positive sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; calculating a third ratio from a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the first electrical machine divided by a DC component of a combined sequence stator current through the second electrical machine; and determining a winding fault in the first or second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is outside of a predetermined range.” in lines 6-17 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitations in question refer to the same “first multiphase electrical machine”, “second multiphase electrical machine” and “first and second multiphase electrical machines” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if they refer to a different “first electrical machine”, “second electrical machine” and “first and second electrical machines”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the first multiphase electrical machine”, “the second multiphase electrical machine” and “the first and second multiphase electrical machines”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “…wherein the harmonic component of the positive sequence stator current through the first and second electrical machines is a third harmonic component.” in lines 1-3 of Claim 3. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “first and second multiphase electrical machines” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “first and second electrical machines”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the first and second multiphase electrical machines”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “…wherein the positive sequence stator current for each electrical machine is calculated as
1
3
(
I
a
+
a
*
I
b
+
a
2
*
I
c
)
, where
I
a
,
I
b
,
I
c
are the stator currents through the electrical machine and
a
=
-
0.5
+
j
√
3
2
.” in lines 1-3 of Claim 4. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “first and second multiphase electrical machines” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “electrical machine”. Please provide proper clarification.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…wherein the combined sequence stator current for each electrical machine is calculated as
I
2
a
+
I
b
*
I
c
+
I
c
*
I
b
where
I
a
,
I
b
,
I
c
are the stator currents through the electrical machine.” in lines 1-3 of Claim 5. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “first and second multiphase electrical machines” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “electrical machine”. Please provide proper clarification.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…wherein the winding fault is determined to be in the first electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is above the predetermined range.” in lines 1-3 of Claim 6. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “first multiphase electrical machine” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “first electrical machine”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the first multiphase electrical machine”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “…wherein the winding fault is determined to be in the second electrical machine if one or more of the first, second and third ratios is below the predetermined range.” in lines 1-3 of Claim 7. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “second multiphase electrical machine” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “second electrical machine”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the second multiphase electrical machine”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "…measure first and second DC link currents from the respective first and second DC electrical supplies to the respective first and second power electronics modules…" in lines 8-9 of Claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of “first and second power electronics modules”.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 1.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 9.
Please make the proper corrections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mongeau US 2025/0004040 - Systems, methods, and computer program products for virtual machine testing of an electric machine. A test signature including parameter values measured during one or more static tests of the electric machine is compared to a reference signature generated by performing a similar series of static tests on a reference machine. The reference machine is then validated by subjecting the reference machine to full-load dynamic testing. The test and reference signatures may include a plurality of parameters each characterizing a physical property of the respective machines in one or more physical domains.
Bengtsson et al. US 2009/0254297 - Arrangement to determine at least one electrical feature of an electrical device includes a signal injection unit configured to inject first and second test signals into electric, a signal conversion unit configured to measure electrical qualities in the electrical circuits resulting from the test signals, and a processing device including at least two input channels configured to receive the measured electrical quantities and to determine the electrical feature based on the measured electrical quantities, a mixing unit configured to add the measurements of the first electrical quantity from the test signals and based thereon generate a first mixed signal, to add the measurements of the second electrical quantity from the test signals and based thereon generate a second mixed signal.
Johansson et al. US 2013/0335098 - A method for adapting a ground fault detection to a change of an electrical machine condition, wherein the machine includes a winding. The electrical machine is in a first machine condition, a first reference value being defined for measured values of an electrical quantity. The ground fault detection includes continuously measuring the electrical quantity in the winding and detecting a ground fault based on the measured values of the electrical quantity and the first reference value. The method includes receiving a signal, detecting a change of machine condition based on the received signal, and changing to a second reference value for the measured values of the electrical quantity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, 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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights