Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 1/23/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 18-22 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objections to Claims 1, 16, and 13 are withdrawn based on the amendments filed on 1/23/2026.
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) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0170532, hereinafter “Black”).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Black teaches a system (Fig. 1A, system 100, paragraph [0020]) comprising: a machine operable in a defined condition described by at least one operating parameter, the defined condition being an operating condition of the machine (engine and vibrations, paragraphs [0027] and [0041]); a controller configured to control at least one actuator so as to exert an excitation of at least a part of the system (paragraph [0041], force generators FG), detect a predetermined excitation (accelerometers 212, paragraph [0044] and Fig. 4; paragraphs [0017] and [0023], sensors) of at least a part of the system (paragraphs [0023], [0024], [0060], and Figs. 1A and 4), or exert the excitation of at least the part of the system and detect the predetermined excitation of at least the part of the system (no patentable weight due to “or”), the excitation, the predetermined excitation, or the excitation and the predetermined excitation being superimposed to the defined condition of the machine (cancellation, paragraphs [0023]-[0024]); at least one sensor configured to measure at least one response indicator of a response of at least the part of the system to the excitation (paragraphs [0026], [0045], Fig. 4), the predetermined excitation, or the excitation and the predetermined excitation (no patentable weight due to “or”); and a diagnosis system configured to: receive the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter (paragraphs [0025], [0060], Figs. 1 and 5), wherein the operating condition of the machine is taxi-out, takeoff, initial climb, climb, cruise, descent, approach, landing, or taxi-in (paragraph [0061], the IBIT can be configured manually with a switch, such that the test can be initiated by a user at any desired time; paragraph [0062], BIT may be used by AVC 200 during operation to detect internal failures; paragraph [0042], AVC can detect whether aircraft is in flight using SHM in order to provide adjustments to flight controls or vibration control forces; paragraph [0047], aircraft information including flight speed is used to ignore normal transients during structural health testing, i.e., aircraft is in flight, which could be any of initial climb, climb, cruise, descent, or approach; paragraph [0054], SHM system can detect exceedance of structural loads or unexpected trends during flight, and adjust FG output; paragraph [0061], performing test automatically “at the start of every flight” may encompass taxi-out).
Black does not specifically teach wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to: combine the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter into a state vector; and compare the state vector with another state vector acquired at a different time, system, or time and system. However, Black does teach wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to: combine the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter into a state matrix; and compare the state matrix with another state matrix acquired at a different time, system, or time and system (paragraphs [0071]-[0072], estimated system model matrix, which includes accelerometer output in response to an actuator force based on EQ. (2), is compared to a previously measured system model; see also Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0070] and [0073]-[0075], detailing comparison of system models). Black does not specifically teach that the state matrix is a state vector. However, Black does teach use of vectors in paragraph [0066]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a vector to represent the system model matrix of Black, because a vector is a type of matrix, and vectors and matrices are both commonly used to represent data.
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches a plurality of sensors configured to measure response indicators, wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to determine which one or more of the measured response indicators varies in response to the superimposed excitation (paragraph [0026], failure modes detected based on particular input sources, and paragraph [0060], accelerometers).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches further comprising a plurality of sensors at different locations of the machine (paragraph [0026], input sources, and paragraph [0060], accelerometers), wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to calculate a ratio of response indicators measured by the plurality of sensors (12, 108) at the different locations (paragraphs [0051], [0057]-[0059]).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to: determine a vibration and provide a command to the controller so as to control the at least one actuator to exert an excitation of the machine based on the determined vibration (paragraphs [0025]-[0027]); determine a position of a centerline of a shaft of the machine (not given patentable weight due to “or”); or a combination thereof (not given patentable weight due to “or”).
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the at least one actuator so as to exert an excitation of the machine, the excitation of the machine being periodical, a single impulse, a sweep, or a rectangular function, and wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to store a type of the excitation of the machine together with the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter in a memory (paragraphs [0023-0024], circular force generator would be periodic, and linear force generators would be single impulse; commands are stored in memory in the AVC when they are generated).
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the at least one measured response indicator is or comprises an electrical parameter of power electronics, the controller, another control unit of the machine, or any combination thereof (paragraph [0049], voltage)
Regarding dependent Claim 15, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches further comprising an alignment system configured to align and fixedly mount the machine on the ground (paragraphs [0042] and [0063], ground).
Regarding Claim 16, Black teaches a method (Fig. 1A, system 100, paragraph [0020]) comprising: operating a machine of a system in a defined condition described by at least one operating parameter, the defined condition being an operating condition of the machine (engine and vibrations, paragraphs [0027] and [0041]); operating a controller to control at least one actuator so as to exert an excitation of at least a part of the system (paragraph [0041], FGs), detect a predetermined excitation (accelerometers 212, paragraph [0044] and Fig. 4; paragraphs [0017] and [0023], sensors) of at least a part of the system (paragraphs [0023], [0024], [0060], and Figs. 1A and 4), or exert the excitation of at least the part of the system and detect the predetermined excitation of at least the part of the system (no patentable weight due to “or”), the excitation, the predetermined excitation, or the excitation and the predetermined excitation being superimposed to the defined condition of the machine (cancellation, paragraphs [0023]-[0024]); measuring, by at least one sensor, at least one response indicator of a response of at least the part of the system to the excitation (paragraphs [0026], [0045], Fig. 4), the predetermined excitation, or the excitation and the predetermined excitation (no patentable weight due to “or); receiving, by a diagnosis system, the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter (paragraphs [0025], [0060], Figs. 1 and 5), wherein the operating condition of the machine is taxi-out, takeoff, initial climb, climb, cruise, descent, approach, landing, or taxi-in (paragraph [0061], the IBIT can be configured manually with a switch, such that the test can be initiated by a user at any desired time; paragraph [0062], BIT may be used by AVC 200 during operation to detect internal failures; paragraph [0042], AVC can detect whether aircraft is in flight using SHM in order to provide adjustments to flight controls or vibration control forces; paragraph [0047], aircraft information including flight speed is used to ignore normal transients during structural health testing, i.e., aircraft is in flight, which could be any of initial climb, climb, cruise, descent, or approach; paragraph [0054], SHM system can detect exceedance of structural loads or unexpected trends during flight, and adjust FG output; paragraph [0061], performing test automatically “at the start of every flight” may encompass taxi-out).
Black does not specifically teach wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to: combining, by the diagnosis system, the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter into a state vector; and comparing the state vector with another state vector acquired at a different time, system, or time and system. However, Black does teach wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to: combining, by the diagnosis system, the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter into a state matrix; and comparing the state matrix with another state matrix acquired at a different time, system, or time and system (paragraph [0071]-[0072], estimated system model matrix, which includes accelerometer output in response to an actuator force based on EQ. (2), is compared to a previously measured system model; see also Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0070] and [0073]-[0075], detailing comparison of system models). Black does not specifically teach that the state matrix is a state vector. However, Black does teach use of vectors in paragraph [0066]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a vector to represent the system model matrix of Black, because a vector is a type of matrix, and vectors and matrices are both commonly used to represent data.
Regarding Claim 18, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors (paragraphs [0023], sensors; Fig. 3, sensors 306; Fig. 4, accelerometers 212), and wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to: detect a change of response indicators of the at least one response indicator at adjacent sensors of the plurality of sensors at a same time (paragraph [0026], sensor data from multiple sensors are monitored by SHM); and locate a defect of the machine based on the detected change of response indicators (paragraph [0026], trends in sensor data are detected and monitored by SHM).
Regarding Claim 19, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the controller is configured to detect the predetermined excitation of at least the part of the system, the predetermined excitation being superimposed to the defined condition of the machine (vibration cancellation, paragraphs [0023]-[0024]), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure the at least one response indicator of the response of at least the part of the system to the predetermined excitation (accelerometers 212, paragraph [0044] and Fig. 4), and wherein the predetermined excitation of at least the part of the system is an external influence on the system (paragraphs [0023]-[0024], vibrations that are cancelled or mitigated by the AVC system are at least partially caused by external influences; paragraph [0047], aircraft information including flight speed is used to ignore normal transients during structural health testing).
Regarding Claim 21, Black teaches a system comprising: a machine operable in a defined condition described by at least one operating parameter, the defined condition being an operating condition of the machine (engine and vibrations, paragraphs [0027] and [0041]); a controller configured to control at least one actuator so as to exert an excitation of at least a part of the system (paragraph [0041], FGs), the excitation being superimposed to the defined condition of the machine (vibration cancellation, paragraphs [0023]-[0024]); at least one sensor configured to measure at least one response indicator at power electronics or a controller of the system, the at least one response indicator being of a response of at least the part of the system to the excitation (paragraph [0022], electronic information regarding electrical components of structure S; also paragraph [0023], electronic signals received from AVC sensors; it further noted that the FGs would each include some sort of power electronics and controller); and a diagnosis system configured to: receive the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter (paragraphs [0025], [0060], Figs. 1 and 5); wherein the operating condition of the machine is a steady operating condition on ground, taxi-out, takeoff, initial climb, limb, cruise, descent, approach, landing, or taxi-in (paragraph [0061], the IBIT can be configured manually with a switch, such that the test can be initiated by a user at any desired time; paragraph [0062], BIT may be used by AVC 200 during operation to detect internal failures; paragraph [0042], AVC can detect whether aircraft is in flight using SHM in order to provide adjustments to flight controls or vibration control forces; paragraph [0047], aircraft information including flight speed is used to ignore normal transients during structural health testing, i.e., aircraft is in flight, which could be any of initial climb, climb, cruise, descent, or approach; paragraph [0054], SHM system can detect exceedance of structural loads or unexpected trends during flight, and adjust FG output; paragraph [0061], performing test automatically “at the start of every flight” may encompass taxi-out).
Black does not specifically teach combine the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter into a state vector; and compare the state vector with another state vector acquired at a different time, system, or time and system. However, Black does teach combine the at least one measured response indicator and the at least one operating parameter into a state matrix; and compare the state matrix with another state matrix acquired at a different time, system, or time and system (paragraph [0071]-[0072], estimated system model matrix, which includes accelerometer output in response to an actuator force based on EQ. (2), is compared to a previously measured system model; see also Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0070] and [0073]-[0075], detailing comparison of system models). Black does not specifically teach that the state matrix is a state vector. However, Black does teach use of vectors in paragraph [0066]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a vector to represent the system model matrix of Black, because a vector is a type of matrix, and vectors and matrices are both commonly used to represent data.
Regarding Claim 22, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 21. Black further teaches wherein the excitation is a mechanical excitation (paragraph [0023], force generators FG), and the response is an electrical response (paragraph [0022], electronic information regarding electrical components of structure S; also paragraph [0023], electronic signals received from AVC sensors).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Rai et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0161245, hereinafter “Rai”).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches a phase reference, and wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to: determine a phase of the at least one measured response indicator with respect to the phase reference; and determine a phase shift between the phase of the at least one measured response indicator with respect to the phase reference, and a baseline (paragraph [0021], phase of incorrect forces determined and corrected; paragraphs [0051], [0057], [0060], and [0076], adjustment of phase of FG force levels; Fig. 7). Black does not specifically teach a keyphasor. However, Rai teaches a key phasor in paragraph [0019]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the key phasor of Rai in the system of Black, because the operation of a key phasor is well known to those skilled in the art (see Rai, paragraph [0019]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Kozono et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0205194, hereinafter “Kozono”)
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to analyze one or more response indicators of the at least one measured response indicator and one or more operating parameters of the at least one operating parameter to perform a diagnosis of the system (paragraphs [0051], [0057]-[0059]). Black does not specifically teach determining covariances of the one or more response indicators. However, Kozono teaches, in paragraph [0059] that covariances of data from a plurality of sensors can be used to determine an abnormality. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the covariances of Kozono in the system of Black, in order to determine an abnormality degree based on a plurality of sensors (see Kozono, paragraph [0059]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Brinker et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0198507, hereinafter “Brinker”).
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the diagnosis system is configured to determine one or more correlations (paragraphs [0006]-[0007], correlation) in one or more response indicators of the at least one measured response indicator and one or more operating parameters of the at least one operating parameter to perform a diagnosis of the system (paragraphs [0051], [0057]-[0059]).
Black does not specifically teach wherein the diagnosis system comprises an artificial intelligence module. However, Brinker teaches in paragraph [0003] use of advanced machine learning techniques to perform fault diagnosis based on sensor data. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the machine learning of Brinker in the system of Black, in order to maximize the economic lifespan of the system (see Brinker, paragraph [0003]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Lafleur et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0216524, hereinafter “Lafleur”)
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black does not specifically teach wherein the diagnosis system is further configured to determine a ratio of a response indicator and the excitation in a frequency domain. However, Lafleur teaches determining a frequency response function corresponding to a ratio of a response to an excitation in paragraph [0026]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the frequency response function of Lafleur in the system of Black, because the frequency response function can be used to determine stress in the system (see Lafleur, paragraph [0026]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Sabnis (U.S. Pub. No. 3976339).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black does not specifically teach wherein the at least one actuator is configured to generate non-contact forces on the machine to exert the excitation. However, Sabnis teaches use of magnetic bearings, which exert non-contact forces, in an aircraft (column 4, lines 58-65); a magnetic bearing includes non-contact forces. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply the vibration control described in Black to a system including a magnetic bearing such as described in Sabnis, because magnetic suspensions have been proposed and used extensively in the past for substantially frictionlessly suspending a movable member (see Sabnis, column 1, lines 25-27).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Yamamoto et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0028161, hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a proximity probe, an accelerometer, or a strain gauge (paragraph [0006], accelerometer), the machine comprises a motor (paragraph [0024]), and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to: determine a vibration of a shaft of the machine using signals (paragraph [0024], counteracting or cancelling vibrations caused by one or more rotating components including rotor, which includes shaft, see also paragraph [0035] and [0041]).
Black does not specifically teach the that the machine comprises an electric motor, a generator (no patentable weight due to “or”), or a combination thereof (no patentable weight due to “or”), the electric motor, the generator (no patentable weight due to “or”), or the combination thereof (no patentable weight due to “or”) having a plurality of coils, or the at least one sensors comprises the proximity probe, the accelerometer, or the strain gauge, and the machine comprises the electric motor, the generator, or the combination thereof (no patentable weight due to “or”), and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to: receive signals indicative for, based on, or indicative for and based on differences among voltages, electrical currents, or voltages and electrical currents of the plurality of coils; and determine a vibration of a shaft of the machine using the signals. However, Yamamoto teaches the machine comprises an electric motor having a plurality of coils; or a combination thereof (paragraph [0004], 3-phase motor; Fig. 1, motor coils 9, 10, 11, see also paragraph [0042]), and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to: receive signals indicative for, based on, or indicative for and based on differences among voltages, electrical currents, or voltages and electrical currents of the plurality of coils; and determine a vibration of a shaft of the machine using the signals (Abstract, paragraph [0024], and paragraph [0061], shaft vibration is determined and cancelled based on the coil currents). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the vibration identification and reduction based on coil currents that is taught in Yamamoto in the system of Black, in order to ensure that vibration and noise in the motor are reduced (see Yamamoto, Abstract).
Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black in view of Kray et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0234313, hereinafter “Kray”).
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Black further teaches comprising an aircraft and wherein the machine is an engine of the aircraft (paragraphs [0003] and [0041]). Black does not specifically teach wherein the detected predetermined excitation of at least the part of the system is a cross wind. However, Kray teaches in paragraph [0003] that cross wind loads can cause vibrations in an aircraft engine. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply the vibration control of Black to the cross wind induced vibrations described in Kray, because such vibrations are undesirable (see Kray, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding dependent Claim 20, Black teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 19. Black does not specifically teach wherein the external influence on the system is a cross wind on the system. However, Kray teaches in paragraph [0003] that cross wind loads can cause vibrations in an aircraft engine. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply the vibration control of Black to the cross wind induced vibrations described in Kray, because such vibrations are undesirable (see Kray, paragraph [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent Claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 12-14 that because the test of Black is performed automatically at the start of every flight, that Black does not teach the amended claim features. The Examiner disagrees. While the power-up built in test is presented as an embodiment in Black, Black also teaches that the test can be configured manually with a switch as an initiated built in test (IBIT), such that a user may initiate the test at any desired time (see paragraph [0061] of Black). Further, performing the test automatically “at the start of every flight”, as stated in paragraph [0061] of Black, may encompass taxi-out. Further, the AVC of Black, which uses data from the FGs in conjunction with the SHM to cancel vibrations, operates while the aircraft is in flight (see paragraph [0028]). Therefore, Black teaches the amended claim features (see the updated rejections above).
Regarding new Claim 21, Applicant argues on pages 14-16 that Black does not teach “at least one sensor configured to measure at least one response indicator at power electronics or a controller of the system”. The Examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0021] teaches electronic information regarding electrical components and/or systems of the structure, which are communicated to the AVC and SHM and used in the structural health monitoring. Further, it is noted that “a response indicator at power electronics or a controller of the system” is very broad; for example, each FG of Black would include some sort of power electronics and a controller.
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 CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857