DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 12 May 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to Claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, Applicant argues Friebe does not disclose “determining a change in the mechanical stress acting on the coil by comparing the sensed measured quantities to previously sensed reference quantities, wherein the reference quantities are sensed when a known mechanical stress is 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 a mechanical stress is acting on the coil as the coil is typically restrained i.e. forces are present on the coil [0004] where in normal operation they are constrained [0005]. Stress is dependent upon force as stress is defined by Force / Area. When restrained [0005] according to Newton’s Third Law, among other forces, the intermediate layer provides an equal and opposite force to the coil which is inherently a mechanical stress. When the intermediate layer permits movement [0011], the aforementioned force has inherently changed, resulting in a change in mechanical stress. The change in the condition is detected by Friebe [0035], which inherently includes this change in mechanical stress i.e. “determining a change in mechanical stress acting on the coil”. More specifically, Friebe discloses collecting reference quantities (standard signals that represent an optimum condition) [0035] which inherently include a known mechanical stress in acting on the coil (inherent mechanical stresses present when in known optimal condition) which is compared to sensed measured quantities (determined signal values) [0035]. As such, Friebe teaches the instant claim limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., screws and bolt proving mechanical stress, mechanical stress being deliberately applied, a quantified value of stress being applied) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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], wherein the one or more reference quantities are sensed when a known mechanical stress is acting on the coil (inherent mechanical stresses present when in known optimal condition) [0035].
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], wherein the one or more reference quantities are sensed when a known mechanical stress is acting on the coil (inherent mechanical stresses present when in known optimal condition) [0035].
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 change in 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 change in 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 the 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
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
Prosecution Insights