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 remarks regarding the Drawing and Specification objections have been fully considered and accepted. The Drawing objections of 01/15/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of all pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6 – 16, 19 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0217833 A1 to Davis et al. (hereinafter “Davis”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,227,039 B1 to Te’eni (hereinafter “Te’eni”).
Regarding Claim 1, Davis teaches a probe (see acoustic based air probe 101 of an AIRtracTM sensor 100, Figs. 1a – 1e, see paragraphs [0008], [0009]) for monitoring fresh concrete received in a drum of a fresh concrete mixer (see abstract, paragraphs [0004], [0008] describing technique for sensing parameters of concrete in a drum using the AIRtracTM sensor 100 which includes an acoustic based air probe like element 101 including an acoustic source 102 and an acoustic receiver 104), the probe (101) comprising:
an electromechanical actuator (see acoustic source 102 including a piston 122, a piston shaft 126, a vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128 having a stationary voice coil actuator filed assembly 130 in combination with a voice coil actuator field assembly 132, see paragraphs [0009], [0013] which states “The vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128 may be configured to drive and vibrate the piston shaft 126, consistent with that shown in FIG. 1d, so as to provide the acoustic signal to the mixture of the concrete when the acoustic-based air probe is inserted into the mixture”) having a frame (see arrangement at Fig. 1D illustrating components that support the acoustic source 102 and the vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128, which includes for instance the piston module assembly 120, low durometer cast silicone rubber 123, the planar probing surface 106, etc. see paragraphs [0009], [0013], see also paragraphs [0099], [0147] describing the sensor having a sensor housing, hence reading on the invention as claimed) mounted within the drum (see paragraph [0013] which describes the air probe being inserted into the concrete mixture, see also Figs. 2, 6, 7, 9 illustrating the probe i.e., AIRtracTM sensor which includes the probes, inserted within the drum of the concrete mixer, see also paragraphs [0095] – [0096], [0147]) and a moving element (see hardened steel piston 122, Fig. 1D) actuatably mounted to the frame (see arrangement at Fig. 1D), the moving element (122) having a fresh concrete interface exposed within said drum (see arrangement at Fig. 1D, which illustrates an interface region at an end portion of the piston 122 since the piston is used to provide an acoustic signal to the mixture of the concrete when the probe is inserted into the mixture as described at paragraph [0013]) and experiencing a resistance to movement within said drum upon actuation of the electromechanical actuator with an electrical signal (see paragraph [0013] stating “The acoustic source 102 may also include a vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128, best identified in FIG. 1b, having a stationary voice coil actuator field assembly 130 in combination with a voice coil actuator field assembly 132 having an accelerometer transducer configuration. The vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128 may be configured to drive and vibrate the piston shaft 126, consistent with that shown in FIG. 1d, so as to provide the acoustic signal to the mixture of the concrete when the acoustic-based air probe is inserted into the mixture”, hence by using the voice coil actuators as described above, the assembly uses electrical signals, see also paragraphs [0099] – [0101] describing the configuration of the multi-directional SoS sensor within a drum which experiences compressive forces due to the flow resistance experienced in moving around the housing assembly as indicated in Fig. 7, hence a resistance force is being experienced as claimed); and
a measurement unit measuring the resistance to movement during said actuation (see acoustic receiver 104, Fig. 1e which are for instance in a form of a dynamic pressure transducer as described at paragraphs [0010], [0016], see also paragraph [0092] which states “A second detection technique can utilize the magnitude of the acoustic signal the pressure sensor sees as it is generated by the piston. Air is highly attenuative to acoustic waves so when the AIRtrac™ is in air the pressure transducer will see very little of the acoustic energy generated by the piston, while once the sensor is in the concrete the signal level will rise dramatically”, see paragraph [0099] which describes configuration of the MDSoS sensor elements and states “when the drum rotates (clockwise as shown here), the slurry ahead of the MDSoS sensor housing will undergo compressive forces due to the flow resistance experienced in moving (flowing) around the housing assembly (as depicted by the slurry flow arrows in FIG. 7)”, thus the AIRtrac sensor device as illustrated at Figs. 6 – 7 experiences resistance to movement and the sensors further provide measurement data related to the slump in the concrete as described at paragraph [0100]) and generating a response signal based on said measured resistance response (see paragraph [0099] describing “These compressive forces will compress the entrained air bubbles in the slurry locally, such that the ‘apparent entrained air content’ in the slurry immediately ahead of the sensor housing will be lower, and thus the SoS measured higher than that measured by the sensor monitoring the slurry above the sensor housing” and paragraph [0100] describing “Consequently, for a given drum rotation speed, the difference in the SoS monitored for the two AIRtrac™ sensor modules/units will be inversely related to the slump in the concrete”, see also paragraphs [0020] – [0022], [0027] – [0028] describing the signal processor that is configured to receive the acoustic sensor signaling and determine corresponding signaling containing information about a slump characteristic of the concrete mixture based upon the received signal, hence reading on the invention as claimed), the generated response signal comprising monitoring information concerning the fresh concrete within the drum, if any (see paragraph [0100] describing “Consequently, for a given drum rotation speed, the difference in the SoS monitored for the two AIRtrac™ sensor modules/units will be inversely related to the slump in the concrete”, see paragraphs [0020] – [0022], [0027] – [0028] describing the signal processor that is configured to receive the acoustic sensor signaling and determine corresponding signaling containing information about a slump characteristic of the concrete mixture based upon the received signal, see also paragraphs [0139] – [0143] and Fig. 20 illustrating the system having a sensor and a signal processor for determining characteristics of the concrete within the drum, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Davis describes a measurement unit measuring the resistance or force experienced by the sensors as described above, Davis may be construed as not explicitly stating the measurement unit measuring the resistance to movement (i.e., the movement of the moving element itself).
Te’eni, in the field of measuring systems for measuring rheological properties of a concrete, teaches that it is known to use a measurement unit measuring the resistance to movement during said actuation (see Col. 3, lines 13 – 20, col. 3, line 54 – Col. 4, line 23, and in particular see Col. 7, line 59 – Col. 8, line 23, describing “As piston rods 42 descends, the shape of space enclosing the concrete changes (it is reduced to the space between the shear box 34 and the base portion 22), forcing the concrete out of shear box 34. The multiplicity of pressure sensors 18 (not shown), some of which are in orthogonal planes, monitor the changing stresses as the concrete shears due to the shape change. Pressure sensor 46 and stress sensor 31 monitor the resistance to movement of the piston rod 42”, see also Fig. 4C which illustrates changes in resistance due to shear deformation for two types of mixes, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use measurement technique of Te’eni into Davis, since it is known in the art that information regarding properties of concrete within a drum can be obtained using a variety of techniques including measured resistance as described above. The modification allows to accurately and efficiently measure rheological properties of concrete (see Col. 2, lines 47 – Col. 3, line 39).
Insofar as Davis may be construed as not explicitly teaching the invention as described above (i.e., related to Figs. 1a – 1E, 2, 6, 7, 9, 20) in a single embodiment, Davis teaches that the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments and modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation without departing from the scope of the invention as described at paragraph [0159].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the different embodiments in combination, since Davis does indicate that various changes and modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention (see paragraph [0159]).
Regarding Claim 16, Davis teaches a method of monitoring fresh concrete received in a drum of a fresh concrete mixer (see abstract, paragraphs [0004], [0008] describing technique for sensing parameters of concrete in a rotating container or a drum, see Fig. 2 illustrating the concrete mixer truck), the method comprising:
exposing a fresh concrete interface within said drum (see arrangement at Fig. 1D, which illustrates an interface region at an end portion of the piston 122 since the piston is used to provide an acoustic signal to the mixture of the concrete when the probe is inserted into the mixture as described at paragraph [0013]);
mechanically coupling a moving element (see hardened steel piston 122, Fig. 1d, see paragraph [0013] stating “The rigid hardened steel piston 122 is enclosed, surrounded and configured to move in relation to a low durometer cast silicone rubber 123 and photo-etched flexures 127, so as to provide the floating mass aspect of the acoustic source 102”) of an electromechanical actuator (see acoustic source 102 including a piston 122, a piston shaft 126, a vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128 having a stationary voice coil actuator filed assembly 130 in combination with a voice coil actuator field assembly 132, see paragraphs [0009], [0013] which states “The vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128 may be configured to drive and vibrate the piston shaft 126, consistent with that shown in FIG. 1d, so as to provide the acoustic signal to the mixture of the concrete when the acoustic-based air probe is inserted into the mixture”) to said fresh concrete interface (see arrangement at Fig. 1d and paragraph [0013]);
actuating the electromechanical actuator with an electrical signal, said actuating including moving said moving element relative to the fresh concrete interface, said moving element thereby experiencing a resistance to movement via said fresh concrete interface (see paragraph [0013] stating “The acoustic source 102 may also include a vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128, best identified in FIG. 1b, having a stationary voice coil actuator field assembly 130 in combination with a voice coil actuator field assembly 132 having an accelerometer transducer configuration. The vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128 may be configured to drive and vibrate the piston shaft 126, consistent with that shown in FIG. 1d, so as to provide the acoustic signal to the mixture of the concrete when the acoustic-based air probe is inserted into the mixture”, hence by using the voice coil actuators as described above, the assembly uses electrical signals as claimed, see also paragraphs [0099] – [0101] describing the configuration of the multi-directional SoS sensor within a drum which experiences compressive forces due to the flow resistance experienced in moving around the housing assembly as indicated in Fig. 7, hence a resistance force is being experienced as claimed);
measuring a resistance to movement during said actuating (see acoustic receiver 104, Fig. 1e which are for instance in a form of a dynamic pressure transducer as described at paragraphs [0010], [0016], see also paragraph [0092] which states “A second detection technique can utilize the magnitude of the acoustic signal the pressure sensor sees as it is generated by the piston. Air is highly attenuative to acoustic waves so when the AIRtrac™ is in air the pressure transducer will see very little of the acoustic energy generated by the piston, while once the sensor is in the concrete the signal level will rise dramatically”, see paragraph [0099] which describes configuration of the MDSoS sensor elements and states “when the drum rotates (clockwise as shown here), the slurry ahead of the MDSoS sensor housing will undergo compressive forces due to the flow resistance experienced in moving (flowing) around the housing assembly (as depicted by the slurry flow arrows in FIG. 7)”, thus the AIRtrac sensor device as illustrated at Figs. 6 – 7 experiences resistance to movement and the sensors further provide measurement data related to the slump in the concrete as described at paragraph [0100]) and generating a response signal based on said measured resistance to movement (see paragraph [0099] describing “These compressive forces will compress the entrained air bubbles in the slurry locally, such that the ‘apparent entrained air content’ in the slurry immediately ahead of the sensor housing will be lower, and thus the SoS measured higher than that measured by the sensor monitoring the slurry above the sensor housing” and paragraph [0100] describing “Consequently, for a given drum rotation speed, the difference in the SoS monitored for the two AIRtrac™ sensor modules/units will be inversely related to the slump in the concrete”, see also paragraphs [0020] – [0022], [0027] – [0028] describing the signal processor that is configured to receive the acoustic sensor signaling and determine corresponding signaling containing information about a slump characteristic of the concrete mixture based upon the received signal, hence reading on the invention as claimed), the generated response signal comprising monitoring information concerning the fresh concrete within the drum, if any (see paragraph [0100] describing “Consequently, for a given drum rotation speed, the difference in the SoS monitored for the two AIRtrac™ sensor modules/units will be inversely related to the slump in the concrete”, see paragraphs [0020] – [0022], [0027] – [0028] describing the signal processor that is configured to receive the acoustic sensor signaling and determine corresponding signaling containing information about a slump characteristic of the concrete mixture based upon the received signal, see also paragraphs [0139] – [0143] and Fig. 20 illustrating the system having a sensor and a signal processor for determining characteristics of the concrete within the drum, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Davis describes a measurement unit measuring the resistance or force experienced by the sensors as described above, Davis may be construed as not explicitly stating the measurement unit measuring the resistance to movement (i.e., the movement of the moving element itself).
Te’eni, in the field of measuring systems for measuring rheological properties of a concrete, teaches that it is known to use a measurement unit measuring the resistance to movement during said actuation (see Col. 3, lines 13 – 20, col. 3, line 54 – Col. 4, line 23, and in particular see Col. 7, line 59 – Col. 8, line 23, describing “As piston rods 42 descends, the shape of space enclosing the concrete changes (it is reduced to the space between the shear box 34 and the base portion 22), forcing the concrete out of shear box 34. The multiplicity of pressure sensors 18 (not shown), some of which are in orthogonal planes, monitor the changing stresses as the concrete shears due to the shape change. Pressure sensor 46 and stress sensor 31 monitor the resistance to movement of the piston rod 42”, see also Fig. 4C which illustrates changes in resistance due to shear deformation for two types of mixes, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use measurement technique of Te’eni into Davis, since it is known in the art that information regarding properties of concrete within a drum can be obtained using a variety of techniques including measured resistance as described above. The modification allows to accurately and efficiently measure rheological properties of concrete (see Col. 2, lines 47 – Col. 3, line 39).
Insofar as Davis may be construed as not explicitly teaching the invention as described above (i.e., related to Figs. 1a – 1E, 2, 20) in a single embodiment, Davis teaches that the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments and modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation without departing from the scope of the invention as described at paragraph [0159].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the different embodiments in combination, since Davis does indicate that various changes and modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention (see paragraph [0159]).
Regarding Claim 2, Davis as modified above teaches wherein the frame is a housing enclosing the moving element (see for instance sensor housing at Figs. 4, 6, 7 and 9, thus the housing that supports the AIRtracTM can reasonably considered as the frame or a housing enclosing the moving element as claimed), the housing having at least a given wall with an inner side mechanically coupled to the moving element and an outer side acting as the fresh concrete interface (see for instance at Fig. 6 which illustrates a sensor system having a sensor housing that houses two AirTrac devices within, note that the sensor housing has a “given wall” with an inner side that couples the moving elements of the acoustic transmitter portions and an outer side acting as the concrete interface as illustrated by the arrows that interface the sensors, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 3, Davis as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the given wall is provided in the form of a membrane having a thickness below a given thickness threshold. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a membrane having a thickness below a given thickness threshold, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding Claim 6, Davis as modified above teaches wherein the measurement unit has a mechanical response sensor measuring a mechanical response of said electromechanical actuator during said actuation (see acoustic receiver 104, Fig. 1e which are for instance in a form of a dynamic pressure transducer as described at paragraphs [0010], [0016], see also paragraph [0089] stating “This is accomplished by using a piston to “pulse” the concrete and measuring the amount of time it takes for the pulse to travel through the concrete and be detected by a pressure transducer that is known distance away from the piston, e.g., consistent with that set forth above” and paragraph [0092] which states “A second detection technique can utilize the magnitude of the acoustic signal the pressure sensor sees as it is generated by the piston. Air is highly attenuative to acoustic waves so when the AIRtrac™ is in air the pressure transducer will see very little of the acoustic energy generated by the piston, while once the sensor is in the concrete the signal level will rise dramatically”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, Davis as modified above teaches wherein the mechanical response sensor has a position sensor measuring an amplitude value indicative of an amplitude of movement of said moving element during said actuation (see paragraph [0061] which states “The system may include a 3-axis accelerometer configured to respond to angular positions of the sensor housing assembly at given times, and provide angular position signaling containing information about the angular positions of the sensor housing assembly at the given times”, see also paragraphs [0090], [0144] and claim 38, hence reading the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claims 8 and 21, Davis as modified above teaches further comprising a controller communicatively coupled to the measurement unit (see paragraphs [0139] – [0142 describing the signal processor or processor control module 12 which may be implemented using hardware, software, firmware or a combination thereof, hence reading on the invention as claimed), the controller having a processor and a non-transitory memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the processor performs the step of monitoring the fresh concrete received in the drum based on said generated response signal (see paragraphs [0020] – [0022], [0027] – [0028] describing the signal processor that is configured to receive the acoustic sensor signaling and determine corresponding signaling containing information about a slump characteristic of the concrete mixture based upon the received signal, see also paragraphs [0139] – [0143] and Fig. 20 illustrating the system having a sensor and a signal processor for determining characteristics of the concrete within the drum, hence reading on the invention as claimed)
Regarding Claims 9 and 22, Davis as modified above teaches said monitoring including determining a volume of the fresh concrete inside the drum based on said resistance to movement experienced during the at least the rotation of the drum (see modification of Davis in view of Te’eni above, in addition see paragraph [0090] of Davis This measurement technique utilizes the fact that the AIRtrac™ sensor is submerged under the concrete for part of the drums rotation and then is out of the concrete for the remainder. In addition, the AIRtrac™ device has a 3-axis accelerometer that is used to determine the angular position of the sensor at any given time. The combination of knowing the concrete entry and exit angles along with the geometry of the drum, the volume of the concrete can be calculated. FIG. 4 shows a diagram of how this can be achieved”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Davis teaches the invention as described above, Davis may be construed as not explicitly stating wherein said actuation and measurement are performed a plurality of times during at least a rotation of the drum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the actuation and measurements a plurality of times during at least a rotation of the drum, since it is known in the art of measurement that taking or performing actuation and measurements a plurality of times is an obvious matter of design choice by the user. The modification allows obtaining large amount of data which improves overall reliability of the system.
Regarding Claims 10 and 23, Davis as modified above teaches wherein said monitoring includes determining a rheological property of said fresh concrete, said rheological property being selected in a group of rheological properties including viscosity, yield and slump (see paragraphs [0093] – [0094] describing a second parameter of the concrete that the AIRtracTM can determine as being the viscosity and slump of the concrete).
Regarding Claims 11 and 24, Davis as modified above teaches wherein said monitoring includes determining a physical property of said fresh concrete, said physical property being selected in a group of physical properties including air content and density (see paragraphs [0078], [0089], [0099] describing the AIRtracTM sensor measuring air content, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 12, Davis as modified above teaches wherein said monitoring is based on calibration data pertaining to different resistances to movement as function of different properties of the fresh concrete (see paragraph [0060] of Davis stating “The slump factor processor may be configured to determine the slump response factor (FSR) based upon a calibration for various mix recipes and drum rotation speeds to provide an indicator of a real time slump in the mixture of concrete”, and/or see Fig. 4C and flow charts at Figs. 6 – 8 of Te’eni and corresponding descriptions, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 13, Davis as modified above teaches wherein said electrical signal is an oscillatory electrical signal having an amplitude oscillating over time, the resistance response experienced by the fresh concrete interface oscillating over time during said actuation with said oscillatory electrical signal (see paragraphs [0048], [0097] of Davis describing the device emits a sound signal into the concrete mix at a given frequency, set of frequencies, and claim 26, therefore since the device is using certain frequencies as described above, the signal is oscillatory, and/or see Fig. 4C and flow charts at Figs. 6 – 8 of Te’eni and corresponding descriptions, hence reads on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 14, Davis as modified above teaches wherein said oscillatory electrical signal has a frequency ranging between about 20 Hz and about 20 kHz (see paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claims 15 and 26, Davis as modified above teaches wherein the fresh concrete mixer is a mixer truck (see Fig. 2 illustrating a concrete mixer truck, see paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 19, Davis as modified above teaches wherein said measuring the resistance to movement includes measuring a mechanical response of said electromechanical actuator during said actuation (see modification of Davis in view of Te’eni above, see also Col. 7, lines 59 – Col. 8, line 39 of Te’eni, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 25, Davis as modified above teaches wherein said electrical signal is an oscillatory electrical signal having an amplitude oscillating over time (see rejection of claim 13 above), said actuating including moving said moving element against the fresh concrete interface in at least a back and forth sequence (see piston 122 which is designed to be moved in at least back and forth sequence, see [0013] which further states “The vibration isolated actuator block assembly 128 may be configured to drive and vibrate the piston shaft 126, consistent with that shown in FIG. 1d, so as to provide the acoustic signal to the mixture of the concrete when the acoustic-based air probe is inserted into the mixture”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Te’eni and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,189,159 to Wilson et al. (hereinafter “Wilson”).
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Davis in view of Te’eni teaches the claimed invention but is silent regarding wherein the measurement unit has an electrical response sensor measuring an electrical response of said electromechanical actuator during said actuation. Davis however teaches the apparatus is configured with a signal processing technology for driving the acoustic source 102 as described at paragraph [0013] and further describes the signal processor or the signal processing module 12 and other signal processor circuits or components 14 used in the system and the functionality of the signal processor as described at paragraphs [0139] – [0143]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the signal processor or processor control module 12 and/or other signal processor circuits or components 14, Fig. 20 of Davis as including elements/sensors for measuring electrical response of the actuator, since it is known in the art that signal processing technologies include monitoring of the driving/vibrating force/power required for the respective electrical components.
In addition, Wilson, in the field of systems for detecting states of operation of motors, teaches wherein the measurement unit has an electrical response sensor measuring an electrical response of said electromechanical actuator during said actuation (see Col. 1, lines 40 – 58 describing the system including one or more processors to cause the system to perform operations including “determining an electrical power value based on measurements of a voltage and a current associated with the motor”, see also Col. 2, line 60 – Col. 3, line 3, Col. 4, lines 3 – 24, Col. 5, lines 17 – Col. 6, line 3 and Fig. 1 illustrating the multiple components of the system including power supply 104, electric motor 144, actuators 110, computer system for controlling operation of the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate measurement of response of motors/actuators of Wilson into Davis in view of Te’eni, in order to provide possible states of operation of the electrical components by providing power measurements taken at multiple locations of the system.
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, Davis in view of Te’eni in view of Wilson as modified above teaches wherein the electrical response sensor has an electrical power meter measuring an electrical power value indicative of an electrical power consumed by said electromechanical actuator during said actuation (see Col. 1, lines 40 – 58 describing the system including one or more processors to cause the system to perform operations including “determining an electrical power value based on measurements of a voltage and a current associated with the motor”, see also Col. 2, line 60 – Col. 3, line 3, Col. 4, lines 3 – 24, Col. 5, lines 17 – Col. 6, line 3 of Wilson).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior art:
Suzuki et al. (U.S. No. 4,941,346) teaches An apparatus for measuring rheological properties of a fluid sample, comprising: a pair of vibrating means operative when driven to undergo vibrational movement in opposite phase relation to one another, each vibrating means having at a free end thereof a sensor plate which is immersed in a fluid sample during use of the apparatus; driving means responsive to an electrical driving signal for effecting vibrational movement of the pair of vibrating means accompanied by vibrational movement of the sensor plates within the fluid sample; control means for producing an electrical driving signal having a magnitude which varies with time according to a predetermined pattern during a measuring cycle and for applying the electrical driving signal to the driving means to accordingly vary the vibrational movement of the pair of vibrating means; detecting means for detecting the amplitude of vibration of at least one of the vibrating means and producing a corresponding electrical detection signal; and processing means for processing the electrical driving signal in conjunction with the electrical detection signal to derive therefrom data representative of the rheological property of the fluid sample
Berman (U.S. No. 8,858,061 B2) teaches An apparatus and method to measure and control the slump of concrete by monitoring sensor within the interior surface of a concrete mixer and a liquid flow meter. Data is analyzed by a computer processing unit to determine the slump of the concrete, liquid needed the quantity of concrete within the mixer, the amount of concrete poured, and the starting and ending time of the pour.
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 MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights