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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received March 26, 2026.
Claims 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 23 are amended. Claims 13-29 are pending and have been examined.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-15, 18, 23, and 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross et al., US PGPUB 20080001504 A1 (“Cross”) in view of Khandani, US PGPUB 02130111994 A1 (“Khandani”).
Per claims 13 and 23, which are similar in scope, Cross teaches A device for determining a condition of a composite component, comprising hardware circuitry configured to: receive measurement data with information on a condition of the composite component; in par 067: “] For direct piezoelectric effect evaluation, the top and bottom plates were pressure surfaces such as metal, and were used to apply stress to the piezoelectric materials, with electrical signals detected between electrodes in contact with the base and top surface and sides of the pyramid shapes.” Electrodes that used electrical signals in contact with the base and top and surface and sides of the pyramid shapes teaches a device to receive measurement data. See par 078 where a picocoulomb was detected: “Using a finite element method to calculate the gradient, a calculated d.sub.33=6.0.+-.1 muC/N was determined for the same sample. The experimental results proved that the composite is piezoelectric, in spite of the fact that all component elements are centric, which forbids piezoelectricity unless the shape has special symmetry forms discussed above in relation to FIG. 1A-F. This is the first time such a composite has been made. The agreement of experimental and theoretical results confirms that flexoelectricity is the origin of the observed piezoelectric effect in these materials.” See also Figure 6A. Component taught in par 093, “mems applications in robotics and unmanned vehicles”).
Cross then teaches wherein the measurement data comprises an electrical charge transfer and/or electrical voltage, generated within the composite component through mechanical excitation of the composite component in pars 074-078 where the mechanical stress, see 5B causes the electrical charge per Newton as taught in par 078. Note that in par 078 that the piezoelectric effect of the composite is what generates the electricity therefore the electrical charge transfer is generated within the composite component.
Cross then teaches the condition of the composite component on the basis of the electrical charge transfer and/or electrical voltage in Fig 8 where the condition of the component is taught by the strain the component is under (x axis) and the polarization is micro Coulombs, which teaches electrical charge transfer (coulomb teaches charge, and to measure it the charge would be transferred to an electrode).
Cross does not teach determine a condition of the composite component based on the measurement data; and transmit the determined condition; and the circuitry is designed and configured to determine the condition of the composite component
Khandani teaches monitoring for strain. See abstract.
Khandani teaches determine a condition of the component based on the measurement data; and transmit the determined condition; in pars 057-059: “To reduce electrical energy consumption, controller 410 activates strain sensing element 402, amplifier 406, and ADC 408 periodically through output command 412. Therefore, strain measurements are taken only at scheduled times by controller 410. This method is further illustrated FIG. 4B.
As shown in FIG. 4B, a horizontal axis 416 represents time, and a vertical axis 418 represents strain value. A waveform 414 represents strain variation over time for object 100. Strain sensing device 400 measures strain in object 100 at times T.sub.1, T.sub.2, T.sub.3, T.sub.4, T.sub.5 and T.sub.6.
Waveform 414 shows strain variation over time on horizontal axis 416. By using output 412, controller 410 activates strain sensing element 402, amplifier 406, and ADC 408 only at discrete times T.sub.1, T.sub.2, T.sub.3, T.sub.4, T.sub.5 and T.sub.6. Therefore, strain sensing element 402, amplifier 406, and ADC 408 are inactive between successive sampling times to reduce electrical energy consumption of strain sensing device 400.” And Fig 4B where a graph over time shows strain amounts which teaches under a broadest reasonable interpretation condition.
Khandani then teaches and the circuitry is designed and configured to determine the condition of the composite component see par 061: “For example, FIG. 4B shows that strain value increases significantly after discrete time T.sub.3 and reduces before the next strain sample is taken at discrete time T.sub.4. In other words, device 400 misses the maximum strain value that happens between discrete times T.sub.3 and T.sub.4. Missing such a maximum is undesirable, because in most objects and structures, large strain values cause fatigue, which leads to formation of cracks. Therefore, monitoring instances of large strain values is important to predict whether the object is experiencing fatigue.” See also Figs 5A-B and pars 063-066. See also pars 0102-0103: “Initially, the strain value is smaller than maximum observed strain, therefore, AE sensor 842, AE amplifier 844, and ADC 846 are not active, and device 800 uses a slow sampling of strain. Such a slow sampling implies taking samples of strain at times 908 and 910; however, at time 912, strain increases to a level high enough, so at this time strain in object 100 exceeds the previously observed strain. This causes comparator 826 to generate a trigger signal on input 840 of controller 812 in device 800.
As a result of strain exceeding maximum observed strain at time 912, controller 812 immediately activates AE sensor 842, AE amplifier 844, and ADC 846 using output 820, to detect potential AE events that could happen. Additionally, at time 912, controller 812 uses output 814 to activate first strain sensing element 802, amplifier 808, and ADC 810 to read the accurate value of strain, and based on that it calculates the new value of S.sub.max and calculates the new V.sub.th such that if strain in object 100 exceeds the newly calculated V.sub.th, it causes the output of comparator 826 to generate a trigger signal.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring composite electrical charge within a component through mechanical excitation of the component of Cross with the device to determine and transmit condition of a component teaching of Khandani because one would be motivated to monitor strain for condition of an object and will be sensitive to the times where an object is under maximum strain, otherwise deactivated to save energy, see par 031. This is because under maximum observed strain the object is more likely to experience acoustic emission events under periods of maximum strain (such as cracks), see par 091. Therefore, Khandani’s benefits as taught here would motivate one to combine Khandani with Cross.
Per claim 14, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claim 13, above. Cross does not teach having a measuring device for increasing a measurement signal. Khandani teaches having a measuring device for increasing a measurement signal in par 056: “Often the output of strain sensing element 402 is so weak, it needs to be amplified using amplifier 406, so ADC 408 can convert analog strain values into digital samples. Controller 410 controls strain sensing element 402, amplifier 406 and ADC 408.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring composite electrical charge within a component through mechanical excitation of the component of Cross with the device to determine and transmit condition of a component teaching of Khandani because one would be motivated to monitor strain for condition of an object and will be sensitive to the times where an object is under maximum strain, otherwise deactivated to save energy, see par 031. This is because under maximum observed strain the object is more likely to experience acoustic emission events under periods of maximum strain (such as cracks), see par 091. Therefore, Khandani’s benefits as taught here would motivate one to combine Khandani with Cross.
Per claim 15, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claim 13, above. Cross does not teach having a charge amplifier or a voltage amplifier for increasing a voltage amplitude of the electrical voltage.
Khandani teaches having a charge amplifier or a voltage amplifier for increasing a voltage amplitude of the electrical voltage in par 056: “. Therefore, once activated, strain sensing element 402 converts strain in object 100 into a small electric voltage (or an electric current). Often the output of strain sensing element 402 is so weak, it needs to be amplified using amplifier 406, so ADC 408 can convert analog strain values into digital samples.” The small voltage is amplified so the voltage amplitude is increased, which would be by a voltage amplifier.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring composite electrical charge within a component through mechanical excitation of the component of Cross with the device to determine and transmit condition of a component teaching of Khandani because one would be motivated to monitor strain for condition of an object and will be sensitive to the times where an object is under maximum strain, otherwise deactivated to save energy, see par 031. This is because under maximum observed strain the object is more likely to experience acoustic emission events under periods of maximum strain (such as cracks), see par 091. Therefore, Khandani’s benefits as taught here would motivate one to combine Khandani with Cross.
Per claims 18 and 28, which are similar in scope, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claims 13 and 23, above. Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross does not teach wherein the condition comprises a wear, defects in a material, a load history and/or an aging of a material, of the component.
Khandani teaches wherein the condition comprises a wear, defects in a material, a load history and/or an aging of a material, of the component in pars 082-083: “Using such a scheme, the value of strain on object 100 at any given time will be the value of strain that was last measured using first strain sensing element 502, amplifier 508, and ADC 510 plus the output value of charge amplifier 600. Therefore, controller 512 can calculate and set V.sub.th in such a way that if strain in object 100 exceeds a threshold of interest, the output of charge amplifier 600 becomes greater than V.sub.th, causing comparator 520 to generate a trigger signal to input 518, which controller 512 will use as an indicator of times at which it must increase the frequency of measuring strain.
In materials, high strain may lead to cracks (also known as fatigue cracks). Detecting cracks is a very important task when integrity of an object or structure is monitored. Often cracks are monitored by detecting presence of acoustic emission waves. It is very well known that creation and propagation of cracks generate acoustic emission waves. A conventional acoustic emission monitoring device is now described with reference to FIG. 7.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring composite electrical charge within a component through mechanical excitation of the component of Cross with the device to determine and transmit condition of a component teaching of Khandani because one would be motivated to monitor strain for condition of an object and will be sensitive to the times where an object is under maximum strain, otherwise deactivated to save energy, see par 031. This is because under maximum observed strain the object is more likely to experience acoustic emission events under periods of maximum strain (such as cracks), see par 091. Therefore, Khandani’s benefits as taught here would motivate one to combine Khandani with Cross.
Per claim 26, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claim 23, above. Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross does not teach the step of determining a condition of the component comprises determining an exerting mechanical load.
Khandani further teaches the step of determining a condition of the component comprises determining an exerting mechanical load in par 082: “Using such a scheme, the value of strain on object 100 at any given time will be the value of strain that was last measured using first strain sensing element 502, amplifier 508, and ADC 510 plus the output value of charge amplifier 600. Therefore, controller 512 can calculate and set V.sub.th in such a way that if strain in object 100 exceeds a threshold of interest, the output of charge amplifier 600 becomes greater than V.sub.th, causing comparator 520 to generate a trigger signal to input 518, which controller 512 will use as an indicator of times at which it must increase the frequency of measuring strain.” Strain teaches mechanical load.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring composite electrical charge within a component through mechanical excitation of the component of Cross with the device to determine and transmit condition of a component teaching of Khandani because one would be motivated to monitor strain for condition of an object and will be sensitive to the times where an object is under maximum strain, otherwise deactivated to save energy, see par 031. This is because under maximum observed strain the object is more likely to experience acoustic emission events under periods of maximum strain (such as cracks), see par 091. Therefore, Khandani’s benefits as taught here would motivate one to combine Khandani with Cross.
Per claim 27, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claim 23, above. Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross does not teach wherein the step of determining a condition of the component comprises determining an exerting mechanical load based on a component-specific characteristic curve and/or a component-specific characteristic diagram.
Khandani teaches wherein the step of determining a condition of the component comprises determining an exerting mechanical load based on a component-specific characteristic curve and/or a component-specific characteristic diagram in Fig 5B and pars 068-069: “FIG. 5B illustrates occasional strain measurements of strain sensing device 500. In FIG. 5B, waveform 524 shows strain variation in object 100 over time on horizontal axis 526, which represents time, and vertical access 528, which represents strain value.
As illustrated in FIG. 5B, by using output 514, controller 512 activates the first strain sensing element 502, amplifier 508, and ADC 510 only at previously scheduled discrete times T.sub.1, T.sub.2, T.sub.3, T.sub.4, T.sub.5 and T.sub.6. However, the strain value increases between discrete times T.sub.3 and T.sub.4, will not be observed unless additional sampling is done between discrete time T.sub.3, and discrete time T.sub.4.
Increasing sampling frequency by controller 512 at all times will be one potential solution, will increase the energy consumption of strain sensing device 500. To monitor the high strain values happening between discrete times T.sub.3 and T.sub.4, this invention uses the second strain sensing element 504. Compared to first strain sensing element 502, the second strain sensing element 504 is less accurate but more sensitive. Additionally, since the second strain sensing element 504 is more sensitive, for the same amount of strain change, the strain sensing element 504 generates a significantly stronger signal compared to strain sensing element 502.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring composite electrical charge within a component through mechanical excitation of the component of Cross with the device to determine and transmit condition of a component teaching of Khandani because one would be motivated to monitor strain for condition of an object and will be sensitive to the times where an object is under maximum strain, otherwise deactivated to save energy, see par 031. This is because under maximum observed strain the object is more likely to experience acoustic emission events under periods of maximum strain (such as cracks), see par 091. Therefore, Khandani’s benefits as taught here would motivate one to combine Khandani with Cross.
Per claim 29, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claim 23, above.
Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross does not teach the step of determining a condition of the component comprises determining a wear, a defect in a material, a load history and/or an aging of a material of the component.
Khandani further teaches the step of determining a condition of the component comprises determining a wear, a defect in a material, a load history and/or an aging of a material of the component in pars 082-083: “Using such a scheme, the value of strain on object 100 at any given time will be the value of strain that was last measured using first strain sensing element 502, amplifier 508, and ADC 510 plus the output value of charge amplifier 600. Therefore, controller 512 can calculate and set V.sub.th in such a way that if strain in object 100 exceeds a threshold of interest, the output of charge amplifier 600 becomes greater than V.sub.th, causing comparator 520 to generate a trigger signal to input 518, which controller 512 will use as an indicator of times at which it must increase the frequency of measuring strain.
In materials, high strain may lead to cracks (also known as fatigue cracks). Detecting cracks is a very important task when integrity of an object or structure is monitored. Often cracks are monitored by detecting presence of acoustic emission waves. It is very well known that creation and propagation of cracks generate acoustic emission waves. A conventional acoustic emission monitoring device is now described with reference to FIG. 7.”
Khandani further teaches additionally based on a component-specific characteristic curve and/or one or more component-specific characteristic diagrams in Fig 5B and pars 068-069: “FIG. 5B illustrates occasional strain measurements of strain sensing device 500. In FIG. 5B, waveform 524 shows strain variation in object 100 over time on horizontal axis 526, which represents time, and vertical access 528, which represents strain value.
As illustrated in FIG. 5B, by using output 514, controller 512 activates the first strain sensing element 502, amplifier 508, and ADC 510 only at previously scheduled discrete times T.sub.1, T.sub.2, T.sub.3, T.sub.4, T.sub.5 and T.sub.6. However, the strain value increases between discrete times T.sub.3 and T.sub.4, will not be observed unless additional sampling is done between discrete time T.sub.3, and discrete time T.sub.4.
Increasing sampling frequency by controller 512 at all times will be one potential solution, will increase the energy consumption of strain sensing device 500. To monitor the high strain values happening between discrete times T.sub.3 and T.sub.4, this invention uses the second strain sensing element 504. Compared to first strain sensing element 502, the second strain sensing element 504 is less accurate but more sensitive. Additionally, since the second strain sensing element 504 is more sensitive, for the same amount of strain change, the strain sensing element 504 generates a significantly stronger signal compared to strain sensing element 502.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring composite electrical charge within a component through mechanical excitation of the component of Cross with the device to determine and transmit condition of a component teaching of Khandani because one would be motivated to monitor strain for condition of an object and will be sensitive to the times where an object is under maximum strain, otherwise deactivated to save energy, see par 031. This is because under maximum observed strain the object is more likely to experience acoustic emission events under periods of maximum strain (such as cracks), see par 091. Therefore, Khandani’s benefits as taught here would motivate one to combine Khandani with Cross.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross et al., US PGPUB 20080001504 A1 (“Cross”) in view of Khandani, US PGPUB 02130111994 A1 (“Khandani”), further in view of Janapati et al., US PGPUB 20140309950 A1 ("Janapati"),
Per claims 16 and 24, which are similar in scope, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claims 13 and 23, above. Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross does not teach wherein the circuitry is designed to receive sensor data including information on a mechanical excitation of the component.
Khandani teaches wherein the circuitry is designed to receive sensor data including information on a mechanical excitation of the component in par 061: “For example, FIG. 4B shows that strain value increases significantly after discrete time T.sub.3 and reduces before the next strain sample is taken at discrete time T.sub.4. In other words, device 400 misses the maximum strain value that happens between discrete times T.sub.3 and T.sub.4. Missing such a maximum is undesirable, because in most objects and structures, large strain values cause fatigue, which leads to formation of cracks. Therefore, monitoring instances of large strain values is important to predict whether the object is experiencing fatigue.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring composite electrical charge within a component through mechanical excitation of the component of Cross with the device to determine and transmit condition of a component teaching of Khandani because one would be motivated to monitor strain for condition of an object and will be sensitive to the times where an object is under maximum strain, otherwise deactivated to save energy, see par 031. This is because under maximum observed strain the object is more likely to experience acoustic emission events under periods of maximum strain (such as cracks), see par 091. Therefore, Khandani’s benefits as taught here would motivate one to combine Khandani with Cross.
Cross does not teach and the circuitry is designed and configured to determine the condition of the component based on the sensor data.
Janapati teaches monitoring a structure for damage. See abstract.
Janapati teaches and the circuitry is designed and configured to determine the condition of the component based on the sensor data in par 033: “In operation, the output leads 106 are electrically connected to an analysis unit such as a microprocessor 108, suitable for analyzing signals from the sensors 102. In certain embodiments, the flexible layer 100 is first attached to a structure in a manner that allows the sensing elements 102 to detect quantities related to the health of the structure. For instance, the sensors 102 can be sensors configured to detect stress waves propagated within the structure, and emit electrical signals accordingly. The microprocessor 108 then analyzes these electrical signals to assess various aspects of the health of the structure. For instance, detected stress waves can be analyzed to detect crack propagation within the structure, delamination within composite structures, or the likelihood of fatigue-related failure. Quantities such as these can then be displayed to the user via display 110.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanical excitation to test the condition from electrical charge transfer teaching of Cross, in combination with the material monitoring teaching of Khandani with the analysis and output interface of Janapati because Janapati teaches that such monitoring as taught by Janapati can save on having structures destroyed before they can be repaired. See pars 003-004. Further, one would be motivated to modify Cross with Janapati because automating analysis and output would make it easier to understand the issues present in a structure. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cross, in combination with Khandani, with Janapati.
Per claim 17, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claim 13, above. Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Khandani does not teach wherein the analysis unit is designed and configured to quantify a microphony generated by a mechanical excitation of the component, and based on the quantified microphony, to determine the condition of the component
Janapati teaches wherein the analysis unit is designed and configured to quantify a microphony generated by a mechanical excitation of the component, and based on the quantified microphony, to determine the condition of the component in par 034: “In one embodiment, the sensors 102 can be piezoelectric transducers capable of reacting to a propagating stress wave by generating a voltage signal. Analysis of these signals highlights properties of the stress wave, such as its magnitude, propagation speed, frequency components, and the like. Such properties are known to be useful in structural health monitoring. FIG. 1C illustrates a circuit diagram representation of such an embodiment. This embodiment can often be represented as a circuit 112, where each sensor 102 is represented as a voltage source 114 in series with a capacitor 116 (impedance circuitry) used to adjust signal strength. This pair is in electrical contact with a data acquisition unit 118, such as a known data acquisition card employed by microprocessors 108 (the data acquisition unit 118 can be thought of as a component interface to the microprocessor 108). Propagating stress waves induce the sensor 102 to emit a voltage signal that is recorded by the data acquisition unit 118, where it can be analyzed to determine the health of the structure in question. These piezoelectric transducers can also act as actuators, converting an applied voltage to a stress wave signal.” Stress waves are quantified as in par 037: “This baseline testing can include propagating stress waves through locations of the coupon, detecting the propagated stress waves at sensors 102 of diagnostic layer 100, and storing the detected waveforms as baseline signals. Embodiments of the invention contemplate the use of any type and shape of signals, sent from any suitable signal generator, and the storage of the resulting detected waveforms in any manner for comparison to subsequent monitoring signals.” By using any type and shape of signals from a signal generator this teaches quantified, teaches microphony as the piezoelectrics (here, Cross’ material itself is the piezoelectric) are used as actuators (in effect, vibrating the structure based on the signal sent to it).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanical excitation to test the condition from electrical charge transfer teaching of Cross, in combination with the material monitoring teaching of Khandani with the analysis and output interface of Janapati because Janapati teaches that such monitoring as taught by Janapati can save on having structures destroyed before they can be repaired. See pars 003-004. Further, one would be motivated to modify Cross with Janapati because automating analysis and output would make it easier to understand the issues present in a structure. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cross, in combination with Khandani, with Janapati.
Per claim 19, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claim 13, above. Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross does not teach wherein the circuitry is designed and configured to quantify a microphony generated by a predefined mechanical excitation of the component,
Janapati teaches wherein the circuitry is designed and configured to quantify a microphony generated by a predefined mechanical excitation of the component in pars 038-039: “Next, damage simulators are applied to the coupon, to simulate damage thereto (Step 204). Damage simulators are known, and one type of damage simulator suitable for use with embodiments of the invention is further described below in connection with FIG. 3. Damage simulators typically represent damage of a particular size and shape, such as a crack of a particular length. Accordingly, damage simulators can be placed at any locations on the coupon where damage to the corresponding real structure may be expected to occur. For instance, damage simulators representing cracks may be placed and oriented radially outward from a screw hole, or placed to represent cracks emanating from a notch or other stress concentrator. Embodiments of the invention contemplate the placement of damage simulators of any size, at any location on a coupon, so that the signals corresponding to any kind of simulated damage may be recorded and used in monitoring for real damage.
Once the damage simulators are placed in appropriate locations and orientations on the coupon, the change in the coupon's characteristics due to the simulated damage is determined (Step 206). In particular, the diagnostic layer 100 generates stress waves, or monitoring signals, within the structure, where they are detected by certain sensors 102 after the waves pass through regions occupied by the damage simulators. The sensors 102 are preferably located in the same positions as those that collected baseline information, for accurate comparison of data.”
Then, Janapati teaches and to determine a component-specific characteristic curve and/or a component-specific characteristic diagram based on the quantified microphony in par 040: “The detected stress waves are then compared to the stored baseline stress wave shapes determined from Step 202, with differences between the detected stress waves and the baseline stress waves representing the degree of damage due to the sizes and orientations of the damage simulators used. This comparison can be performed in any manner that can be used in subsequent damage detection. One such approach involves determining values of a damage index DI from the signal comparisons, and plotting the corresponding damage simulator size values on a graph of damage size versus DI. That is, for each individual damage simulator, stress waves are passed through that particular region of the coupon, and the resulting detected stress waves are compared to previously-determined baseline stress waveforms for that same region of the coupon without the damage simulator. A DI value is then determined from this comparison, and the process is repeated for each damage simulator. Successive tests can be performed for a single location on the coupon, with the previous simulator removed and a differently-sized simulator applied for each test. For multiple damage simulators of different sizes, this results in a graph of damage size versus DI for simulated damage to one location on the coupon. Multiple such locations can be tested in this manner, to produce a graph for each location on the coupon.” See also pars 041-046.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanical excitation to test the condition from electrical charge transfer teaching of Cross, in combination with the material monitoring teaching of Khandani with the analysis and output interface of Janapati because Janapati teaches that such monitoring as taught by Janapati can save on having structures destroyed before they can be repaired. See pars 003-004. Further, one would be motivated to modify Cross with Janapati because automating analysis and output would make it easier to understand the issues present in a structure. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cross, in combination with Khandani, with Janapati.
Per claim 20, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claim 13, above. Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross does not teach wherein the circuitry is designed and configured to quantify a microphony generated by a predefined mechanical excitation of the component, and to determine a component-specific characteristic curve and/or a component-specific characteristic diagram based on the quantified microphony and wherein the circuitry is designed and configured to transmit the component-specific characteristic curve and/or the component-specific characteristic diagram to a data memory
Janapati teaches wherein the circuitry is designed and configured to quantify a microphony generated by a predefined mechanical excitation of the component in pars 038-039: “Next, damage simulators are applied to the coupon, to simulate damage thereto (Step 204). Damage simulators are known, and one type of damage simulator suitable for use with embodiments of the invention is further described below in connection with FIG. 3. Damage simulators typically represent damage of a particular size and shape, such as a crack of a particular length. Accordingly, damage simulators can be placed at any locations on the coupon where damage to the corresponding real structure may be expected to occur. For instance, damage simulators representing cracks may be placed and oriented radially outward from a screw hole, or placed to represent cracks emanating from a notch or other stress concentrator. Embodiments of the invention contemplate the placement of damage simulators of any size, at any location on a coupon, so that the signals corresponding to any kind of simulated damage may be recorded and used in monitoring for real damage.
Once the damage simulators are placed in appropriate locations and orientations on the coupon, the change in the coupon's characteristics due to the simulated damage is determined (Step 206). In particular, the diagnostic layer 100 generates stress waves, or monitoring signals, within the structure, where they are detected by certain sensors 102 after the waves pass through regions occupied by the damage simulators. The sensors 102 are preferably located in the same positions as those that collected baseline information, for accurate comparison of data.”
Janapati then teaches and to determine a component-specific characteristic curve and/or a component-specific characteristic diagram based on the quantified microphony in par 040: “The detected stress waves are then compared to the stored baseline stress wave shapes determined from Step 202, with differences between the detected stress waves and the baseline stress waves representing the degree of damage due to the sizes and orientations of the damage simulators used. This comparison can be performed in any manner that can be used in subsequent damage detection. One such approach involves determining values of a damage index DI from the signal comparisons, and plotting the corresponding damage simulator size values on a graph of damage size versus DI. That is, for each individual damage simulator, stress waves are passed through that particular region of the coupon, and the resulting detected stress waves are compared to previously-determined baseline stress waveforms for that same region of the coupon without the damage simulator. A DI value is then determined from this comparison, and the process is repeated for each damage simulator. Successive tests can be performed for a single location on the coupon, with the previous simulator removed and a differently-sized simulator applied for each test. For multiple damage simulators of different sizes, this results in a graph of damage size versus DI for simulated damage to one location on the coupon. Multiple such locations can be tested in this manner, to produce a graph for each location on the coupon.” See also pars 041-046.
Janapati then teaches and wherein the circuitry is designed and configured to transmit the component-specific characteristic curve and/or the component-specific characteristic diagram to a data memory in par 036-037: “They thus can be considered baseline signals, representative of a baseline or undamaged state of the structure. Characteristics of these signals can therefore be stored as baseline signal information, and used as a reference point. Later signals can be compared to these baseline signals, where differences from baseline signals indicate a change in the structure such as damage.
Accordingly, a diagnostic layer 100 is attached to the coupon, and baseline testing of various locations on the coupon is then performed (Step 202). This baseline testing can include propagating stress waves through locations of the coupon, detecting the propagated stress waves at sensors 102 of diagnostic layer 100, and storing the detected waveforms as baseline signals. Embodiments of the invention contemplate the use of any type and shape of signals, sent from any suitable signal generator, and the storage of the resulting detected waveforms in any manner for comparison to subsequent monitoring signals.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanical excitation to test the condition from electrical charge transfer teaching of Cross, in combination with the material monitoring teaching of Khandani with the analysis and output interface of Janapati because Janapati teaches that such monitoring as taught by Janapati can save on having structures destroyed before they can be repaired. See pars 003-004. Further, one would be motivated to modify Cross with Janapati because automating analysis and output would make it easier to understand the issues present in a structure. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cross, in combination with Khandani, with Janapati.
Per claim 25, Cross and Khandani teach the limitations of claim 23, above. Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross does not teach exerting on the component with a predefined force to generate a predefined mechanical excitation of the component
quantifying a microphony generated by the predefined mechanical excitation of the component
determining a component-specific characteristic curve and/or a composite specific characteristic diagram
Janapati teaches exerting on the component with a predefined force to generate a predefined mechanical excitation of the component in par 034: “These piezoelectric transducers can also act as actuators, converting an applied voltage to a stress wave signal.” See also par 037: “Accordingly, a diagnostic layer 100 is attached to the coupon, and baseline testing of various locations on the coupon is then performed (Step 202). This baseline testing can include propagating stress waves through locations of the coupon, detecting the propagated stress waves at sensors 102 of diagnostic layer 100, and storing the detected waveforms as baseline signals. Embodiments of the invention contemplate the use of any type and shape of signals, sent from any suitable signal generator, and the storage of the resulting detected waveforms in any manner for comparison to subsequent monitoring signals.”
quantifying a microphony generated by the predefined mechanical excitation of the component in par 037: “Accordingly, a diagnostic layer 100 is attached to the coupon, and baseline testing of various locations on the coupon is then performed (Step 202). This baseline testing can include propagating stress waves through locations of the coupon, detecting the propagated stress waves at sensors 102 of diagnostic layer 100, and storing the detected waveforms as baseline signals. Embodiments of the invention contemplate the use of any type and shape of signals, sent from any suitable signal generator, and the storage of the resulting detected waveforms in any manner for comparison to subsequent monitoring signals.”
See also in pars 038-039: “Next, damage simulators are applied to the coupon, to simulate damage thereto (Step 204). Damage simulators are known, and one type of damage simulator suitable for use with embodiments of the invention is further described below in connection with FIG. 3. Damage simulators typically represent damage of a particular size and shape, such as a crack of a particular length. Accordingly, damage simulators can be placed at any locations on the coupon where damage to the corresponding real structure may be expected to occur. For instance, damage simulators representing cracks may be placed and oriented radially outward from a screw hole, or placed to represent cracks emanating from a notch or other stress concentrator. Embodiments of the invention contemplate the placement of damage simulators of any size, at any location on a coupon, so that the signals corresponding to any kind of simulated damage may be recorded and used in monitoring for real damage.
Once the damage simulators are placed in appropriate locations and orientations on the coupon, the change in the coupon's characteristics due to the simulated damage is determined (Step 206). In particular, the diagnostic layer 100 generates stress waves, or monitoring signals, within the structure, where they are detected by certain sensors 102 after the waves pass through regions occupied by the damage simulators. The sensors 102 are preferably located in the same positions as those that collected baseline information, for accurate comparison of data.”
Then, Janapati teaches determining a component-specific characteristic curve and/or a composite specific characteristic diagram
in par 040: “The detected stress waves are then compared to the stored baseline stress wave shapes determined from Step 202, with differences between the detected stress waves and the baseline stress waves representing the degree of damage due to the sizes and orientations of the damage simulators used. This comparison can be performed in any manner that can be used in subsequent damage detection. One such approach involves determining values of a damage index DI from the signal comparisons, and plotting the corresponding damage simulator size values on a graph of damage size versus DI. That is, for each individual damage simulator, stress waves are passed through that particular region of the coupon, and the resulting detected stress waves are compared to previously-determined baseline stress waveforms for that same region of the coupon without the damage simulator. A DI value is then determined from this comparison, and the process is repeated for each damage simulator. Successive tests can be performed for a single location on the coupon, with the previous simulator removed and a differently-sized simulator applied for each test. For multiple damage simulators of different sizes, this results in a graph of damage size versus DI for simulated damage to one location on the coupon. Multiple such locations can be tested in this manner, to produce a graph for each location on the coupon.” See also pars 041-046.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanical excitation to test the condition from electrical charge transfer teaching of Cross, in combination with the material monitoring teaching of Khandani with the analysis and output interface of Janapati because Janapati teaches that such monitoring as taught by Janapati can save on having structures destroyed before they can be repaired. See pars 003-004. Further, one would be motivated to modify Cross with Janapati because automating analysis and output would make it easier to understand the issues present in a structure. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cross, in combination with Khandani, with Janapati.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross et al., US PGPUB 20080001504 A1 (“Cross”) in view of Khandani, US PGPUB 02130111994 A1 (“Khandani”), further in view of Janapati et al., US PGPUB 20140309950 A1 ("Janapati"), further in view of Pawlicki et al., “A New Method of Testing the Dynamic Deformation of Metals,” MDPI Materials, published 2021, available at: < https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8232814/ > (“Pawlicki”).
Per claim 21, Cross and Khandani teach the device of claim 13, above, and that rejection is incorporated here. Cross further teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross does not teach exerting a force on the component and generating a predefined mechanical excitation of the component.
Janapati teaches exerting a force on the component and generating a predefined mechanical excitation of the component in par 034: “These piezoelectric transducers can also act as actuators, converting an applied voltage to a stress wave signal.” See also par 037: “Accordingly, a diagnostic layer 100 is attached to the coupon, and baseline testing of various locations on the coupon is then performed (Step 202). This baseline testing can include propagating stress waves through locations of the coupon, detecting the propagated stress waves at sensors 102 of diagnostic layer 100, and storing the detected waveforms as baseline signals. Embodiments of the invention contemplate the use of any type and shape of signals, sent from any suitable signal generator, and the storage of the resulting detected waveforms in any manner for comparison to subsequent monitoring signals.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanical excitation to test the condition from electrical charge transfer teaching of Cross, in combination with the material monitoring teaching of Khandani with the analysis and output interface of Janapati because Janapati teaches that such monitoring as taught by Janapati can save on having structures destroyed before they can be repaired. See pars 003-004. Further, one would be motivated to modify Cross with Janapati because automating analysis and output would make it easier to understand the issues present in a structure. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cross, in combination with Khandani, with Janapati.
Cross does not teach a hammer for exerting a force.
Pawlicki teaches a rotary hammer for stress strain testing. See page 3.
Pawlicki teaches a hammer for exerting a force in page 3: “The rotary hammer is characterized by ease of use, simplicity of the recording system and uncomplicated sample geometry.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite material mechanical excitation for electric charge transfer to determine condition teaching of Cross combined with Khandani and Janapati with the hammer for exerting a force teaching of Pawlicki because Pawlicki teaches in page 3 that: “The rotary hammer is characterized by ease of use, simplicity of the recording system and uncomplicated sample geometry. The method of implementation of the test is similar to a static tensile test and a simple bending test. The authors’ intention is to interest the scientific community in a new research method.” This motivation statement would motivate one ordinarily skilled to combine Cross, Khandani, and Janapati with Pawlicki as it can be implemented similar to tensile test which is similar to Cross’ mechanical excitation and that it has an ease of use and uncomplicated sample geometry, which would make results easier to obtain. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cross, Khandani, and Janapati with Pawlicki.
Per claim 22, Cross, Khandani, Janapati, and Pawlicki teach the limitations of claim 21, above. Cross teaches composite component in pars 036-040.
Cross then teaches comprising: a sensor for capturing a mechanical excitation of the component and generating sensor data including information on the mechanical excitation of the component in par 067-068: “For direct piezoelectric effect evaluation, the top and bottom plates were pressure surfaces such as metal, and were used to apply stress to the piezoelectric materials, with electrical signals detected between electrodes in contact with the base and top surface and sides of the pyramid shapes.
FIG. 5B shows a configuration for d.sub.33 measurement, using a top metal plate 70, pyramids (in cross-section) 72, upper electrode 74 shown as a thick black line, substrate 76, and lower electrode 78. The arrows indicate application of stress.”
The electrodes generate sensor data (charge transfer) and include information on the mechanical excitation (direct piezoelectric effect).
Cross does not teach wherein the device is designed and configured to determine the condition of the component additionally based on the sensor data
Janapati then teaches wherein the device is designed and configured to determine the condition of the component additionally based on the sensor data in par 039: “Once the damage simulators are placed in appropriate locations and orientations on the coupon, the change in the coupon's characteristics due to the simulated damage is determined (Step 206). In particular, the diagnostic layer 100 generates stress waves, or monitoring signals, within the structure, where they are detected by certain sensors 102 after the waves pass through regions occupied by the damage simulators. The sensors 102 are preferably located in the same positions as those that collected baseline information, for accurate comparison of data.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanical excitation to test the condition from electrical charge transfer teaching of Cross, in combination with the material monitoring teaching of Khandani with the analysis and output interface of Janapati because Janapati teaches that such monitoring as taught by Janapati can save on having structures destroyed before they can be repaired. See pars 003-004. Further, one would be motivated to modify Cross with Janapati because automating analysis and output would make it easier to understand the issues present in a structure. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Cross, in combination with Khandani, with Janapati.
Therefore, claims 13-29 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Remarks
35 USC 112(f)
Amendment overcame interpretation
35 USC 103
Applicant has amended rendering arguments moot. Noted however that even in what is cited on page 8, Applicant states “the signal originates in the sensing element,” however the strain is what causes the signal to occur, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation the strain in the sensing element of Khandani would teach this limitation as it is the strain in the piezoelectric element that causes the electrical charge transfer. See par 056: “In FIG. 4A, strain sensing element 402 converts strain in object 100 into an electric quantity such as electric resistance. Therefore, once activated, strain sensing element 402 converts strain in object 100 into a small electric voltage (or an electric current). Often the output of strain sensing element 402 is so weak, it needs to be amplified using amplifier 406, so ADC 408 can convert analog strain values into digital samples. Controller 410 controls strain sensing element 402, amplifier 406 and ADC 408.” The element itself takes strain and converts it into energy. This uses piezoelectric see par 071 which taking the current primary reference Cross as state of the art, explaining (direct) piezoelectric effect, takes mechanical force and converts to an electric charge/voltage. However, in order to move prosecution forward, art that is more in line with what Applicant’s invention is, is cited against the amended claims. Namely Cross, taking a composite material, adding strain, and measuring an electric charge (see above, see Cross reference, particularly direct piezoelectric effect). This is exactly in line with par 033 as well, in that the composite material in Cross generates the electrical charge separation, with no piezo sensing required. Of course, to measure electricity, just like Applicant’s disclosure, cables are connected see PGPUB Applicant at par 69, items 22. They are just simply cables, though, not piezo gauges.
Arenas only relied upon for composite, now unnecessary, the argument is moot.
Further prior art shows this and closely related teachings:
Selleri et al., Self-sensing composite material based on piezoelectric nanofibers, Materials & Design, published May 30, 2022, available at: < https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264127522004099 >
Teaches integrating piezoelectric films into a material, thus making a composite material which is self sensing. This material is within the current scope of Applicant’s claims because if the piezoelectric material comprises the composite material then it would produce the direct piezoelectric effect when mechanically excited.
Brugo et al., Self-sensing hybrid composite laminate by piezoelectric nanofibers interleaving, Composites Part B: Engineering, published May 2021, available at: < https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359836821000664 >
See abstract, a self sensing laminate which generates electrical response based on impact from a drop weight tower.
Ramachandran et al., A Review on Principles, Theories and Materials for Self Sensing Concrete for Structural Applications, published May 2022 < https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9181339/ >
See 2. Sensing Mechanism: “Self-sensing is a technique that responds to external factors such as loading conditions, environmental variations, and temperature variations by converting them into electrical output properties” Concrete is inherently a composite material.
Xi et al., Piezoelectricity, piezoresistivity and dielectricity discovered in solder, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics, published 2019, available at: < https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10854-019-00735-0 > on page 4463 (page 2-3) that a piezoelectric effect is found in solder.
Xi et al., Piezoresistivity and piezoelectricity discovered in aluminum, with relevance to structural self-sensing, published 2019, available at: < https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924424718321010#bib0155 > on page 4 that a direct piezoelectric effect is measured in aluminum.
Ryu, US PGPUB 20190301951 A1 teaches in par 098 and Figs 21-22 that light is emitted under strain, and in Fig 14 that voltage changes occur under strain.
For these reasons the 103 rejection is maintained.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights