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 July 26, 2023.
Claims 1-12 were canceled on preliminary amendment. Claims 13-29 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 11, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL “MUND, Bernhard, “Cable Microphonics precisely measured,” Electronik, is not in the file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Per claim 13:
an input interface for receiving measurement data with information on a condition of the composite component; (interface is the means plus function substitute)
an analysis unit for determining a condition of the composite component based on the measurement data; (unit is means substitute)
and an output interface for transmitting the determined condition; (interface)
and the analysis unit is designed and configured to determine the condition of the composite component on the basis of the electrical charge separation and/or electrical voltage (unit)
Per claim 14:
a measuring device for increasing a measurement signal
Per claim 22: an excitation unit for exerting on the composite component…
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following describes the specification written description that provides structure, or lack thereof, to the preceding means plus function substitutes:
The input interface has no structure but is only described in terms of its function, see for example par 066: “The input interface 12 is designed to receive measurement data including information on a condition of the composite component. In particular, the measurement data includes an electrical charge transfer, an electrical charge separation, and/or an electrical voltage generated by a mechanical excitation of the composite component.”
The analysis unit likewise has no structure: see for example par 070: “As a result of the force application shown schematically, an electrical charge transfer and/or electrical voltage, in particular a microphony, is generated in the composite component 18, which can be transmitted through the input interface 12 to the analysis unit 14. The analysis unit 14 then determines a condition of the composite component 18, as previously described.”
Output interface likewise has no structure, see pars 077, 080, only described in terms of its function.
Claim 14:
Measuring device, described in par 030: “In an advantageous embodiment, the device comprises a measuring device, in particular in the form of a charge amplifier, a voltage amplifier and/or a current amplifier, for increasing a measurement signal, in particular a voltage amplitude of the electrical voltage. By means of a measuring device, in particular in the form of a charge amplifier, the electrical charge separation or an incurred electrical voltage can be improved and determined more precisely.”
Claim 21: excitation unit does not have structure in the specification, it is defined by its function. See par 076: “For determining the characteristic curve 30 and/or the characteristic diagram 32, an excitation unit 36 can also be applied, which is designed to generate a predefined mechanical excitation 20 in the composite component 18. Here, the predefined mechanical excitation 20 may comprise a single point excitation, a two-dimensional excitation or a time-varying excitation, in particular a vibration or the like.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-23 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following means plus function substitute limitations do not have structure in the claims as detailed in the claim interpretation section, and therefore the corresponding limitations lack adequate written description to show inventor had possession of the invention:
an input interface for receiving measurement data with information on a condition of the composite component; (interface is the means plus function substitute)
an analysis unit for determining a condition of the composite component based on the measurement data; (unit is means substitute)
and an output interface for transmitting the determined condition; (interface)
and the analysis unit is designed and configured to determine the condition of the composite component on the basis of the electrical charge separation and/or electrical voltage (unit)
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a). Claims 14-20 are rejected for being dependent on claim 13, and claims 21-22 are rejected by reciting the device of claim 13.
Claim 21 is rejected as there is no structure for the excitation unit in the specification as detailed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations in claim 13 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
an input interface for receiving measurement data with information on a condition of the composite component; (interface is the means plus function substitute)
an analysis unit for determining a condition of the composite component based on the measurement data; (unit is means substitute)
and an output interface for transmitting the determined condition; (interface)
and the analysis unit is designed and configured to determine the condition of the composite component on the basis of the electrical charge separation and/or electrical voltage (unit)
Likewise claim 21 is rejected as there is no structure for the excitation unit in the specification as detailed above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 14-22 are rejected for being dependent on claim 13.
Therefore claims 13-22 are rejected under 35 USC 112.
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) 13-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khandani et al., US PGPUB 20130111994 A1 (“Khandani”) in view of Janapati et al., US PGPUB 20140309950 A1 ("Janapati"), further in view of Arena et al., “Strain State Detection in Composite Structures: Review and New Challenges” Journal of Composites Science, published May 25, 2020, available at: < https://www.mdpi.com/2504-477X/4/2/60 > (“Arena”).
Per claims 13 and 23, which are similar in scope, Khandani teaches A device for determining a condition of a component, comprising: an input interface for receiving measurement data with information on a condition of the component in par 030: “In accordance with one aspect of the present invention, a device is provided in which a combination of a first strain sensing element and a second strain sensing element are used for energy efficient monitoring of strain in an object. The first strain sensing element is a high accuracy element, and it is used to measure strain at discrete time intervals. To save energy, the first strain sensing element is inactive between successive sampling times. To monitor changes of strain between successive samples of strain measured by the first strain sensing element, the present invention uses a second, passive, strain sensing element. If the second strain sensing element detects a strain in the object exceeding a configurable threshold level, a trigger signal is generated, which causes the first strain sensing element to measure strain. Typically, compared to the first strain sensing element, the second strain sensing element is more sensitive to strain but it is less accurate. Often, the second strain sensing element is sensitive to changes in strain While the first strain sensing element it sensitive to absolute value of strain in the object. An example of the first strain sensing element is a foil strain gauge. An example of the second strain sensing element is a piezoelectric film strain gauge.”
Khandani then teaches wherein the measurement data comprises an electrical charge transfer and/or electrical voltage, which can be generated by the component through mechanical excitation of the component in 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.”
Khandani does not teach an analysis unit for determining a condition of the component based on the measurement data; and an output interface for transmitting the determined condition; and the analysis unit is designed and configured to determine the condition of the component on the basis of the electrical charge separation and/or electrical voltage.
Janapati teaches monitoring a structure for damage. See abstract.
Janapati teaches an analysis unit for determining a condition of the component based on the measurement data in par 033: “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”
Janapati then teaches and an output interface for transmitting the determined condition in par 033: “Quantities such as these can then be displayed to the user via display 110.”
Janapati then teaches and the analysis unit is designed and configured to determine the condition of the component on the basis of the electrical charge separation and/or electrical voltage in par 033: “For illustration, FIG. 1B further describes aspects of the operation of the diagnostic layer 100. 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”
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 stress electrical testing of a material 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 Khandani 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 Khandani with Janapati.
Khandani does not teach composite component.
Arena teaches an advance monitoring system for strain in composite structures. See abstract.
Arena teaches composite components in page 4-5 (“composite materials”).
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 stress electrical testing of a material teaching of Khandani with the composite component teaching of Arena because Arena teaches the following:
In the aerospace industry, for instance, several application areas have garnered
significant interest. In effect, structural monitoring can improve the characterization and prediction of effects associated with failure that affect the structural safety. In addition, non-destructive techniques can offer fault tolerance to component/subsystem/system-level, thus offering the possibility to reduce costs associated with ordinary/extraordinary maintenance
P 1. Arena also teaches that advanced composite materials have intensified the need for performing investigations on the soundness of the materials. Arena’s teaching of non destructive techniques, improving prediction, and reducing costs with maintenance, combined with the current use of such materials, would motivate one ordinarily skilled to combine Arena with Khandani so that such materials would be tested with the benefits taught above by Arena (cost, improvement of prediction, etc). Therefore, for these reasons one would be motivated to modify Khandani with Arena.
Per claim 14, Khandani , Janapati, and Arena teach the limitations of claim 13, above. Khandani further 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.”
Per claim 15, Khandani , Janapati, and Arena teach the limitations of claim 13, above. Khandani further 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.
Per claims 16 and 24, which are similar in scope, Khandani , Janapati, and Arena each the limitations of claims 13 and 23, above. Khandasni further teaches wherein the input interface 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.”
Khandani does not teach and the analysis unit is designed and configured to determine the condition of the component based on the sensor data.
Janapati teaches and the analysis unit 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 stress electrical testing of a material 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 Khandani 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 Khandani with Janapati.
Khandani does not teach composite component.
Arena teaches composite components in page 4-5 (“composite materials”).
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 stress electrical testing of a material teaching of Khandani with the composite component teaching of Arena because Arena teaches the following:
In the aerospace industry, for instance, several application areas have garnered
significant interest. In effect, structural monitoring can improve the characterization and prediction of effects associated with failure that affect the structural safety. In addition, non-destructive techniques can offer fault tolerance to component/subsystem/system-level, thus offering the possibility to reduce costs associated with ordinary/extraordinary maintenance
P 1. Arena also teaches that advanced composite materials have intensified the need for performing investigations on the soundness of the materials. Arena’s teaching of non destructive techniques, improving prediction, and reducing costs with maintenance, combined with the current use of such materials, would motivate one ordinarily skilled to combine Arena with Khandani so that such materials would be tested with the benefits taught above by Arena (cost, improvement of prediction, etc). Therefore, for these reasons one would be motivated to modify Khandani with Arena.
Per claim 17, Khandani , Janapati, and Arena teach the limitations of claim 13, above. 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 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 stress electrical testing of a material 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 Khandani 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 Khandani with Janapati.
Khandani does not teach composite component.
Arena teaches composite components in page 4-5 (“composite materials”).
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 stress electrical testing of a material teaching of Khandani with the composite component teaching of Arena because Arena teaches the following:
In the aerospace industry, for instance, several application areas have garnered
significant interest. In effect, structural monitoring can improve the characterization and prediction of effects associated with failure that affect the structural safety. In addition, non-destructive techniques can offer fault tolerance to component/subsystem/system-level, thus offering the possibility to reduce costs associated with ordinary/extraordinary maintenance
P 1. Arena also teaches that advanced composite materials have intensified the need for performing investigations on the soundness of the materials. Arena’s teaching of non destructive techniques, improving prediction, and reducing costs with maintenance, combined with the current use of such materials, would motivate one ordinarily skilled to combine Arena with Khandani so that such materials would be tested with the benefits taught above by Arena (cost, improvement of prediction, etc). Therefore, for these reasons one would be motivated to modify Khandani with Arena.
Per claims 18 and 28, which are similar in scope, Khandani , Janapati, and Arena teach the limitations of claims 13 and 23, above. Khandani further 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.”
Khandani does not teach composite component.
Arena teaches composite components in page 4-5 (“composite materials”).
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 stress electrical testing of a material teaching of Khandani with the composite component teaching of Arena because Arena teaches the following:
In the aerospace industry, for instance, several application areas have garnered
significant interest. In effect, structural monitoring can improve the characterization and prediction of effects associated with failure that affect the structural safety. In addition, non-destructive techniques can offer fault tolerance to component/subsystem/system-level, thus offering the possibility to reduce costs associated with ordinary/extraordinary maintenance
P 1. Arena also teaches that advanced composite materials have intensified the need for performing investigations on the soundness of the materials. Arena’s teaching of non destructive techniques, improving prediction, and reducing costs with maintenance, combined with the current use of such materials, would motivate one ordinarily skilled to combine Arena with Khandani so that such materials would be tested with the benefits taught above by Arena (cost, improvement of prediction, etc). Therefore, for these reasons one would be motivated to modify Khandani with Arena.
Per claim 19, Khandani , Janapati, and Arena teach the limitations of claim 13, above. Khandani does not teach wherein the analysis unit 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
Janapati teaches wherein the analysis unit 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 stress electrical testing of a material 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 Khandani 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 Khandani with Janapati.
Khandani does not teach composite component.
Arena teaches composite components in page 4-5 (“composite materials”).
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 stress electrical testing of a material teaching of Khandani with the composite component teaching of Arena because Arena teaches the following:
In the aerospace industry, for instance, several application areas have garnered
significant interest. In effect, structural monitoring can improve the characterization and prediction of effects associated with failure that affect the structural safety. In addition, non-destructive techniques can offer fault tolerance to component/subsystem/system-level, thus offering the possibility to reduce costs associated with ordinary/extraordinary maintenance
P 1. Arena also teaches that advanced composite materials have intensified the need for performing investigations on the soundness of the materials. Arena’s teaching of non destructive techniques, improving prediction, and reducing costs with maintenance, combined with the current use of such materials, would motivate one ordinarily skilled to combine Arena with Khandani so that such materials would be tested with the benefits taught above by Arena (cost, improvement of prediction, etc). Therefore, for these reasons one would be motivated to modify Khandani with Arena.
Per claim 20, Khandani , Janapati, and Arena teach the limitations of claim 13, above. Khandani does not teach wherein the analysis unit 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 output interface 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 analysis unit 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.”
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.
and wherein the output interface 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.”
Khandani does not teach composite component.
Arena teaches composite components in page 4-5 (“composite materials”).
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 stress electrical testing of a material teaching of Khandani with the composite component teaching of Arena because Arena teaches the following:
In the aerospace industry, for instance, several application areas have garnered
significant interest. In effect, structural monitoring can improve the characterization and prediction of effects associated with failure that affect the structural safety. In addition, non-destructive techniques can offer fault tolerance to component/subsystem/system-level, thus offering the possibility to reduce costs associated with ordinary/extraordinary maintenance
P 1. Arena also teaches that advanced composite materials have intensified the need for performing investigations on the soundness of the materials. Arena’s teaching of non destructive techniques, improving prediction, and reducing costs with maintenance, combined with the current use of such materials, would motivate one ordinarily skilled to combine Arena with Khandani so that such materials would be tested with the benefits taught above by Arena (cost, improvement of prediction, etc). Therefore, for these reasons one would be motivated to modify Khandani with Arena.
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 stress electrical testing of a material 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 Khandani 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 Khandani with Janapati.
Per claim 21, Khandani, Janapati, and Arena teach the device of claim 13, above, and that rejection is incorporated here. Khandani does not teach an excitation unit for exerting on the component and generating a predefined mechanical excitation of the component.
Janapati teaches an excitation unit for exerting 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 signa