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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. (DE 10 2006 012 364, cited in IDS of 11/11/2021) in view of Frahnert et al. (DE 10 2006 007 687, cited in IDS of 11/11/2021), Xie et al. (US 2013/0162846), and Official notice.
With respect to claim 1, Klein shows:
Claim 1: A method for measuring a strain of a rotor (1) loaded with centrifugal force, the method comprising:
introducing the rotor (1) into a receiving part (3) of a spin test rig (“test stand”) connected to a drive (see para. [0013]), and triggering two cameras simultaneously (para. [0027]: “With several video cameras it is possible to evaluate the changes in position recorded at the same time at several points” anticipates two video stroboscopes/cameras; lines 211-212: “geometric changes in the operating state compared to the switched-off state are recorded can be. [Sic]” This “switched-off state” implies the rotor was measured while the rotor was not running. This also implies that the switched-off state measurement is already present indicating that the measurement was obtained prior to the rotor being measured in the operating state) and (6); and
photographing at least one region of a surface of the rotor (1), after introducing the rotor (2) into the receiving part (3) (lines 211-212: “geometric changes in the operating state compared to the switched-off state are recorded can be. [Sic]”) and (8) as a starting state,
accelerating the rotor (2) to the selectable rotational speed (“changing operating conditions of the rotor is carried out”)
bringing a respective shutter of each of the two cameras (4) into an open position. (para. [0014]: “Alternatively, a classic stroboscope lamp can also be used. In this case, the camera is only started via the trigger signal and the shutter remains open for a longer period of time.” Para. [0037]: “According to the embodiment of FIG. 2, the video camera 5 exposes via a shutter 10 which is controlled with an exposure signal 11. The exposure signal 11 is only released by a controller 12 if the release for shutter opening is initially available in the form of a video ready signal”)
triggering the two cameras again simultaneously (see discussion above regarding the two cameras operated at the same time), at at least one rotational speed, the (para. [0037]: “If the video readiness signal is present, the controller 12 finally outputs the exposure signal 11 when a trigger signal 17 output by a recording sensor 16 detects the desired angular position of the rotor 1 relative to the observation field of the video camera 5”) after the shutter of the camera (4) has been brought into the open position,
photographing at least one further image of the previously photographed region of the surface (see para. [0037]: “Thus, the shutter 10 of the video camera 5 only opens when both the previous recording has been completely read from the video camera 5 and the rotor 1 has the corresponding angular position in which the area of interest with the corresponding measurement mark 7 is recorded by the videographic recording target.”),
calculating via the evaluation unit a strain (see paras. [0005],[0006]) of the rotor (1) in the photographed region of the surface using a digital image correlation,
determining an exposure time of a respective image sensor of each of the two cameras (5) (see para. [0014]) from a duration of the illumination coming from the short-term (light source (6)), and
aligning the two cameras (4) obliquely to the rotor (2) using a tilt adapter so that the short-term laser (6) is not in the beam path of the cameras (see Fig. 1a where the light source is not in the beam path of the camera; “A further measure which improves the invention provides that the video camera and the light source are detachably fastened on a common frame and the frame is movable relative to the rotor and via the movement of the common frame a video stroboscopic recording of the measurement mark from a plurality of angular positions relative to the rotor is possible. The common frame ensures an invariable distance between the video camera and the light source and can thus be freely movable in various angular positions, the relevant measuring points are video-graphically recorded and thus measure vibrations occurring in other vibration planes. In this case, the optical axis of the video camera can lie parallel to the axis of rotation of the rotor.” Paragraph [0028]),
attaching each of the two cameras (4) to a (para. [0024]: “at least one video stroboscope unit with a video camera" and para. [0028]: “the video camera and the light source are detachably fastened on a common frame”), that comprises
changing a respective distance between the rotor (2) and each of the two cameras (4) (para. [0027]: “The distance between the video camera is chosen so that optimal focusing can be achieved while at the same time making optimal use of the image size, so that the image just captures the measurement area of interest in order to maximize the resolution.”)
Klein does not show that the short-term illumination unit is a short term laser. Frahnert shows a method for imaging an object with short-term illumination wherein the short-term illuminator is a pulsed laser (see para. [0002]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a pulsed laser for the expected production of short-term illumination as well as to strobe at a faster rate than possible with the strobing of the camera sensor which allows imaging faster moving objects.
Klein does not explicitly state that the “switched-off state” measurement is performed before accelerating the rotor and transmitting this first image to an evaluation unit as a starting state. This is implicit as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, there are a finite number of possibilities of when the switched-off state measurement is performed, either before or after the measurement while the rotor is rotating. Being that there are only two plausible options, both options are anticipated or at least obvious.
Klein does not show that the frame (9) is a housing. Official notice is taken that housings were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to modify the frame to be a housing in order to isolate the environment from its detrimental effects, such as ambient light, on the system.
Klein does not show that the detachably fastened camera is fastened by an automatic positioning means. Klein teaches the camera is detachably connected to the frame and that the distance between the video camera is chosen so that optimal focusing can be achieved while at the same time making optimal use of the image size, so that the image just captures the measurement area of interest in order to maximize the resolution. Official notice is taken that adjustable attachments were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious use an adjustable attachment to change the distance of the camera from the rotor in order to easily optimize the focusing while achieving optimal measurement area of interest and image resolution and size. Furthermore, making the adjustment automatic only requires routine skill in the art and the skilled artisan would have done so in order to reduce the amount of work required of the operator.
Klein does not explicitly state the triggering of the short-term laser is performed with a delay relative to a detection of a reference mark; however, Klein shows the reference mark is detected once per revolution of the rotor (Para. [0022]: "the reference mark is detected once per revolution of the rotor"), and implies a delay is used with the triggering with reference to the rotor speed (Klein lines 256 and 413-414). Xie shows a trigger for blade imaging where there is a delay (Paras. [0006], [0023], [0034]: "dwell") relative to a detection of a reference mark (para. [0032]: "a marking on a reference blade "). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious incorporate a delay, as taught by Xie, after detecting the trigger mark in Klein, in order to have the correct time when the camera is active to capture several segments on the rotor, and in order to capture an image at the correct moment so that a desired part is in view of the camera. As to the limitation of "such that the rotor is recorded at selectable angular positions" does not require the act of selecting a particular angle value.
Claim 3: The method according to claim 1 wherein when a reference mark applied to the surface of the rotor or the rotor receiving part is detected by a reference sensor (9), the triggering process of the camera (4) and/or the short-term illumination unit (6) is started (see Klein para. [0022] and Xie paras [0029], [0032], [0034]).
Claim 4: The method according to claim 1, wherein the reference mark is applied to the surface of the rotor (2) or the rotor receiving part and is detected by a reference sensor (9) for starting the triggering process of the two cameras (4) and/or the short-term illumination unit (6) with a delay (see para. [0038]).
Claim 5: The method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit (8) compares images photographed in the measuring state with the image photographed in the starting state and calculates the strain of the rotor (2) based on displacements of an optically recognizable surface pattern in the photographed region of the surface (see para. [0027]).
Claim 6: The method according to claim 5, wherein the surface patterns are produced by a natural surface structure of the rotor (2) (this would be inherent).
Claim 7: The method according to claim 1, wherein graphic elements in the photographed region of a plurality of images are used to synchronize the images (this is implicitly performed so that changes in successive frames can be determined. See para. [0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Klein does not teach or suggest two cameras simultaneously triggered to capture the same surface region for stereoscopic strain evaluation. In response, the claim does not require the cameras to image the same region. The claimed region is not limited to any particular point, size, location, area, or rotor part. Nor does the claim limit that there is a single region, rather, the claim recites "at least one region." The breadth of "at least one region" covers different locations of the same region as well as there being multiple regions.
Applicant argues Klein et al. does not describe a configuration in which two shutters are opened prior to a common illumination event such that both image sensors are exposed simultaneously by a single short-term pulse. In response, the claim does not require both sensors to be imaging under illumination by the same single pulse. Nor does the claim require that all three (two cameras and the short-term laser) be triggered simultaneously. Rather, the claim requires that the two cameras be triggered simultaneously. When the short-term laser is triggered, the claim does not say.
Applicant argues Klein fails to disclose or suggest that the exposure time of the image sensor is determined from the duration of a short-term laser pulse. In response, it appears Applicant's interpretation of the claimed limitation differs from the Examiner's. It appears Applicant is taking the term "determining an exposure time…" to mean that the exposure time is the opening and closing of the shutter and that this exposure time is identical to the pulse duration. The Examiner's interpretation of "determining an exposure time…" only requires knowledge or calculation that there is a relationship between the exposure time and the pulse duration, not that they be the same value. Furthermore, even if the shutter is in a open position, the exposure time would be time that the sensor is exposed to the duration of the pulse. When there is no light from the laser, the sensor would not be exposed to the light.
Applicant argues that the claim has been amended to state the triggering of the short-term laser is started with a delay relative to the detection of a reference mark, such that image acquisition occurs at defined angular positions of the rotor. In response, a new reference, Xie et al., has been introduced to address the newly added limitation.
Applicant argues claim 1 requires that the two cameras are aligned obliquely to the rotor using tilt adapters so that the short-term laser is not in the beam path of either camera. Figure 1a shows the light source in the beam path of the camera, the camera being aligned oblique to the rotor and thus a second camera would also be aligned oblique. As to the tilt adapters, automatic positioning means, housing, and holders, see citation given in the discussion of claim 1.
As to Applicant's assertion the Klein and Frahnert do not disclose a spin test rig dedicated to centrifugal loading for strain measurement, nor calculate strain using digital image correlation, these arguments do not point out how the claim differentiates structurally from Klein.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights