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 .
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 16, 25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1023 as being unpatentable over Duke (US Publication 2019/0293483) in view of Damasse et al. (US Patent 5,927,375; hereinafter Damasse).
With regards to claims 16, 28 and 29, Duke teaches a method (a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing a computer program) for monitoring at least one working machine driven by a rotating machine (12; [0009]; FIG. 1), comprising the steps of:
detecting at least one item of detection information of the working machine (via 14; FIG. 1) which is specific to an acceleration in the working machine ([0010]; FIG. 1);
transmitting ([0016]) the detection information (from 14 to 16) via a network ([0016]; see FIG. 1, similar to network 5 in FIG. 1 of the instant invention) to a central processing device (“transmitting an analog and/or digital signal indicative of the sensed vibration to controller device 16”, [0010]);
processing the transmitted detection information (via controller 16; [0011]) to determine rotational speed information specific to a rotational speed of the rotating machine ([0017]).
However, Duke is silent regarding wherein in the processing step a fundamental frequency and integral multiples of the fundamental frequency of the detection information are normalized and therefore taken into account having the same amplitude in order to determine the rotational speed information, weighted according toe predefined weightings to identify the fundamental frequency and to use the identified fundamental frequency as rotational speed information.
Damasse teaches a method of monitoring the rotation of a rotating machine (abstract). Damasse further teaches wherein in the processing step a fundamental frequency and integral multiples of the fundamental frequency of the detection information (col. 3, lines 30-37) are normalized (col. 4, lines 30-40) and therefore taken into account having the same amplitude in order to determine the rotational speed information, weighted according to predefined weightings (col. 4, lines 5-28) to identify the fundamental frequency and to use the identified fundamental frequency as rotational speed information (col. 3, line 30 to col. 4, line 45).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of processing the detected signal as taught by Damasse to the method as taught by Duke to detect deviations rapidly (col. 3, lines 1-7; Damasse).
With regards to claim 25, Duke, as combined with Damasse, teaches (citations to Duke unless specified otherwise) the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein
the detection information is in the form of acceleration values in at least one ([0018]) or two or three dimensions,
the processing step includes determining for each of the at least one ([0018]) or two or three dimensions the acceleration values, and
an accumulation of the amplitudes of a frequency spectra of the at least one or two or three dimensions is performed to generate from the frequency spectra a cumulative frequency spectrum ([0018-0019]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duke (US Publication 2019/0293483) in view of Damasse et al. (US Patent 5,927,375; hereinafter Damasse), and further in view of Yoskovitz et al. (US Publication 2020/0182684; hereinafter Yoskovitz).
With regards to claim 17, Duke, as combined with Damasse, teaches the method as claimed in claim 16. However, Duke, as combined with Damasse, is silent regarding wherein the detecting is performed by an oscillation sensor (14) on the working machine configured to sense oscillations in three directions orthogonal to one another and generate the detection information in the form of three-dimensional acceleration values.
Yoskovitz teaches a system and method of monitoring a rotating machine (abstract; FIG. 1), wherein the detecting is performed by an oscillation sensor (220, 222, 224) on the working machine (102) configured to sense oscillations in three directions orthogonal to one another ([0293]) and generate the detection information in the form of three-dimensional acceleration values ([0293-0295]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Yoskovitz of placing the sensors orthogonal to one another to the sensors as taught by Duke, as combined with Damasse,to analyze anomalies of the rotating machine in multiple axes ([0295]; Yoskovitz).
With regards to claim 18, Duke, as combined with Damasse, teaches the method as claimed in claim 16. However, Duke, as combined with Damasse, is silent regarding wherein the network is configured at least partially to use a mobile radio network, the Internet, or the mobile radio network and the Internet, and the detection information is generated by a plurality of working machines at different locations and transmitted to the processing device for central processing, and the processing step is performed for each of at least a portion of the plurality of working machines.
Yoskovitz teaches a system and method of monitoring a rotating machine (abstract; FIG. 1), wherein the network (including 150) is configured at least partially to use a mobile radio network ([0318]; FIG. 1 and 3A-B), the Internet, or the mobile radio network and the Internet, and the detection information is generated by a plurality of working machines (104, 106; FIG. 1) at different locations and transmitted to the processing device (via 260 and 150; [0313]) for central processing, and the processing step is performed for each of at least a portion of the plurality of working machines ([0270-0273]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the network as taught by Duke, as combined with Damasse, with the network as taught by Yoskovitz to monitor multiple components of the rotation system ([0274-0275]; Yoskovitz).
Claims 19-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duke (US Publication 2019/0293483) in view of Damasse et al. (US Patent 5,927,375; hereinafter Damasse), and further in view of Bauer (DE 102017002624 A1; IDS dated 12/23/2022 Cite No. B4) .
With regards to claim 19, Duke, as combined with Damasse, teaches the method as claimed in claim 16. However, Duke, as combined with Damasse, is silent regarding wherein the processing is an oscillation analysis from which the rotational speed information is determined based on a fundamental oscillation and further harmonics of the detection information.
Bauer teaches a method of determining the distribution functions of the harmonics of the rotational frequency of the electrical machine (abstract), wherein the processing is an oscillation analysis from which the rotational speed information is determined based on a fundamental oscillation and further harmonics of the detection information (pages 3-4, highlighted portions).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teaching of determining the speed based on the frequencies of the harmonics as taught by Bauer to the measurement method as taught by Duke, as combined with Damasse, to differentiate the erroneous measurement and or interference signals (page 5, highlighted portions; Bauer).
With regards to claim 20, Duke, as combined with Damasse and Bauer, teaches the (citations to Bauer unless specified otherwise) method as claimed in claim 19, wherein the fundamental oscillation is determined by an evaluation of the further harmonics (pages 4-5, highlighted portions).
With regards to claim 21, Duke, as combined with Damasse, teaches the method as claimed in claim 16. However, Duke, as combined with Damasse, is silent regarding wherein the processing step includes performing a frequency analysis of the detection information to determine a frequency spectrum of the detection information, performing an identification of a plurality of frequencies in the frequency spectrum, wherein the identified plurality of frequencies are assigned to a fundamental oscillation, at least a predefined number of harmonics of the detection information, or both, performing a calculation on the basis of the identified plurality of frequencies, wherein the calculation is parameterized by the predefined number of harmonics.
Bauer teaches a method of determining the distribution functions of the harmonics of the rotational frequency of the electrical machine (abstract), wherein the processing step includes
performing a frequency analysis of the detection information to determine a frequency spectrum of the detection information (page 1-2, highlighted portions),
performing an identification of a plurality of frequencies in the frequency spectrum, wherein the identified plurality of frequencies are assigned to a fundamental oscillation, at least a predefined number of harmonics of the detection information (pages 3-4, highlighted portions), or both,
performing a calculation on the basis of the identified plurality of frequencies, wherein the calculation is parameterized by the predefined number of harmonics (page 5, highlighted portions).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teaching of determining the speed based on the frequencies of the harmonics as taught by Bauer to the measurement method as taught by Duke, as combined with Damasse, to differentiate the erroneous measurement and or interference signals (page 5, highlighted portions; Bauer).
With regards to claim 22, Duke, as combined with Damasse and Bauer, teaches the method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the performance of the identification of the frequencies includes identifying peak values in the frequency spectrum (pages 3-4, highlighted portions), and normalizing the identified peak values in the frequency spectrum the performance of the calculation is based on the normalized peak values (page 3-4, middle highlighted portions).
With regards to claim 23, Duke, as combined with Damasse and Bauer, teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, wherein the calculation includes generating a sum spectrum in which an addition of the normalized peak values of the identified plurality of frequencies is performed in a weighted manner (page 2, highlighted portions).
With regards to claim 26, Duke, as combined with Damasse and Bauer, teaches (citations to Duke) the method as claimed in claim 23, wherein the processing step includes an interpolation in the cumulative frequency spectrum ([0027, 0038]) and identifying frequencies in the interpolated frequency spectrum ([0037-0038]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duke (US Publication 2019/0293483) in view of Damasse et al. (US Patent 5,927,375; hereinafter Damasse) and Bauer (DE 102017002624 A1; IDS dated 12/23/2022 Cite No. B4), and further in view of Hayzen et al. (US Publication 2019/0310281; hereinafter Hayzen).
With regards to claim 24, Duke, as combined with Damasse and Bauer, teaches the method as claimed in claim 23. However, Duke, as combined with Damasse and Bauer, is silent regarding wherein the processing step includes performing a frequency determination on the basis of the sum spectrum in order to determine the rotational speed information, and the rotational frequency is estimated at a maximum of the sum spectrum.
Hayzen teaches a method of measuring rotational speed of a machine ([0012-0022]) wherein the processing step includes performing a frequency determination on the basis of the sum spectrum in order to determine the rotational speed information, and the rotational frequency is estimated at a maximum of the sum spectrum ([0048-0051]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of processing the detecting information as taught Hayzen to the method as taught by Duke, as combined with Damasse and Bauer, to improve the accuracy of determining the rotational speed ([0064]; Hayzen).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached on (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853