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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority FR2210868 on 10/20/20255 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2025 and 05/09/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-10 are directed to a method, module, turbomachine, and aircraft. Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
If the claims recite at least one statutory category of invention, the claims require further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception of invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 recite the following (bolded) abstract limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“Method for controlling the operation of a coupling device for an aircraft turbomachine, the turbomachine comprising a rotary shaft and an electric machine, the coupling device being configured to connect a rotor shaft of the electric machine to the rotary shaft and having two operating states, a coupled state so as to secure the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft and a decoupled state so as to separate the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft, the method comprising the steps of:
- determining a control state of the coupling device delivered in the form of a control command in the coupled state or in the decoupled state of the coupling device;
- determining the rotational speed of the electric machine;
- determining the rotational speed of the rotary shaft;
- a first comparison of the determined rotational speed of the electric machine with a time evolution profile of the rotational speed of the electric machine determined from the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device, the first comparison being carried out to determine an operating deviation;
- a second comparison of the operating deviation with a detection threshold; and
- according to the result of the second comparison step, identifying the existence or absence of a failure of the coupling device;
wherein the second comparison step comprises determining the value of the detection threshold from at least one control parameter, the operating deviation and the rotational speed of the electric machine.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. For example, a human in the mind or by pen and paper, determining a state of a device and speeds, comparing the speeds over time to determine a deviation, comparing the deviation to a threshold, identifying failure based on comparisons. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claims recite a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claims require further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim(s) 1 recites the following (underlined) additional limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“Method for controlling the operation of a coupling device for an aircraft turbomachine, the turbomachine comprising a rotary shaft and an electric machine, the coupling device being configured to connect a rotor shaft of the electric machine to the rotary shaft and having two operating states, a coupled state so as to secure the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft and a decoupled state so as to separate the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft, the method comprising the steps of:
- determining a control state of the coupling device delivered in the form of a control command in the coupled state or in the decoupled state of the coupling device;
- determining the rotational speed of the electric machine;
- determining the rotational speed of the rotary shaft;
- a first comparison of the determined rotational speed of the electric machine with a time evolution profile of the rotational speed of the electric machine determined from the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device, the first comparison being carried out to determine an operating deviation;
- a second comparison of the operating deviation with a detection threshold; and
- according to the result of the second comparison step, identifying the existence or absence of a failure of the coupling device;
wherein the second comparison step comprises determining the value of the detection threshold from at least one control parameter, the operating deviation and the rotational speed of the electric machine.”
Claim 8 recites the following (underlined) additional limitations:
“Module for controlling the operation of a coupling device for an aircraft turbo machine ...”
The claimed limitations recites the additional elements of an aircraft turbomachine system and a module. The functions of the additional elements merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (aircrafts) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. In regards to the module, the functions of this additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception, and require further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to claim 1, an aircraft turbomachine system merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (aircrafts) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 8, a module, is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than additional elements of instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, 5, the claims recite limitations regarding determining a chart of time evolution profiles, calculating a gradient of the time evolution profile, and delaying comparison results, respectively, which are functions/processes that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover performances of the limitations in the human mind and/or mathematical concepts. For example, a human in the mind or by pen and paper, charting and calculating gradients of time evolution profiles, and delaying comparing results. The functions described by these limitations are also functions typical of generic computing components, and the functions performed or not performed may be entirely within the realm of computer functions. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, the claims recite a control step and a blocking step, respectively, wherein the function of controlling and blocking is performed at a high level of generality. The recitation
of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on
how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does
not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this
type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838
F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, if the claims are amended to include generic computing devices to perform the currently claimed tasks, the limitations may be found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(f).
Claims 9 and 10 recites an aircraft turbomachine and an aircraft, respectively, which merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (aircrafts) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, claim(s) 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murrow (20190061964) in view of Baig et al. (20230227171; hereinafter Baig).
Regarding claim 1, Murrow teaches method for controlling the operation of a coupling device for an aircraft turbomachine (Murrow: Abstract), the turbomachine comprising a rotary shaft and an electric machine (Murrow: “the forward thrust propulsor 34 is comprises a fan 124 coupled to a fan shaft 126. The aft output shaft 118 of the turbomachine 110 is selectively mechanically coupled to, or permanently mechanically coupled to, the fan shaft 126 to allow the turbomachine 110 to drive the fan 124” ¶ 84, “a turbomachine 110 and electric machine 42 in accordance with such an exemplary embodiment may allow for the electric power source 36 to generate a relatively high amount of electric power and to provide such electric power to the plurality of VTE fans of the propulsion system 32” ¶ 83), the coupling device being configured to connect a rotor shaft of the electric machine to the rotary shaft and having two operating states (Murrow: “the electric machine 42 is mechanically coupled to the forward thrust propulsor 32 through, e.g., the LP shaft 114 of the turbomachine 110, and more specifically through the forward output shaft 116. Accordingly, for the embodiment depicted, the electric machine 42 may further drive one or more components of the turbomachine 110” ¶ 96), a coupled state so as to secure the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft and a decoupled state so as to separate the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft (Murrow: “The turbomachine 110 is selectively mechanically coupled to the forward thrust propulsor 34 through the coupling unit 164 ... the electric machine 42 is positioned between the coupling unit 164 and the forward thrust propulsor ... moveable automatically between an engaged position and a disengaged position” ¶ 99), the method comprising the steps of:
- determining a control state of the coupling device delivered in the form of a control command in the coupled state or in the decoupled state of the coupling device (Murrow: “the clutch may instead be a two-way clutch actuatable between an engaged position and a disengaged position by a controller, such as the main controller 80, based on one or more control decisions” ¶ 99);
...
- determining the rotational speed of the rotary shaft (Murrow: “the operability sensors may sense data indicative of a rotational speed of one or more shafts of the turbomachine” ¶ 123
...
While, Murrow discloses of measuring shaft rotational speeds in paragraph 88 and 123, Murrow remains silent regarding:
- determining the rotational speed of the electric machine;
...
- a first comparison of the determined rotational speed of the electric machine with a time evolution profile of the rotational speed of the electric machine determined from the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device, the first comparison being carried out to determine an operating deviation
- a second comparison of the operating deviation with a detection threshold; and
- according to the result of the second comparison step, identifying the existence or absence of a failure of the coupling device;
wherein the second comparison step comprises determining the value of the detection threshold from at least one control parameter, the operating deviation and the rotational speed of the electric machine.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Baig teaches:
- determining the rotational speed of the electric machine (Baig: “the hybrid electric propulsion systems may include that the motor data is a rotational speed of the electric machine” ¶ 19);
...
- a first comparison of the determined rotational speed of the electric machine with a time evolution profile of the rotational speed of the electric machine determined from the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device, the first comparison being carried out to determine an operating deviation (Baig: “a plot 526 that illustrates a motor speed (rad/sec) 528 and a shaft speed (rad/sec) 530, as a function of time, during normal operation ... FIG. 5C illustrates a plot 532 that illustrates a shaft failure. Specifically, as shown in plot 532, the motor speed 528 and the shaft speed 530 deviate at the point of failure 534” ¶ 68, “the rotational speed of an engine shaft is compared against a rotational speed of the electric machine” ¶ 69);
- a second comparison of the operating deviation with a detection threshold (Baig: “the detected speeds (or other parameter) diverge by more than the predetermined tolerance or threshold, the shaft would be declared failed” ¶ 62, “the engine fault electric machine detection system 500 is configured to monitor a primary indicator of the engine core 502. Specifically, a direct comparison of an aspect of the engine core 502 is made against an aspect of the electrical power system 510” ¶ 69, see also ¶ 61, 63, 78, 79); and
- according to the result of the second comparison step, identifying the existence or absence of a failure of the coupling device (Baig: “ ... the signals may be significantly different, but the principle of a deviation of a signal relative to a tolerance is employed to determine a fault or failure” ¶ 79);
wherein the second comparison step comprises determining the value of the detection threshold from at least one control parameter, the operating deviation and the rotational speed of the electric machine (Baig: “two channel N1 (A, B) and an average speed similar to plot 700, a motor speed that is used in the algorithm for determining sensor drift and errors and selecting which sensor is the faulty sensor and which is the non-fault sensor. A three signal average may be used to create an average value which is the signal a control would use to base its decisions on ... , the signals may be significantly different, but the principle of a deviation of a signal relative to a tolerance is employed to determine a fault or failure” ¶ 79).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the monitoring system of Murrow so that it also includes the element of detection and comparison, as taught by Baig, in order to accurately detect failure (Baig: ¶ 63, 68).
Regarding claim 2, Murrow fails to teach method according to Claim 1, wherein the control parameter is selected from the outside temperature, the altitude of the aircraft and a parameter representative of a type of failure of the electric machine.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Baig teaches method according to Claim 1, wherein the control parameter is selected from the outside temperature, the altitude of the aircraft and a parameter representative of a type of failure of the electric machine (Baig: “sensed and/or derived parameters related to speed, flow rate, pressure ratios, temperature, thrust, and the like can be used to establish operational schedules and transition limits ... The controller 304 may be configured to monitor electrical/motor data and/or engine data from the engine core in order to make determinations regarding health and/or faults of the engine core” ¶ 56, “sensors of an electric motor are employed to monitor primary indicators and secondary indicators associated with engine core status/operation. The electric motor may be used, in this capacity, as a monitor for maintenance events of the engine, such as shaft failure, blade failure, rubbing events, valve runaway, etc.” ¶ 61, see also ¶ 63, 75).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the monitoring system of Murrow so that it also includes the element of control parameter types, as taught by Baig, in order to accurately detect failure types (Baig: ¶ 63, 75, 90).
Regarding claim 3, Murrow fails to teach method according to Claim 1, wherein the first comparison step comprises a prior step of determining a chart of time evolution profiles of the rotational speed of the electric machine as a function of the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Baig teaches method according to Claim 1, wherein the first comparison step comprises a prior step of determining a chart of time evolution profiles of the rotational speed of the electric machine as a function of the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device (Baig: “FIG. 5B illustrates a plot 526 that illustrates a motor speed (rad/sec) 528 and a shaft speed (rad/sec) 530, as a function of time, during normal operation. As shown, during normal operation, the rotational speed of the electric machine 512 (motor speed 528) and the rotational speed of the high speed shaft 504 (shaft speed 530) are aligned” ¶ 68, “this is illustrated in plot 622 of FIG. 6B. In plot 622, a shaft speed 624 and an electrical current 626 are plotted as a function of time. FIGS. 6C-6E illustrate plots of current measurements during operation of the engine fault electric machine detection system 600. Plot 628 of FIG. 6C illustrates a normal operation of the engine core 602 and the current of the electric machine 612 during such operation” ¶ 73, see also ¶ 68, 78, 79).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the monitoring system of Murrow so that it also includes the element of time evolution profiles, as taught by Baig, in order to accurately detect failures based on historical data (Baig: ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 5, Murrow fails to teach method according to Claim 1 comprising a step of delaying the result of the second comparison step.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Baig teaches method according to Claim 1 comprising a step of delaying the result of the second comparison step (Murrow: “by monitoring an aspect of the electric machine 612 ... a conclusion regarding the health of the engine core 602 may be provided ... a fault may be declared when an energy level of any peak rises above a threshold value. For example, the peak related to a rotating gear is always present, however, it is only a problem if an amplitude increases above the threshold value” ¶ 74, see also ¶ 76, 78).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the monitoring system of Murrow so that it also includes the element of delaying the second comparison, as taught by Baig, in order to accurately detect failures (Baig: ¶ 74, 75).
Regarding claim 6, Murrow in view of Baig teaches method according to Claim 1 comprising prior to the step of determining the rotational speed of the electric machine, a control of the electric machine in motor mode when the turbomachine is stopped (Murrow: “an electric machine 42 of a propulsion system 32 may drive a forward thrust propulsor 32 of the propulsion system 32” ¶ 97).
Regarding claim 7, Murrow in view of Baig teaches method according to Claim 6, comprising blocking the rotation of the rotary shaft when the electric machine operates in motor mode (Murrow: “an electric machine 42 of a propulsion system 32 may drive a forward thrust propulsor 32 of the propulsion system 32 during emergency operations without rotating one or more components of a turbomachine 110, or without rotating one or more components of a turbomachine 110 at the same speed” ¶ 97, see also ¶ 100).
Regarding claim 8, Murrow teaches module for controlling the operation of a coupling device for an aircraft turbomachine (Murrow: “the electric communication bus 38 includes a main controller 80 and a plurality of electric power controllers 82. The main controller 80 is electrically connected to both the electric machine 42 and the electric energy storage unit 44” ¶ 64, see also ¶ 99),
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 8, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 9, Murrow teaches aircraft turbomachine (Murrow: “the propulsion system may generally include a combustion engine, such as a turbomachine” ¶ 48)
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 9, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 1 and 8, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 10, Murrow teaches aircraft comprising a turbomachine according to claim 9 (Murrow: “an aircraft 10 in accordance with various the exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure” ¶ 50, see also ¶ 52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Murrow in view of Baig fails to teach the method according to Claim 1 wherein the second comparison step comprises calculating the gradient of the operating deviation and a step of calculating the gradient of the time evolution profile prior to the second comparison step, the value of the detection threshold being determined from the control parameter, the gradient of the operating deviation, and the gradient of the determined rotational speed of the electric machine.
Murrow fails to teach the operating deviation and the time evolution profile. Instead, Baig is relied upon to teach these limitations as seen in the rejection above. Baig does disclose of secondary indicators used to detect faults by utilizing changes over time (e.g. gradient, slope, etc.) of the turbomachine and electric motor evolution profiles (FIGs. 5B, 5C, 6B-6E, 7A, 7B) in paragraphs 63; however, Baig fails to disclose of calculating the gradient of the operating deviation and furthermore the value detection threshold being determined from the gradient of the operating deviation.
Upon further search, the closest prior art found is Ayukawa et al. (20220074814; hereinafter Ayukawa) which discloses determining failures based on changes in time series trends; however, Ayukawa fails to disclose calculating the gradient of the operating deviation and further the value detection threshold being determined from the gradient of the operating deviation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zatorski et al. (20220333553) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of turbomachine monitoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663