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 filed on 03/04/2025 has been acknowledged and considered by examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 8:
The claims recite the limitation “b. calculating, on a basis of a magnetic field” (Claim 1, line 5; Claim 8, line 7). Although step (a.) previously introduces “a magnetic field” (Claim 1, line 4; Claim 8, line 6), it is unclear if step (b.) is introducing a second magnetic field or referring back to the magnetic field from step (a.). A possible correction would read “b. calculating, on a basis of the data related to the[[a]] magnetic field”.
The claims recite the limitation “d. analyzing of the acceleration data” (Claim 1, line 9; Claim 8, line 11). Although step (a.) introduces “data related to an acceleration” (Claim 1, line 5; Claim 8, line 7) and step (c.) properly refers to “the data related to an acceleration” (Claim 1, line 7; Claim 8, line 9), the term “the acceleration data” lacks proper antecedent basis. A possible correction would read “analyzing the data related to the acceleration
As to claims 2, 4, 9, and 11, the claims recite “the acceleration data”. Because the term lacks proper antecedent basis in independent claims 1 and 8, the indefiniteness carries over into these claims.
As to claims 3 and 10, the claims recite the limitation “a position of the sensor” (line 1). The preambles of the independent claims introduce a plurality of sensors. Because the multiple sensors are claimed, referring to a singular sensor lacks antecedent basis and makes it ambiguous whether the limitation applies to one specific sensor, or all of the sensors.
As to claims 7 and 14, the claims recite the limitation “the magnetic field of the motor”. The preambles of the independent claims introduce “an electrical motor” and step (a.) introduces “a magnetic field”, but the claims never formally establish that the magnetic field being measured belongs to the motor. The phrase “the magnetic field of the motor” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is considered to be a process. Therefore, claims 1-7 fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention could be directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are drawn to a computer program product which could be interpreted as a signal or carrier wave (i.e. a transitory computer readable medium). Such a signal or carrier wave is not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (See MPEP 2106, II, A), but is directed to judicially excepted subject matter.
It is noted that computer programs embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium or other structure, which would permit the functionality of the program to be realized, would be directed to a product and be within a statutory category of invention, so long as the computer readable medium is not disclosed as non-statutory subject matter per se (signals or carrier waves).
While claims 8-14 are rejected above under Step 1 as encompassing non-statutory transitory signals, even if the claims were amended to strictly recite statutory articles of manufacture, claims 1-14 would still be 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.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is a statutory process. For the purpose of the following analysis, the tangible computer-readable storage medium of claims 8-14 are evaluated as if properly directed to statutory articles of manufacture (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under the “Mental Processes” and "Mathematical Relationships" Groupings.
The independent claims recite “calculating, on a basis of a magnetic field and a position of the sensors, a desynchronization time being a difference between the internal clocks”, “shifting, by the desynchronization time, the data”, and “analyzing of the acceleration data to obtain data related to a vibration phase shift”. These limitations, as drafted, describe a process of mathematical manipulation and data analysis. Specifically, the claims encompass a mathematical calculation to derive numerical values for a time difference between clocks and mathematically shifting those data timelines to align them. This sequence of collecting data and performing calculations constitutes a mathematical relationship. Furthermore, the logic of analyzing the shifted data to identify a vibration phase shift describes a mental process of basic logic and evaluation that can be performed in the human mind or on paper. The mere nominal recitation of a "computer", "sensors", or “wireless communication device” does not take the claim limitations out of these groupings as it merely functions to automate the mathematical algorithm. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes)
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of "sensors", an "internal clock", an "accelerator", a "magnetic field sensor", a “wireless communication device”, and an "electrical motor". The sensors, clocks, accelerometers, and transceivers are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and operate in their ordinary capacity to gather data, measure physical properties, and transmit information, which does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. Mere data gathering via a sensor is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
While the "electrical motor", “sensors”, and “wireless communication device” are physical components, their recitation merely describes the environment or field of use (motor component monitoring) in which the abstract idea operates. The abstract idea of calculating a time difference, shifting data timelines, and analyzing phase shifts does not result in an improvement to the physical operation of the electrical motor, the sensors, or the functioning of the computing device itself; rather it generates a piece of diagnostic information about the motor’s state. The claims do not recite a specific implementation that changes the way the motor is driven, actuated, or physically controlled in a non-conventional way to overcome a technical problem. Instead, they function to provide a numerical diagnostic result from a mental process of data analysis.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. To show that the set of additional elements in combination are well-understood, routine, and conventional, the Examiner identifies that the use of standard sensors and computing devices to monitor motors is ubiquitous. For instance, the Applicant’s specification explicitly admits that “Nowadays, many various cheap sensors 2 are available on the market that can measure both acceleration and magnetic field at their position” and that “Such sensors 2 use quartz clocks”. Together, these illustrate that the sensors, communication devices, and the sequence of data-gathering are standard components used in their expected manner.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) indicate that collecting information, analyzing it, and reporting the results is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. The additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 do not include any other additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 specify the source or type of the data gathered (e.g., predefined positions) or provide specific, narrower mathematical logic and limits for the calculation (e.g., using acceleration data to calculate position, synchronizing when time is greater than 8 ms) or dictate generic post-solution activity (e.g., setting an alarm, emitting a synchronization signal to start data acquisition). Specifying a narrower mathematical formula, adding additional data gathering steps, or dictating generic post-solution alarm output does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oriol et al. (hereinafter, “Oriol”; US 2022/0155761) in view of Imae et al. (hereinafter, “Imae”; JP 2018119826) and Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”; KR 20230093165).
With regards to claim 1, Oriol teaches a method of synchronization of sensors (method of monitoring a plurality of sensors; sensor devices 110, 120; [0006] and [0016]), each of the sensors comprising an internal clock (each sensor contains an internal clock; [0019]), an accelerometer (an accelerometer or a vibration sensor; [0016]), a magnetic field sensor (a magnetometer for sensing a magnetic field; [0016]) and a wireless communication device (a wireless transceiver for transmitting and receiving transmissions according to a wireless transmission protocol; [0018] and [0026]), the sensors configured for monitoring an electrical motor (monitoring first machine 112; [0038]), the method comprising:
a. receiving data related to an acceleration and a magnetic field from the sensors (sensing and receiving operating parameter input data from the accelerometer (acceleration/vibration) and magnetometers (magnetic field); [0016] and [0024]);
Oriol does not teach:
b. calculating, on a basis of a magnetic field and a position of the sensors, a desynchronization time being a difference between the internal clocks of the sensors;
c. shifting, by the desynchronization time, the data related to the acceleration from one of the sensors.
However, Imae teaches:
b. calculating, on a basis of a magnetic field and a position of the sensors, a desynchronization time being a difference between the internal clocks of the sensors (calculating a time difference between the internal drifting clocks of multiple independent sensor nodes; [0050]-[0051]);
c. shifting, by the desynchronization time, the data related to the acceleration from one of the sensors (correcting the sensor detection time associated with the vibration data by mathematically adding or subtracting the calculated time difference; [0052], [0059], [0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless sensor system of Oriol to utilize the time difference calculation and shifting taught by Imae wherein calculating, on a basis of a magnetic field and a position of the sensors, a desynchronization time being a difference between the internal clocks of the sensors and shifting, by the desynchronization time, the data related to the acceleration from one of the sensors to match the time with high accuracy without acquiring the time information from the outside by each sensor device ([0062] Imae).
Oriol as modified does not teach:
d. analyzing of the acceleration data to obtain data related to a vibration phase shift.
However, Park teaches:
d. analyzing of the acceleration data to obtain data related to a vibration phase shift (analyzing time-synchronized bearing vibration data across a rotating machine to calculate a vibration phase difference between the sensor locations; [0031], [0039], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless sensor system of Oriol as modified to utilize the vibration phase shift calculation taught by Park wherein analyzing the acceleration data to obtain data related to a vibration phase shift to accurately diagnose structural and spatial malfunctions ([0029]-[0031] and [0045]-[0048] Park).
With regards to claim 2, Oriol as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Park further teaches further comprising e. setting an alarm when analyzing the acceleration data indicates that there is a malfunction of the electrical motor (when the total phase difference exceeds a set threshold, it is determined that an abnormality has occurred in the turbine state; [0060]).
With regards to claim 5, Oriol as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Oriol further teaches further comprising f. wirelessly synchronizing the internal clocks of the sensors (transmitting a wireless radio frequency packet containing a synchronization time signal from the first sensor device to the second sensor device to set their internal clocks; [0018]-[0019]).
With regards to claim 6, Oriol as modified teaches the method according to claim 5. Oriol as modified does not teach wherein step f. is performed when the desynchronization time is greater than 8 ms.
However, Imae teaches measuring a phase difference becomes mathematically impossible due to aliasing (cycle slips) if clock drift becomes too large ([0083]-[0084]). Because Imae’s 50 Hz wave has a period of 20 ms, mathematical aliasing occurs if the drift exceeds half a wave cycle (10 ms). Under MPEP 2144.05, the determination of an optimal value for a result effective variable is obvious when the parameter is known to affect the system performance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the wireless sensor system of Oriol as modified wherein step f. is performed when the desynchronization time is greater than 8 ms because selecting an 8 ms safety threshold to abandon Imae’s wave based calculation and force a wireless resynchronization is a routine engineering optimization of a result effective variable to prevent aliasing.
With regards to claim 7, Oriol as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Oriol further teaches wherein, before step a., a step g. is performed, during which one of the sensors emits a synchronization signal which causes other sensors to start acquisition of the data related to the acceleration and the magnetic field of the motor (the first sensor broadcasts a synchronization packet and the second sensor switches from a disabled power-saving mode into a listening mode that is triggered by and synchronized to the predetermined time interval of the first sensor’s transmission ([0030]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 8, Oriol teaches a tangible computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method of synchronization of sensors (method of monitoring a plurality of sensors; sensor devices 110, 120; [0006] and [0016]), each of the sensors comprising an internal clock (each sensor contains an internal clock; [0019]), an accelerometer (an accelerometer or a vibration sensor; [0016]), a magnetic field sensor (a magnetometer for sensing a magnetic field; [0016]) and a wireless communication device (a wireless transceiver for transmitting and receiving transmissions according to a wireless transmission protocol; [0018] and [0026]), the sensors configured for monitoring an electrical motor (monitoring first machine 112; [0038]), the method comprising:
a. receiving data related to an acceleration and a magnetic field from the sensors (sensing and receiving operating parameter input data from the accelerometer (acceleration/vibration) and magnetometers (magnetic field); [0016] and [0024]);
Oriol does not teach:
b. calculating, on a basis of a magnetic field and a position of the sensors, a desynchronization time being a difference between the internal clocks of the sensors;
c. shifting, by the desynchronization time, the data related to the acceleration from one of the sensors.
However, Imae teaches:
b. calculating, on a basis of a magnetic field and a position of the sensors, a desynchronization time being a difference between the internal clocks of the sensors (calculating a time difference between the internal drifting clocks of multiple independent sensor nodes; [0050]-[0051]);
c. shifting, by the desynchronization time, the data related to the acceleration from one of the sensors (correcting the sensor detection time associated with the vibration data by mathematically adding or subtracting the calculated time difference; [0052], [0059], [0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless sensor system of Oriol to utilize the time difference calculation and shifting taught by Imae wherein calculating, on a basis of a magnetic field and a position of the sensors, a desynchronization time being a difference between the internal clocks of the sensors and shifting, by the desynchronization time, the data related to the acceleration from one of the sensors to match the time with high accuracy without acquiring the time information from the outside by each sensor device ([0062] Imae).
Oriol as modified does not teach:
d. analyzing of the acceleration data to obtain data related to a vibration phase shift.
However, Park teaches:
d. analyzing of the acceleration data to obtain data related to a vibration phase shift (analyzing time-synchronized bearing vibration data across a rotating machine to calculate a vibration phase difference between the sensor locations; [0031], [0039], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless sensor system of Oriol as modified to utilize the vibration phase shift calculation taught by Park wherein analyzing the acceleration data to obtain data related to a vibration phase shift to accurately diagnose structural and spatial malfunctions ([0029]-[0031] and [0045]-[0048] Park).
With regards to claim 9, Oriol as modified teaches the tangible computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8. Park further teaches further comprising e. setting an alarm when analyzing the acceleration data indicates that there is a malfunction of the electrical motor (when the total phase difference exceeds a set threshold, it is determined that an abnormality has occurred in the turbine state; [0060]).
With regards to claim 12, Oriol as modified teaches the tangible computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8. Oriol further teaches further comprising f. wirelessly synchronizing the internal clocks of the sensors (transmitting a wireless radio frequency packet containing a synchronization time signal from the first sensor device to the second sensor device to set their internal clocks; [0018]-[0019]).
With regards to claim 13, Oriol as modified teaches the tangible computer-readable storage medium according to claim 12. Oriol as modified does not teach wherein step f. is performed when the desynchronization time is greater than 8 ms.
However, Imae teaches measuring a phase difference becomes mathematically impossible due to aliasing (cycle slips) if clock drift becomes too large ([0083]-[0084]). Because Imae’s 50 Hz wave has a period of 20 ms, mathematical aliasing occurs if the drift exceeds half a wave cycle (10 ms). Under MPEP 2144.05, the determination of an optimal value for a result effective variable is obvious when the parameter is known to affect the system performance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the wireless sensor system of Oriol as modified wherein step f. is performed when the desynchronization time is greater than 8 ms because selecting an 8 ms safety threshold to abandon Imae’s wave based calculation and force a wireless resynchronization is a routine engineering optimization of a result effective variable to prevent aliasing.
With regards to claim 14, Oriol as modified teaches the tangible computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8. Oriol further teaches wherein, before step a., a step g. is performed, during which one of the sensors emits a synchronization signal which causes other sensors to start acquisition of the data related to the acceleration and the magnetic field of the motor (the first sensor broadcasts a synchronization packet and the second sensor switches from a disabled power-saving mode into a listening mode that is triggered by and synchronized to the predetermined time interval of the first sensor’s transmission ([0030]-[0033]).
Claims 3, 4, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oriol et al. (hereinafter, “Oriol”; US 2022/0155761) in view of Imae et al. (hereinafter, “Imae”; JP 2018119826) and Park et al. (hereinafter, “Park”; KR 20230093165) and further in view of Barak et al. (hereinafter, “Barak”; US 2022/0175468).
With regards to claim 3, Oriol as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Oriol as modified does not explicitly teach wherein a position of the sensor is predefined.
However, Barak teaches wherein a position of the sensor is predefined (sensors 31 are placed in predefined locations and in predefined distances between them; [0058]; Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless sensor system of Oriol as modified wherein a position of the sensor is predefined to reduce the number of parameters of the motion model and prevent over-fitting of the measured data, thereby preventing the system from erroneously calculating a position due to a noisy or distorted measurement ([0100] Barak).
With regards to claim 4, Oriol as modified teaches the method according to claim 1. Oriol as modified does not teach wherein the acceleration data is used to calculate a position of the sensors.
However, Barak teaches wherein the acceleration data is used to calculate a position of the sensors (the accelerometer measures acceleration data such as local linear acceleration and applies sensor fusion methods (integration or Kalman filters) to compute and track position and orientation of the sensor; [0006], [0015], [0091]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless sensor system of Oriol as modified to incorporate the sensor position calculation of Barak wherein the acceleration data is used to calculate a position of the sensors to reduce the calculation latency and provide even higher-rate, more stable localization ([0091] Barak).
With regards to claim 10, Oriol as modified teaches the tangible computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8. Oriol as modified does not explicitly teach wherein a position of the sensor is predefined.
However, Barak teaches wherein a position of the sensor is predefined (sensors 31 are placed in predefined locations and in predefined distances between them; [0058]; Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless sensor system of Oriol as modified wherein a position of the sensor is predefined to reduce the number of parameters of the motion model and prevent over-fitting of the measured data, thereby preventing the system from erroneously calculating a position due to a noisy or distorted measurement ([0100] Barak).
With regards to claim 11, Oriol as modified teaches the tangible computer-readable storage medium according to claim 8,. Oriol as modified does not teach wherein the acceleration data is used to calculate a position of the sensors.
However, Barak teaches wherein the acceleration data is used to calculate a position of the sensors (the accelerometer measures acceleration data such as local linear acceleration and applies sensor fusion methods (integration or Kalman filters) to compute and track position and orientation of the sensor; [0006], [0015], [0091]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wireless sensor system of Oriol as modified to incorporate the sensor position calculation of Barak wherein the acceleration data is used to calculate a position of the sensors to reduce the calculation latency and provide even higher-rate, more stable localization ([0091] Barak).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSAMAH MURSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-9534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11 a.m. 8 p.m. ET..
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (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 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.
/OSAMAH MURSHED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights