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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 1-7, 10-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 10-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. However, applicant’s arguments are directed to amended claims which have not yet been considered. The amended claims do not appear to have support in the original disclosure.
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 1, 3, 6-7, and 12 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.
Applicant points to paragraph [0083] for support for the claim amendments. The noted paragraph describes expected deceleration rates and bearing wear logic configured to measure and monitor rotor or pump deceleration rate. If the logic determines that the measured rotor deceleration rate falls outside expected values it may be configured to alert a user, triggers an alarm, or adjust pump rotor operational parameters. The disclosure does not provide support for a vacuum pump performing the intentional, specific steps of decelerating the rotating assembly at a deceleration rate that exceeds a first threshold; triggering motor power monitoring within the vacuum pump in response to the deceleration rate exceeding the first threshold; applying motor power that exceeds a second threshold to the electric motor.
For purposes of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood.
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmy et al. (US8539811) in view of Klein (US5599112) further in view of Rusnak (US5336996) further in view of Urch (20180034356).
Claim 1 (as best understood): Wilhelmy teaches monitoring bearing wear (Title) including a rotary encoder 1, encoder shaft 9, and monitoring device 20 (microprocessor col. 7, lines 46-48) to detect a state of wear of the rotary encoder, particularly the bearing (col. 7, lines 46-55, Fig. 15; the monitoring device 20 receives measurement signal 13 via line 21 (col. 7, lines 46-55)), the signal indicative of a characteristic of rotating assembly rotation an indication of rotational speed (measurement signal 13), bearing wear monitoring circuitry (monitoring device 20) configured to analyze the signal characteristic of rotating assembly rotation over time to identify one or more signal feature indicative of bearing wear (information contained in the measurement signal 13 is the angular position/velocity and is used to determine a state of wear of the bearing is output (claim 1)).
Wilhelmy fails to teach monitoring both the indication of rotational speed and the indication of motor power before determining that a bearing wear fault condition is indicated and based on the bearing wear fault condition being indicated, triggering a pump control to stop operation of the vacuum pump.
However, Klein teaches an energy/power monitoring circuit to detect an electric load on the drive motor, wherein the load is indicative of potential wear (col. 13, lines 13-27; col. 13 line 40- col. 14, line 10). Both Klein and Wilhelmy teach the determination of a fault condition of a bearing and the combination of the two yields nothing more than predictable results.
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 teachings of Klein with the device of Wilhelmy in order to be alerted of the potential wear of the bearing without the burdensome disassembly and inspection of the bearing (Klein, col. 2, lines 46-48).
Wilhelmy in view of Klein fails to teach based on the bearing wear fault condition being indicated, triggering a pump control to stop operation of the vacuum 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.
Wilhelmy in view of Klein 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 Wilhelmy in view of Klein 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 12 (as best understood): Wilhelmy teaches monitoring bearing wear (Title) including a rotary encoder 1, encoder shaft 9, and monitoring device 20 (microprocessor col. 7, lines 46-48) to detect a state of wear of the rotary encoder, particularly the bearing (col. 7, lines 46-55, Fig. 15; the monitoring device 20 receives measurement signal 13 via line 21 (col. 7, lines 46-55)), the signal indicative of a characteristic of rotating assembly rotation an indication of rotational speed (measurement signal 13), bearing wear monitoring circuitry (monitoring device 20) configured to analyze the signal characteristic of rotating assembly rotation over time to identify one or more signal feature indicative of bearing wear (information contained in the measurement signal 13 is the angular position/velocity and is used to determine a state of wear of the bearing is output (claim 1)).
Wilhelmy fails to teach monitoring both the indication of rotational speed and the indication of motor power before determining that a bearing wear fault condition is indicated and based on the bearing wear fault condition being indicated, triggering a pump control to stop operation of the vacuum pump.
However, Klein teaches an energy/power monitoring circuit to detect an electric load on the drive motor, wherein the load is indicative of potential wear (col. 13, lines 13-27; col. 13 line 40- col. 14, line 10). Both Klein and Wilhelmy teach the determination of a fault condition of a bearing and the combination of the two yields nothing more than predictable results.
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 teachings of Klein with the device of Wilhelmy in order to be alerted of the potential wear of the bearing without the burdensome disassembly and inspection of the bearing (Klein, col. 2, lines 46-48).
Wilhelmy in view of Klein fails to teach based on the bearing wear fault condition being indicated, triggering a pump control to stop operation of the vacuum 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.
Wilhelmy in view of Klein 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 Wilhelmy in view of Klein 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.
Claims 3, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmy in view of Klein further in view of Rusnak further in view of Urch further in view of Doglioni Majer (US7615953).
Claim 3 (as best understood): Wilhelmy in view of Klein further in view of Rusnak further in view of Urch teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilhelmy teaches the comparison of measured data to a threshold (limit) for total revolutions (with respect the residual life and state of wear), as well as limit temperatures, but fails to teach wherein the signal feature indicative of bearing wear comprises: rate of deceleration exceeding a predetermined threshold and motor power exceeding a second threshold.
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, 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 (Doglioni Majer, col. 3, lines 14-23).
Claim 6 (as best understood): Wilhelmy in view of Klein further in view of Rusnak further in view of Urch teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but 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, 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 (Doglioni Majer, col. 3, lines 14-23).
Claim 7 (as best understood): Wilhelmy in view of Klein further in view of Rusnak further in view of Urch teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but 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, based on the teachings 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 (; Doglioni Majer, col. 3, lines 14-23).
Conclusion
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 4/17/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights