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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-12, and 14-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims. Although the same art was applied, a new citation and explanation was given to account for the amended claims.
However, the examiner will respond to one of the applicant’s core arguments.
The key premise that underlies the applicant’s entire argument is:
PNG
media_image1.png
140
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This concept of the mechanical component itself being the energy harvesting device is neither claimed, nor supported, by the applicant’s disclosure.
The claims do not define what the mechanical component is. They do not state that the mechanical component is the energy harvesting device itself. Claim 1 states, “harvesting, by a processor of a multi-sensor node device, energy from the mechanical component …” Here, the claims distinguish between the multi-sensor node device, as the energy harvesting device, and the mechanical component. They are not presented as the same thing.
Paragraph 034 of the applicant’s specification states, “Mechanical components 110a-110f of vehicle 120 may include for example, structural components 110a, starter system components 110b, engine system components 110c, valves and actuators 110d, auxiliary power unit components 110e, landing gear components 110f, and/or other mechanical components of vehicle 120.” None of these are the energy harvesting device.
The applicant’s entire argument is based on this premise that the mechanical component is itself the energy harvesting device, about how the art fails to teach the interpretation created by such a premise.
However, the examiner gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). The examiner maintains that the art anticipates the claims under BRI, even if the interpretation taken by the examiner does not meet the same narrow, unclaimed interpretation presented by the applicant.
The applicant is suggested to positively define what constitutes a “mechanical component” and how it relates to the “energy harvesting.”
The rejection is maintained.
Drawings
As previously stated, the drawings of 03/06/25 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
For the reasons stated in the previous action, claims 1-20 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 3-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US Pat 9791910).
With respect to claims 1, Brown et al discloses:
A method for determining a health indication of a mechanical component (column 7, lines 5-31 state, “One or more of sensors 160a-160n may be implemented internally as a beacon signal sensor or as a radiation sensor … a machine operations sensor … one or more derived quantities, temperature, image, color … container opening, etc … The various sensors 160a-160n may be configured in one of a number of categories, such as a logical condition, a fluid/gas level, a biological process, etc.” Brown teaches using various sensors to measure various parameters. The disclosure of mechanical contexts, such as “a machine operations sensor” in column 7, line 13 and “fluid/gas level” in column 7, line 31 suggests determining a health indication of a mechanical component, as the measured values serve as health indicators.), the method comprising:
harvesting, by a processor of a multi-sensor node device, energy from the mechanical component via one or more energy harvesting devices of the multi-sensor node device (suggested by column 30, lines 36-40, which state, “The energy capture unit 214a may store energy through various sources, such as energy created through harvesting of light, vibration, thermal variation, thermal gradient, infrared, chemical, RF sources or some combination.” One of ordinary skill in the multi-sensor node device art would understand this teaching to refer to the multi-sensor node device’s ability to self-power when the node is deployed in remote or hard-to-access locations. The energy harvesting feature of a self-powered device allows the device to continue running for the long-term. One example of this may be a multi-sensor node that monitors a wind turbine. It may harvest vibration energy from the turbines, so that it can continue to operate and detect signs of wear in the turbine. Another example of this may be where a multi-sensor node device is deployed for engine exhaust system monitoring, and the device self-powers by harvesting the temperature difference between hot gases and the cooler ambient air. Other examples may include infrared radiation harvesting in a steel mill furnace context or chemical energy harvesting in a oil pipeline context. As discussed above, Brown teaches a wide variety of different types of sensors and a wide variety of applications in which to deploy its sensor. Its teachings of self-powered devices through a wide variety of energy harvesting techniques would suggest the claimed invention.)
receiving, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device having a plurality of sensors, a configuration defining an activation of the plurality of sensors based on a type of the mechanical component to which the multi-sensor node device is coupled and based on a level of energy harvesting available at the multi-sensor node device (figure 2, references 102 and 160a-n show multi-sensor node; figure 13, reference 810 shows adjustment based on components; column 4, lines 16-18 state, “Power resources may be calculated based on available energy, a power budget, predicted future power needs and/or energy harvesting opportunities.”; Column 5, lines 4-8 state, “the circuit includes a component, such as a photovoltaic cell, a wind energy generator …”; Column 9, lines 17-22 state, “Selection of the appropriate type and size of PV cell(s) to use for a particular embodiment of the SPD 200 is typically determined by …”; Column 29, lines 43-45 state, “The instructions may contain computational logic for computing a threshold condition based on one or more types of sensed data and/or one or more data points over time.”; Column 38, lines 35-40 state, “Resources may be rooms, equipment (e.g., stationary equipment such as MRI machines, moveable equipment … The type of resource may be varied …”; Column 30, lines 41-47 state, “The computational logic for determining the threshold conditions for storing and/or transmitting data may be based on currently available power, predicted future energy harvesting opportunities (e.g., based on forecasting the future environment), and/or predicted energy consumption …”; paragraph 0053 states, “The elements of the invention may form part or all of one or more devices, units, components …”)
activating, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, a first sensor of the plurality of sensors based on the received configuration (column 29, line 63 – column 30, line 11 state, “the computational logic may include a cascade (e.g., one or more) of threshold conditions that may be used to determine when additional features of the sensor node 102 will be powered on or powered off …”)
collecting, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, data from the first sensor relating to a first parameter of the mechanical component (column 29, line 66 – column 30, line 3 state, “For example, when the sensor node 102 determines that one of the sensors (e.g., a sensor A) detects a signal …”)
determining, by the processor of multi-sensor node device, an updated level of energy harvesting in response to a change in a condition of the mechanical component (column 15, lines 21-25 state, “As the operating conditions vary, this procedure may allow those changes to be tracked by the SPD, allowing the energy collection procedures to continuously adjust the operating point … in order to achieve maximum power delivery.” Column 8, lines 8-12 state, “the data contained in memory 204 may be updated while the SPD is deployed, in response to either local and/or remote instigation, allowing new and/or different capabilities to be added to the functionality.”)
With respect to claim 1, Brown et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
activating, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, a second sensor of the plurality of sensors in response to the determined updated level of energy harvesting available at the multi-sensor node device exceeding a threshold value
collecting, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, data from the second sensor relating to a second parameter of the mechanical component, wherein the data from the second sensor is collected for a predetermined amount of time, wherein the predetermined amount of time is based on the received configuration of the mechanical component
determining, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, a health indication of the mechanical component based at least in part on the data collected from the second sensor
transmitting, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, the determined health indication of the mechanical component to a remote computing system
With respect to claim 1, the following limitations are obvious in view of the total teachings of Brown et al:
activating, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, a second sensor of the plurality of sensors in response to the determined updated level of energy harvesting available at the multi-sensor node device exceeding a threshold value (Column 16, lines 4-16 state, “When the energy level of the battery 214 (FIG. 4) transitions from below the lowest threshold to above that threshold, a subset of the SPD may be automatically brought out of reset and may begin to turn on various subsystems of the SPD, typically in a prioritized sequence, depending upon how much energy is in the battery 214 (FIG. 4), and/or how quickly it is being recharged … and the various low-power thresholds are overcome, more and more SPD subsystems may be brought out of any low-power states until eventually the SPD may be returned to its full-power mode.” Column 30, lines 41-47 state, “The computational logic for determining the threshold conditions for storing and/or transmitting data may be based on currently available power, predicted future energy harvesting opportunities … and/or predicted energy consumption …” Brown et al discloses various subsystems of a self-powered device being activated based on energy levels. Brown et al further recognizes determining threshold conditions based on currently available power, predicted future energy harvesting opportunities, and/or predicted energy consumption. Although Brown et al does not specifically disclose the particular case of a second sensor of a plurality of sensors being activated in response to determining that the level of energy harvesting available at the multi-sensor node device exceeds a threshold value, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the specific case to be obvious in view of the general principles of energy harvesting thresholds disclosed by Brown, as applied to all subsystems of the self-powered device, which would include all sensors. As stated in column 5, lines 11-15 of Brown et al, “the self-powered device includes one or more sensors …” Also, as discussed above, Brown discloses updating data and also accounting for changing conditions.)
collecting, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, data from the second sensor relating to a second parameter of the mechanical component, wherein the data from the second sensor is collected for a predetermined amount of time, wherein the predetermined amount of time is based on the received configuration of the mechanical component (obvious in view of the time interval teachings of Brown et al. For example, column 4, lines 21-47 of Brown et al state, “The self-powered device may conserve power by alternating between the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation such that the self-powered device is in the second mode of operation during pre-determined time intervals … The self-powered device may switch to the second mode of operation prior to one or more of the pre-determined time intervals or adaptively-determined time intervals …” Collecting data from the sensor for the various time intervals would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
determining, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, a health indication of the mechanical component based at least in part on the data collected from the second sensor (obvious in view of total teachings of Brown et al; column 34, lines 38-41 states, “the SPD may contains sensors to detect various environmental states, such as temperature, humidity, lighting, motion, vibration, noise, shock, pressure, or other environmental states.” Column 5, lines 1-42 and column 7, lines 5-52 disclose a wide variety of sensors for a wide variety of different application contexts. A health indication of the mechanical component is suggested by sensor monitoring in mechanical contexts and applications, which as stated above, is disclosed in column 7, among the various other context and applications that are also disclosed.)
transmitting, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, the determined health indication of the mechanical component to a remote computing system (obvious in view of total teachings of Brown et al; figure 26, reference 1446 state, “SPDs monitor resource levels and report to remote device.”; transmission of data and remote devices disclosed throughout disclosure of Brown et al)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the total teachings of Brown et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of optimized power conservation.
Independent claims 12 and 20 represent variations of claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons. They additionally disclose generic computer processing elements that are suggested by the computers disclosed by Brown et al (see figure 16A-D and background of the invention in column 1).
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Brown et al discloses:
activating, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, the second sensor based on the determined level of energy harvesting available at the multi-sensor node device (column 30, lines 1-21; lines 17-21 state, “The computational logic cascade may implement a power-aware prioritization of sensor data capture …”)
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Brown et al discloses:
increasing, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, a rate of collection of the data from the first sensor and/or the second sensor on determining the level of energy harvesting available at the multi-sensor node device exceeds an energy threshold (column 29, line 43 – column 30, line 56)
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Brown et al discloses:
storing, by the one or more processors, the harvested energy in a storage module of the multi-sensor node device (energy storage unit 214a)
With respect to claim 6, Brown et al discloses:
wherein the harvested energy includes at least one of vibrational energy, rotational or motion energy, or thermal energy (column 30, lines 35-40)
With respect to claim 7, Brown et al discloses:
detecting a trigger on determining that the data collected from the first sensor exceeds the threshold value (column 29, line 43 – column 30, line 56)
With respect to claim 8, Brown et al discloses:
activating, by the processor, the second sensor of the plurality of sensors when the trigger is detected (column 29, line 43 – column 30, line 56)
With respect to claims 9 and 17, Brown et al discloses:
wherein collecting, by the processor of the multi-sensor node device, the data from the first sensor relating to the first parameter of the mechanical component includes collecting the data for a predetermined amount of time based on the type of the mechanical component (column 30, lines 25- 34 state, “a process that only records the average values of one or more of the sensors 160a-160n over a period of time may be used … the nodes may operate for long periods of time on a single battery.” The effect that different components have on the collected data was discussed above.)
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Brown et al discloses:
The method of claim 1 (The multi-sensor node device of claim 12), wherein determining the health indication of the mechanical component based at least in part on the data collected from the second sensor (see rejection of claim 1 above) comprises:
combining, by the processor, the collected data from the first sensor and the second sensor of the plurality of sensors (column 30, lines 3-6 disclose combination of sensors)
predicting, by the processor, a condition or a remaining useful life of the mechanical component based on the combined collected data (column 30, lines 41-47 state, “The computational logic for determining the threshold conditions … may be based on … predicted energy consumption …”; column 15, lines 60-66 discloses procedures that are initiated when remaining energy in the battery drops to a lowest threshold.)
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Brown et al discloses:
generating, by the processor, a model of the health indication for the mechanical component based on the combined collected data (column 30, lines 48-52 state, “A machine learning process that optimizes the predictive model may be set up as a series of energy input functions and/or energy consumption functions …”)
determining, by the processor, an acceptable operating zone for the mechanical component based on the model (column 30, lines 52 – 56 state, “Based on prior patterns, the model may operate with techniques of machine learning optimization …” The optimization based on historical data creates an acceptable operating zone.)
and outputting, by the processor, an indication of a failure of the mechanical component when the health indication of the mechanical component is outside of the acceptable operating zone (suggested by threshold teachings of column 30, as discussed above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zalewski et al (US Pat 11936413) discloses energy harvesting package tracking for use in carrier logistics with cloud state monitoring.
Park et al (US PgPub 20100019778) discloses a physical property sensor with active electronic circuit and wireless power and data transmission.
Gladish et al (US PgPub 20180073168) discloses energy harvesters, energy storage, and related systems and methods.
Felix et al (US PgPub 20220218258) discloses a system for induction-based subcutaneous insertable physiological monitor recharging.
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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 M 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 05/31/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights