DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. The objections and rejections from the Office Action of 7/5/2024 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
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 5-27, 31-35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mathematical algorithm for determining an operating condition of a rotating machine including a bearing and a shaft through vibration analysis.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no specific machine is recited in the claims and many machines across many different applications rotate through use of a shaft and bearings.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited vibration sensor and A/D converter would be necessary to implement the algorithm using a digital computer and the recitation of the general-purpose computer elements does not serve to make the mathematical algorithm eligible (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). The recited “linear response vibration sensor” amounts to the recitation of a well-understood, routine, and conventional sensor for measuring the vibration data needed for implementing the algorithm (See Paragraph [0004] of US 20040025590 A1).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 33, 37, and 38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sahara et al. (US 20080033695 A1)[hereinafter "Sahara"](disclosed by Applicant in the IDS of 12/13/2017), in further view of MILMAN, Andrew, "Mathematical Principles of Remote Sensing: Making Inferences from Noisy Data", Sleeping Bear Press, Michigan, 1999, pp. 215-233 (supplied by Applicant in parent US Application 13/258,729)[hereinafter "Milman"].
Regarding Claim 33, Sahara discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program for detecting an operating condition of a machine including a bearing associated with a shaft that rotates at a speed of rotation, the computer program comprising computer readable code means which, when said computer program is run on a computer, causes the computer [Paragraph [0221].The diagnosing system of Fig. 1.] to perform the steps of:
receiving a digital measurement data signal responsive to mechanical vibration emanating from the bearing during rotation of the shaft, said digital measurement data signal having a first sample rate [The sensor of Paragraphs [0223]-[0224]];
enveloping said digital measurement data signal, thereby generating an enveloped digital signal [Fig. 1 – Envelope Process 103];
decimating said enveloped digital signal, thereby generating a decimated enveloped digital signal such that said decimated enveloped digital signal has a reduced sample rate which is lower than said first sample rate [Paragraph [0245] – “Further, a decimation processor 109 may be located in front of the FFT unit 104 to perform a decimation process in consonance with a required frequency. When the signal decimation process is performed after the envelope process, and the number of points for the FFT operation is reduced to analyze the envelope waveform, both the frequency resolution of the detected signal and the efficiency of the FFT operation can be increased.”]; and
detecting an operating condition of the machine based on the enveloped signal sequence [Paragraphs [0236]-[0237]].
Sahara fails to disclose that the computer performs the step of:
autocorrelating, in the time domain, a first number of input sample values of said decimated enveloped digital signal, said autocorrelation being performed at a lag, said lag greater than zero; and
detecting an operating condition of the machine based on the autocorrelation.
However, these claim elements amount to the use of an enhancer to perform autocorrelation on the received signals prior to analysis by an FFT unit [See the instant Specification in which the autocorrelation function of Equation (5) on Page 45 is used to produce samples which are suitable for use in FFT 294 on Page 46.]. Sahara performs FFT analysis of the signal data [Fig. 1 – FFT Unit 104]. The use of autocorrelation to reduce signal noise was well-known in the art at the time of invention. See Page 227 of Milman, which discloses the use of an autocorrelation function [Equation (41)] that is very similar to the autocorrelation function disclosed at the bottom of Page 45 of the instant Specification. Milman discloses that its autocorrelation function includes the use of a selected lag value which produces a selected frequency resolution, said lag greater than zero (and “excluding” zero when non-zero values are used)[See parameter j” as described on Pages 227-228]. Page 228 of Milman goes on to teach that the use of this function is effective at reducing noise. The use of a unit to perform autocorrelation prior to analysis by the FFT unit of Sahara would have been obvious because Sahara teaches that “The most difficult problem for a prediction of an abnormality is that when an S/N ratio of an abnormality signal, or a signal (abnormality prediction signal) that indicates a sign of an abnormality, to a noise signal is small, the noise signal may erroneously be regarded as an abnormality signal or an abnormality prediction signal” [Paragraph [0027]] and autocorrelation is a method known to be effective at reducing noise and identifying periodic signals in the data.
Regarding Claim 37, Sahara discloses that the mechanical vibration is detected by a linear response vibration sensor [Paragraph [0376] – “The vibration sensor 511 is held at the posture to detect the vibration acceleration in the direction of gravity, and is fixed near the outer ring 532 of the housing. Various types of sensors, such as an acceleration sensor, an AE (Acoustic Emission) sensor, an ultrasonic sensor and a shock pulse sensor, can be employed as the vibration sensor 511.”].
Regarding Claim 38, Sahara discloses that the mechanical vibration is detected by a shock pulse vibration sensor [Paragraph [0376] – “The vibration sensor 511 is held at the posture to detect the vibration acceleration in the direction of gravity, and is fixed near the outer ring 532 of the housing. Various types of sensors, such as an acceleration sensor, an AE (Acoustic Emission) sensor, an ultrasonic sensor and a shock pulse sensor, can be employed as the vibration sensor 511.”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
272
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited algorithm is a mathematical algorithm for detecting an operating condition of a machine that explicitly recites the mathematical steps of “enveloping” and “autocorrelation.” There is no practical application recited for the reason that the machine can take the form of any machine and no steps are recited that would improve the operation of the underlying machine.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
268
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
162
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims merely gather data from a machine and use a mathematical algorithm to determine an operation condition.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
62
786
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding rejections are hereby withdrawn. New prior art rejections are presented above.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
132
782
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The corresponding rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-9PM 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights