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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-7, 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered. The rejection is moot in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 7/16/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The arguments are directed toward new claim limitation which have not previously been considered. Wilhelmy and Klein are no longer relied upon in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Amended claims 1 and 12 are taught by Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer further in view of Rusnak further in view of Urch.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya (US20160341631) in view of Doglioni Majer (US7615953) further in view of Rusnak (US5336996) further in view of Urch (20180034356).
Claim 1: Kamiya teaches abnormality determination for a rotating assembly (spindle bearings 20, 22and motor bearings 26, 28), the rotating assembly experiencing a deceleration rate that exceeds a first threshold ([0045-0046] Fig. 6 shows a normal spindle deceleration rate 72 and a deceleration rate 74 for a spindle having an abnormality. When the other deceleration rate under the same condition as graph 72 exceeds a predetermined threshold of the deceleration rate, it can be judged that the abnormality exists in the spindle); when an abnormality is detected, outputting an alarm (alarm outputting part 50, Fig. 1, [0034]).
Kamiya fails to teach triggering motor power monitoring within the vacuum pump in response to the deceleration rate exceeding the first threshold; the electric motor consuming motor power that exceeds a second threshold; and stopping operation in response to the deceleration rate exceeding the first threshold and the motor power exceeding the second threshold.
However, Doglioni Majer teaches self-diagnosis wherein the apparatus is able to determine whether the changes to motor operational values are due to friction (build up at rotor bearings, col. 1, lines 36-44), motor failure, decoupling of the load and motor, or motor jamming. The motor may operate various pumps (col. 10, lines 54-62). Doglioni Majer compares a detected voltage and an operating parameter, specifically rpm (col. 6, lines 23-25; col. 8, lines 4-15), using a characteristic curve. The characteristic curves used as reference values relate the voltage to an operating parameter under both powered and unpowered (col. 5, lines 10-46). Additional parameters include the motor rpm, the torque, the power, the operating time, the stop time, etc. Doglioni teaches that variations in rotation speed can be different due to a load or build-up (col. 4, lines 29-40; col. 10, lines 25-35). The reference values/curves allow determination of an element related to the failure, rather than overall failure, by comparison of the detected values (both voltage and rpm) to reference values. Therefore, it is known in the art to assess more than one parameter when determining fault of a rotating assembly in order to more accurately determine a source of the abnormality.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a characteristic curve including consideration of two related operating parameters, as taught by Doglioni Majer, with the device of Kamiya in order to generate an alarm when the functioning of the motor/load does not match with the proper parameters (col. 6, lines 38-41).
Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer fails to teach based on the bearing wear fault condition being indicated, triggering a pump control to stop operation of the pump.
However, Rusnak teaches (coo. 10, lines 1-14: The resultant wear signal generated by the circuit means 156 is received by an amplifier 158 which scales that signal to an appropriate level to allow for comparison to an alarm level by a differential amplifier 160. If the scaled resultant wear signal exceeds the alarm level, the amplifier 160 generates an alarm signal which is received by a conventional alarm means 162, which may be a visual and/or an audible alarm. The scaled resultant wear signal is additionally connected to a conventional visual display means 164 for displaying the resultant radial bearing wear amount. The alarm signal may also be connected to a drive control circuit 163 which would stop operation of the pump motor 165. Col. 11, lines 12-24: If the axial bearing wear signal exceeds the alarm level, the amplifier 180 generates an alarm signal which is received by a conventional alarm means 182, which may be a visual and/or an audible alarm. The scaled signal generated by the amplifier 178 is additionally input into a conventional visual display means 184 for displaying the amount of axial bearing wear. The alarm signal may also be input into the drive control circuit 163 which would stop operation of the pump motor 165.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to stop operation of the pump in response to an indication of bearing wear in order to improve safety and prevent further wear.
Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer further in view of Rusnak fails to teach wherein the pump is a vacuum pump.
However, Urch teaches a vacuum 764 pump including bearings 21 and rotational speed sensor 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer further in view of Rusnak with the vacuum pump of claim 1 for the obvious benefit of monitoring the bearings of the vacuum pump and prevent damage.
Claim 3: Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer further in view of Rusnak further in view of Urch teaches the device of claim 1. Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer fails to teach a user alarm configured to be triggered in response to the deceleration rate exceeding the first threshold and the motor power exceeding the second threshold.
However, Rusnak teaches a user alarm (col. 10, lines 1-14: visual or audible alarm) in response to detecting bearing wear for a pump 100, Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an alarm, as taught by Doglioni Mayer, with the device of claim 1, for the obvious benefit of providing an indicator of wear to an operator for remediation.
Claim 6: Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer further in view of Rusnak further in view of Urch teaches the device of claim 1. Kamiya fails to teach wherein applying motor power that exceeds a second threshold to the electric motor comprises applying motor power at a maximum for a predetermined time period.
Doglioni Majer teaches the relationship between a power supplied to an electric motor, a speed of rotation, and friction (bearing wear): col. 8, line 53- col. 9, line 4. Assuming a steady power supply, if the friction increases, then the speed decreases. When the speed decreases, it does not comply with the preset parameters for that application (i.e., the speed is not at the correct (preset) proportion to the power supplied) In order to compensate for the friction, greater power is supplied. Therefore, a maximum applied power should have appropriate corresponding parameter values (rpm, angular velocity, torque, etc.).
Based on the teachings of Doglioni Majer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use known related parameters including power, speed, and bearing friction in order to diagnose bearing wear and bearing function by assessing that motor parameters do not comply with a maximum applied power (Doglioni Majer, col. 3, lines 14-23).
Claim 7: Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer further in view of Rusnak further in view of Urch teaches the device of claim 1. Kamiya fails to teach wherein applying motor power that exceeds a second threshold to the electric motor comprises applying motor power at a maximum despite the pump operation conditions indicating that the vacuum pump should not require maximum motor power.
However, Doglioni Majer teaches the relationship between a power supplied to an electric motor, a speed of rotation, and friction (bearing wear): col. 8, line 53- col. 9, line 4. Assuming a steady power supply, if the friction increases, then the speed decreases. When the speed decreases, it does not comply with the preset parameters for that application (i.e., the speed is not at the correct (preset) proportion to the power supplied) In order to compensate for the friction, greater power is supplied. Therefore, a maximum applied power should have appropriate corresponding parameter values (rpm, angular velocity, torque, etc.).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Doglioni Majer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use known related parameters including power, speed, and bearing friction in order to diagnose bearing wear and bearing function by assessing that motor parameters do not comply with a maximum applied power (Doglioni Majer, col. 3, lines 14-23).
Claim 12: Kamiya teaches a method of abnormality determination for an electric rotating assembly (spindle bearings 20, 22and motor bearings 26, 28), the rotating assembly experiencing a deceleration rate that exceeds a first threshold ([0045-0046] Fig. 6 shows a normal spindle deceleration rate 72 and a deceleration rate 74 for a spindle having an abnormality. When the other deceleration rate under the same condition as graph 72 exceeds a predetermined threshold of the deceleration rate, it can be judged that the abnormality exists in the spindle); when an abnormality is detected, outputting an alarm (alarm outputting part 50, Fig. 1, [0034]).
Kamiya fails to teach triggering motor power monitoring within the vacuum pump in response to the deceleration rate exceeding the first threshold; the electric motor consuming motor power that exceeds a second threshold; and stopping operation in response to the deceleration rate exceeding the first threshold and the motor power exceeding the second threshold.
However, Doglioni Majer teaches self-diagnosis wherein the apparatus is able to determine whether the changes to motor operational values are due to friction (build up at rotor bearings, col. 1, lines 36-44), motor failure, decoupling of the load and motor, or motor jamming. The motor may operate various pumps (col. 10, lines 54-62). Doglioni Majer compares a detected voltage and an operating parameter, specifically rpm (col. 6, lines 23-25; col. 8, lines 4-15), using a characteristic curve. The characteristic curves used as reference values relate the voltage to an operating parameter under both powered and unpowered (col. 5, lines 10-46). Additional parameters include the motor rpm, the torque, the power, the operating time, the stop time, etc. Doglioni teaches that variations in rotation speed can be different due to a load or build-up (col. 4, lines 29-40; col. 10, lines 25-35). The reference values/curves allow determination of an element related to the failure, rather than overall failure, by comparison of the detected values (both voltage and rpm) to reference values. Therefore, it is known in the art to assess more than one parameter when determining fault of a rotating assembly in order to more accurately determine a source of the abnormality.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a characteristic curve including consideration of two related operating parameters, as taught by Doglioni Majer, with the device of Kamiya in order to generate an alarm when the functioning of the motor/load does not match with the proper parameters (col. 6, lines 38-41).
Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer fails to teach based on the bearing wear fault condition being indicated, triggering a pump control to stop operation of the pump.
However, Rusnak teaches (coo. 10, lines 1-14: The resultant wear signal generated by the circuit means 156 is received by an amplifier 158 which scales that signal to an appropriate level to allow for comparison to an alarm level by a differential amplifier 160. If the scaled resultant wear signal exceeds the alarm level, the amplifier 160 generates an alarm signal which is received by a conventional alarm means 162, which may be a visual and/or an audible alarm. The scaled resultant wear signal is additionally connected to a conventional visual display means 164 for displaying the resultant radial bearing wear amount. The alarm signal may also be connected to a drive control circuit 163 which would stop operation of the pump motor 165. Col. 11, lines 12-24: If the axial bearing wear signal exceeds the alarm level, the amplifier 180 generates an alarm signal which is received by a conventional alarm means 182, which may be a visual and/or an audible alarm. The scaled signal generated by the amplifier 178 is additionally input into a conventional visual display means 184 for displaying the amount of axial bearing wear. The alarm signal may also be input into the drive control circuit 163 which would stop operation of the pump motor 165.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to stop operation of the pump in response to an indication of bearing wear in order to improve safety and prevent further wear.
Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer further in view of Rusnak fails to teach wherein the pump is a vacuum pump.
However, Urch teaches a vacuum 764 pump including bearings 21 and rotational speed sensor 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device of Kamiya in view of Doglioni Mayer further in view of Rusnak with the vacuum pump of claim 1 for the obvious benefit of monitoring the bearings of the vacuum pump and prevent damage
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/16/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
