DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s response with respect to the objection to claim 18 has been fully considered and is accepted. The objection to claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1, 3-18, and 20 has been fully considered and is accepted. Specifically, the applicant has removed the particular combination of features that were not supported by the as-filed specification (the combination of a processor plus a band-pass filter in at least in apparatus claims 1 and 11; the combination of two band-pass procedures in claims 1, 10, 11, and 18; and the combination of an observation signal, a reference signal, AND A DELAY SIGNAL (which is not a feature of embodiment 4), in claims 11 and 18). The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1, 3-18, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s response with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 3-18, and 20 has been fully considered and is accepted. The reasoning is the same as just given. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 3-18, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 10, and by extension claims depending therefrom, specifically with respect to the assertion that " Sahara and Spriet each appear to be silent regarding a band-pass filter. Inasmuch as the combined prior art fails to teach or suggest all the elements of the claim, the combination of prior art cannot render claim 1 unpatentable," have been considered but are not persuasive. This argument amounts to a mere assertion that the applied references do not teach band-pass filtering, and does not consider the teachings of the references themselves, either as applied or as disclosed. Claims 1 and 10 require that the noise canceler further comprises a bandpass filter configured to allow a certain band of the observation signal, which is received by the input circuit, to pass through the bandpass filter such that the certain band contains a signal component required for abnormality diagnosis. One need only look to col. 43, ll. 25-30 of Sahara, the base reference applied, to see that Sahara teaches a bandpass filter that limits an input signal from 200 Hz to 3 kHz. Accordingly, this line of argument is unpersuasive, and claims 1, 10, and all claims depending therefrom still stand rejected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 11 and 18, and by extension claims depending therefrom, have been considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that the prior art does not teach the feature of receiving a first measurement signal and a second measurement signal at the same time, which are respectively obtained by sampling vibration at opposite ends of a single rotation shaft of a rotation apparatus, in combination with the claimed adaptive filter, was found persuasive. The prior art is not seen to teach this particular combination of features and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 11, 18, and all claims depending therefrom, have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,640,139 to Sahara et al. (hereinafter referred to as Sahara) in view of US 10,997,987 to Spriet et al. (hereinafter referred to as Spriet).
With regards to claim 1, Sahara teaches a noise canceler (see elements 511, 550A, and 550B of the embodiment of fig. 40-45, which is which is broadly considered a noise canceler because of at least the filtering, decimation, and envelope processing described in col. 43, ll. 21-45) comprising:
an input circuit (vibration sensor 511 and sensor signal processor 550A) configured to receive an observation signal obtained by sampling vibration of an apparatus (col. 40, ll. 41-47 & col. 41, ll. 6-21); and
a random access memory (RAM) (RAM 559) configured to perform filtering, etc. (col. 41, ll. 57-59);
wherein the noise canceler further comprises a bandpass filter (e.g., the portion of MPU 550B that limits the input signal from 200 Hz to 3 kHz) configured to allow a certain band of the observation signal, which is received by the input circuit, to pass through the bandpass filter such that the certain band contains a signal component required for abnormality diagnosis (e.g., from 200 Hz to 3 kHz; see col. 43, ll. 25-30 & 46-49), and
PNG
media_image1.png
506
951
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sahara does not expressly teach:
the random access memory (RAM) being configured to generate a delay signal by delaying the observation signal received by the input circuit;
an adaptive filter configured to receive the observation signal and the delay signal as input signals to the adaptive filter, estimate a noise signal by using the observation signal and the delay signal, and subtract the noise signal from the observation signal,
wherein the adaptive filter estimates the noise signal by using the observation signal, which is output from the bandpass filter, and the delay signal, which is obtained by delaying the observation signal output from the bandpass filter.
Spriet teaches a noise canceler (see the noise canceler of fig. 1a, 1b, 2, 3, or 4; the elements of the canceler of fig. 1 being referenced below) comprising:
a signal delay element (delay block 122) configured to generate a delay signal (signal 124) by delaying an observation signal obtained by an input circuit (using a linear-phase filter; see col. 4, ll. 46-50);
an adaptive filter (filter block 126, control block 134, and combiner block 130, note this may alternatively be configured as in fig. 1b, etc.) configured to receive the observation signal and the delay signal as input signals to the adaptive filter (see fig. 1a, etc., noting col. 5, 22-26), estimate a noise signal (noise-estimate-signal 128) by using the observation signal and the delay signal (col. 4, ll. 50-53 and 58-61), and subtract the noise signal from the observation signal (col. 5, ll. 1-21).
PNG
media_image2.png
606
849
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
411
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Given that Sahara teaches that signal noise is a known issue (i.e., an inherent problem), and that such noise may mask weak signals of interest output from a sensor (see col. 3, l. 53 to col. 4, l. 8), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look at how others have removed noise from input signals, and accordingly look to and apply the noise canceler of Spriet, modified as appropriate, to the signal path of observation signals in Sahara (e.g., as an input stage of MPU 550B) such that the noise canceler of Sahara likewise comprises a delay implemented in the RAM (given that Sahara teaches the RAM 559 may be used for filtering, and Spriet teaches the delay block may be implemented by a linear-phase filter) configured to generate a delay signal by delaying the observation signal received by the input circuit; and an adaptive filter configured to receive the observation signal and the delay signal as input signals to the adaptive filter, estimate a noise signal by using the observation signal and the delay signal, and subtract the noise signal from the observation signal. When doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to band-limit the observation signal as already discussed before generating the delay signal in order to avoiding carrying over data that will be discarded anyways into the delay signal, and specifically have the adaptive filter estimate the noise signal by using the observation signal, which is output from the band-limiter, and the delay signal, which is obtained by delaying the observation signal output from the band-limiter. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of removing complex noise components from the observation signal and thereby enhance the signal to noise ratio (see col. 3, ll. 55-61 of Spriet).
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Sahara and Spriet teaches the noise canceler according to claim 1. In this combination, this noise canceler is used in an abnormality diagnosis apparatus (abnormality diagnosis apparatus 550 in fig. 42 of Sahara) comprising a personal computer (diagnosis micro processor (MPU) 550) configured to diagnose whether or not there is an abnormality in the apparatus from which the observation signal was obtained by sampling vibration thereof (as per at least col. 43, l. 38 to col. 44, l. 57 of Sahara), using an output signal of the noise canceler (e.g., an output of the adaptive filter as would be done when Spriet is applied to Sahara).
With regards to claim 10, Sahara teaches a noise canceling method (performed by elements 511, 550A, and 550B of the embodiment of fig. 40-45, which is which is broadly considered a noise canceler because of at least the filtering, decimation, and envelope processing described in col. 43, ll. 21-45) comprising:
obtaining an observation signal obtained by sampling vibration of an apparatus (col. 40, ll. 41-47 & col. 41, ll. 6-21);
wherein the noise canceling method further comprises using a bandpass filter (e.g., the portion of MPU 550B that limits the input signal from 200 Hz to 3 kHz) to allow a certain band of the observation signal to pass through the bandpass filter such that the certain band contains a signal component required for abnormality diagnosis (e.g., from 200 Hz to 3 kHz; see col. 43, ll. 25-30 & 46-49), and
Sahara does not expressly teach:
obtaining a delay signal by delaying the observation signal;
receiving, at an adaptive filter, the observation signal and the delay signal as input signals to the adaptive filter, and estimating a noise signal by using the observation signal and the delay signal; and
subtracting the noise signal from the observation signal,
wherein the adaptive filter estimates the noise signal by using the observation signal, which is output from the bandpass filter, and the delay signal, which is obtained by delaying the observation signal output from the bandpass filter.
Spriet teaches a noise canceling method comprising:
obtaining a delay signal (signal 124) by delaying an observation signal (input signal 112) (via delay block 122; col. 4, ll. 46-48);
receiving, at an adaptive filter (filter block 126 and control block 134), the observation signal and the delay signal as input signals to the adaptive filter (see fig. 1a, 1b, etc., noting col. 5, 22-26), and estimating a noise signal (noise-estimate-signal 128) by using the observation signal and the delay signal (col. 4, ll. 50-53 and 58-61); and
subtracting the noise signal from the observation signal (via combiner block 130; col. 5, ll. 1-21).
Given that Sahara teaches that signal noise is a known issue (i.e., an inherent problem), and that such noise may mask weak signals of interest output from a sensor (see col. 3, l. 53 to col. 4, l. 8), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look at how others have removed noise from input signals, and accordingly look to and apply the noise canceling technique of Spriet, modified as appropriate, to the signal path of observation signals in Sahara (e.g., as an input stage of MPU 550B) such that the noise canceling method of Sahara likewise involves obtaining a delay signal by delaying the observation signal; receiving, at an adaptive filter, the observation signal and the delay signal as input signals to the adaptive filter, and estimating a noise signal by using the observation signal and the delay signal; and subtracting the noise signal from the observation signal. When doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to band-limit the observation signal as already discussed before generating the delay signal in order to avoiding carrying over data that will be discarded anyways into the delay signal, and thus have the adaptive filter estimate the noise signal by using the observation signal, which is output from the band-limiter, and the delay signal, which is obtained by delaying the observation signal output from the bandpass filter. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of removing complex noise components from the observation signal and thereby enhance the signal to noise ratio (see col. 3, ll. 55-61 of Spriet).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahara and Spriet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the Data Sheet for Keysight Infiniium Z-Series Oscilloscopes (8 October 2019, 5991-3868EN)
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Sahara and Spriet teaches the noise canceler according to claim 1. This combination further teaches implementing envelope FFT processing on a signal output from the adaptive filter (MPU 550B in Sahara performs envelope FFT processing on signals input thereto; see col. 43, ll. 21-45).
However, this combination does not expressly teach an oscilloscope implementing the envelope FFT processing.
However, the Data Sheet for Keysight Infiniium Z-Series Oscilloscopes, 8 October 2019, 5991-3868EN indicates that Infiniium Z-Series Oscilloscopes have been known to implement both envelope (amplitude demodulation) and FFT processing functions before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, see the "Waveform math" section on p. 40, which lists both envelope processing and FFT as being hardware-accelerated features of this line of oscilloscopes.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the noise canceler taught by Sahara and Spriet such that the envelope and FFT processing is performed by an oscilloscope, such as one of the Z-Series oscilloscopes from Keysight. Doing so would merely provide one known, specific configuration for performing the envelope and FFT processing if it were for any reason desirable to offload such processing, and nothing about the essential operation of the noise canceler would change. The result of this combination would thus be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and this combination accordingly amounts to no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahara and Spriet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorenson, "Kalman Filtering Techniques", Advances in Control Systems, Elsevier, vol. 3, 1966, pp. 219-292 (hereinafter referred to as Sorenson).
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Sahara and Spriet teaches the noise canceler according to claim 1. This combination does not expressly teach the adaptive filter using a filter coefficient as a state vector and uses an identity matrix as a state transition matrix. However, note that Spriet teaches that a variety of, e.g., LMS, approaches may be taken to update the filter coefficients (col. 7, ll. 49-55).
Sorenson teaches how in the Kalman filter, one adaptive filter that employs LMS techniques, an optimal estimate of a state vector is maintained based on a past state vector and (noisy) measurements (see the discussion of "Kalman Filter Theory" starting on p. 222). Sorenson also teaches the state transition matrix being the identity matrix (Φk,k = I for all k in equation (I) on p. 222). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sahara and Spriet so as to employ a Kalman filter as the adaptive filter, and given that the objective of Spriet is to minimize noise, use a filter coefficient as a state vector so that the adaptive filter minimizes noise and an identity matrix is used as a state transition matrix per Sorenson. Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of allowing filter coefficients to be updated sequentially when data is available, allowing near real-time updates and noise removal.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahara and Spriet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2014-041547 to Murata et al. (hereinafter referred to as Murata).
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Sahara and Spriet teaches the noise canceler according to claim 1. However, this combination does not expressly teach the adaptive filter including a Kalman filter therein, and using a variance matrix of system noise and a variance of observed noise in the Kalman filter as time-varying parameters and estimates the variance matrix and the variance in parallel with the adaptation of the filter coefficient.
Murata teaches a type of Kalman-filter that uses a variance matrix of system noise (covariance matrix Q' of system noise) and a variance of observed noise (observation noise variance r') (see [0007]) in the Kalman filter as time-varying parameters (these values vary over time according to at least [0017], [0057]) and estimates the variance matrix and the variance (as in [0051]) in parallel with the adaptation of the state vector ([0052]).
Given that Spriet teaches that a variety of, e.g., LMS, approaches may be taken to update the filter coefficients (col. 7, ll. 49-55), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sahara and Spriet such that the adaptive filter includes Kalman filter therein, and use a variance matrix of system noise and a variance of observed noise in the Kalman filter as time-varying parameters and estimate the variance matrix and the variance in parallel with the adaptation of the filter coefficient. Murata teaches that using this kind of Kalman technique allows a robust analysis results to be obtained ([0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 and 20 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With regards to claim 11, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
an adaptive filter configured to receive an observation signal that is the first measurement signal and received from the bandpass filter and a reference signal that is the second measurement signal and received from the bandpass filter, and estimate a noise signal by using the observation signal and the reference signal
wherein the adaptive filter is configured to subtract the noise signal from the observation signal
in combination with all other elements in claim 11.
Claims 12-17 and 19 depend from claim 11 and are allowable for the same reason.
With regards to claim 18, the prior art considered to be most pertinent was not found to teach, alone or in combination:
receiving, at an adaptive filter from the bandpass filter, an observation signal that is the first measurement signal having passed through the bandpass filter and a reference signal that is the second measurement signal having passed through the bandpass filter, and estimating a noise signal by using the observation signal and the reference signal; and
subtracting the noise signal from the observation signal
in combination with all other elements in claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,309,378 to Beierle discloses a related multi-channel adaptive filter cancelling apparatus, but this
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 James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858