DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 21 January 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action. Examiner acknowledges Claims 7 and 9 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant argues Claim 6 has been amended to overcome the objection. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim recites “determining the mechanical stress” while Claim 1 recites “determining a change in the mechanical stress”. As such, the claim objection has been maintained.
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Applicant argues Friebe does not disclose “determining a change in the mechanical stress acting on the coil”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP 2111.
Friebe discloses determining a change in the mechanical stress acting on coil (i.e. wear has occurred) [0033] based on the one or more sensed measured quantities [0036]. More specifically, Friebe teaches determining the coil is no longer constrained by the intermediate layers [0033]. There is inherently a mechanical stress acting on the coil when the coil is constrained and when the coil is no longer constrained, and those mechanical stresses are not the same. As such, determining the coil is no longer constrained i.e. wear condition/functional condition [0033] is the same as determining a change in the mechanical stress acting on the coil.
Applicant argues determining the coil is no longer constrained is not the same as determining a change in the mechanical stress. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants specification teaches when electrical signals are applied expansion forces arise (Page 13). As Friebe discloses the coil can also become no longer constrained [0033], these inherent expansion forces are not opposed in the same as manner as when the coil is constrained. As the forces have changed, the mechanical stress has also inherently changed. As such, the instant claim limitations have been met.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 6, the “determining” step should be amended so that it repeats the same determining of the change in mechanical stress as recited in Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 and 10 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Friebe et al. (US 2021/0102754).
Regarding Claim 1 Friebe discloses a method for checking a mechanical stress acting on an inductive component, wherein the inductive component comprises a coil (2), the method comprising: sensing one or more measured quantities dependent on the mechanical stress when an electrical excitation signal is applied to the coil (2) [0014, 0033 – 0035]; and determining a change in the mechanical stress (“wear” which Friebe explains as free movement of the coil due to reduced thickness of intermediate layers; which inherently is a change in mechanical stress as the coil is no longer constrained by the insulating layers) [0033] acting on the coil based on the one or more sensed measured quantities by comparing the one or more sensed measure quantities to one or more previously sensed reference quantities [0033, 0035, 0036].
Regarding Claim 2, Friebe discloses the one or more measured quantities comprise vibration information about mechanical vibrations of the inductive component when the electrical excitation signal is applied; wherein determining the mechanical stress comprises determining the mechanical stress based on the vibration information [0036].
Regarding Claim 3, Friebe discloses the vibration information comprises at least a frequency, a frequency spectrum, an amplitude, an overtone or undertone of the mechanical vibration [0023, 0036].
Regarding Claim 4, Friebe discloses sensing the vibration information based on an airborne sound generated by the inductive component (via 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Friebe discloses sensing the vibration information based on a structure- borne sound generated by the inductive component (via 7 or 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Friebe discloses the inductive component comprises at least one coil (2) on which the mechanical stress acts, the method comprising: sensing the one or more measured quantities dependent on the mechanical stress when the electrical excitation signal is applied to the at least one coil; and determining the change in the mechanical stress acting on the at least one coil based on the one or more sensed measured quantities (see rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Friebe discloses the at least one coil is configured to inductively heat a molten material arranged within the at least one coil when the electrical excitation signal is applied to the at least one coil [0032].
Regarding Claim 12, Friebe discloses sensing the one or more measured quantities comprises sensing one or more first measured values of the one or more measured quantities at a first time and sensing one or more second measured values of the one or more measured quantities at a second time; and wherein determining the change in the mechanical stress comprises determining the mechanical stress based on a comparison of the one or more first measured values to the one or more second measured values [0036].
Regarding Claim 13, Friebe discloses comprising identifying a maintenance requirement (defect being present) of the inductive component and/or one or more elements coupled to the inductive component based on the one or more measured quantities [0036].
Regarding Claim 14, Friebe discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium including instruction codes adapted to execute the method according to claim1 when executed on a processor (via controller) [0025, 0034].
Regarding Claim 15, Friebe discloses an apparatus for checking a mechanical stress of an inductive component, wherein the inductive component comprises a coil (2), the apparatus comprising: one or more sensors (6, 7, and/or 8) for sensing one or more measured quantities dependent on the mechanical stress when an electrical excitation signal is applied to the coil [0014, 0033 - 0035]; and at least one processor (controller) [0025, 0034] for determining a change in the mechanical stress acting on the coil based on the one or more sensed measured quantities by comparing the one or more sensed measure quantities to one or more previously sensed reference quantities [0033, 0035, 0036].
Regarding Claim 16, Friebe discloses the one or more measured quantities comprise vibration information about mechanical vibrations of the inductive component when the electrical excitation signal is applied; wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the change in the mechanical stress comprises determining the mechanical stress based on the vibration information [0036].
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) 6, 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friebe et al. (US 2021/0102754).
Regarding Claim 6 and 17, Friebe fails to expressly disclose the one or more measured quantities dependent on the mechanical stress comprise an electrical impedance of the inductive component; and wherein determining the mechanical stress comprises determining the mechanical stress by comparing a measured electrical impedance to a reference electrical impedance.
Friebe does teach a parameter in determining the mechanical stress can be an electric parameter [0021] and inductance and capacitance can be measured [0022] which are inherent components of impedance. Friebe also teaches determining the mechanical stress is based on determining a change in the parameter [0036].
Examiner takes Official Notice impedance is an inherent function of the size and shape of a coil.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Friebe to utilize impedance as an electric parameter and comparing a measured electrical impedance to a reference electrical impedance to determine a change to determine a change in mechanical stress for the benefit of confirming the acoustic results or to further characterize the movements of the coil.
Regarding Claim 8, Friebe discloses determining the mechanical stress comprises determining the change in mechanical stress based on the one or more influencing quantities and the one or more measured quantities (e.g. temperature which inherently affects acoustic waves and size/dimension of coils) [0036].
Friebe fails to expressly disclose identifying one or more influencing quantities that influence the one or more measured quantities when the electrical excitation signal is applied.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art temperature influences the measured quantities when electrical excitation signals are applied.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Friebe to identify the influencing quantity for the benefit of identifying the condition under which measurements were taken.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855