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
Claims 1-21 pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered.
The rejections of claims 1 and 15 as set forth in the Non-Final Office action have been overcome due to the amendment of March 23, 2026 and due to the remarks with that amendment. The rejections of claims 2-10, 15-21 have been overcome for substantially the same reasons as for the independent claims.
In response to applicant's argument regarding claim 11 (Remarks pg. 12-13), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170052060 A1 to GARCÍA PRADA in view of US 20210008931 A1 to Stowell.
Regarding claim 11,
GARCÍA PRADA teaches:
A radio frequency sensing apparatus for detecting an anomaly in a rotating machine, comprising:
at least one the at least one signal being indicative of vibrations occurring in the rotating machine; ([0018] – “acquiring a vibration signal from the rotating shaft by means of at least one sensor” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim in light of the specification does not require the monostatic radar to transmit the monitored signal.) and
a processor configured to identify a magnitude of the vibration that has occurred in the rotating machine based on the at least one signal received from the rotating machine. ([0020] – “processing the signal acquired by the sensor in the time domain and in the frequency domain by means of a processor, obtaining energy measurements of the acquired signal as a result of said processing;”)
Stowell teaches:
A radio frequency sensing apparatus for detecting an anomaly in a rotating machine, (Figs. 1, 3E, 3F1-3) comprising:
at least one monostatic radar sensor configured to monitor at least one signal received from a rotating machine, the at least one signal being indicative of vibrations occurring in the rotating machine; (Fig. 1; [0087] – “if a tuned RF resonance component (such as the tire sensors 106) has been specially prepared (referred to as being “tuned”) to resonate at a frequency of approximately 3 GHz, then the tire sensors 106 can emit sympathetic resonance or sympathetic vibrations (referring to a harmonic phenomenon wherein a formerly passive string or vibratory body responds to external vibrations to which it has a harmonic likeness) when stimulated by a 3 GHz RF signal.” [0090] – “The transceiver 114 (and/or a resonator, not shown in FIG. 1A) can be configured to transmit chirp signals 110 to any one or more of the tuned RF resonance components 108 to digitally recognize frequency shift and/or attenuation of the chirp signals 111 (referred to as the returned signals 112 in FIG. 1A) from any one or more of the tuned RF resonance components 108.”) and
a processor configured to identify a magnitude of the vibration that has occurred in the rotating machine based on the at least one signal received from the rotating machine. (Fig. 3F1-3; [0095] – “As a result of stimulation with a chirp signal sensor that resonate at one of the chirp/ping frequencies “respond” by resonating at or near its corresponding tuned frequency, shifting the emitted frequency, and/or attenuating the amplitude of the emitted signal.” [0159] – “measured resonant signature signal intensity” [0255] – “changes in amplitude, phase, frequency, or time-delay between the input and output electrical signals can be used to measure the presence of the desired phenomenon;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Stowell’s known technique to GARCÍA PRADA’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) GARCÍA PRADA teaches a base sensor system for processing vibration signals for fault detection; (2) Stowell teaches a specific technique using a monostatic sensor and resonators to monitor vibrations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with increased efficiency; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12-21 allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record (US 20210008931 A1 to Stowell; US 10749612 B1 to Iannotti; “Metamaterial-Inspired Rotation Sensor With Wide Dynamic Range” by Ebrahimi; US 20170052060 A1 to GARCÍA PRADA; US 20220004179 A1 to Badkoubeh) neither teaches nor fairly renders obvious the combinations set forth in claims 1-10, 12-21. See analysis regarding independent claims 1 and 15 Claims depending from claims 1 or 15 allowed at least as depending from allowed claims.
Regarding claim 1,
Stowell teaches:
A radio frequency sensing apparatus for detecting an anomaly in a rotating machine, comprising: (Figs. 1, 3E, 3F1-2)
at least one radio frequency sensor configured to monitor at least one signal generated by at least one signal source spaced away from a rotating machine and received from the rotating machine, the at least one signal being indicative of at least one of resonance shift, magnetic permeability, or return loss magnitude; (Fig. 1; [0090] – “The transceiver 114 (and/or a resonator, not shown in FIG. 1A) can be configured to transmit chirp signals 110 to any one or more of the tuned RF resonance components 108 to digitally recognize frequency shift and/or attenuation of the chirp signals 111 (referred to as the returned signals 112 in FIG. 1A) from any one or more of the tuned RF resonance components 108.”) and
a processor configured to compare the at least one of resonance shift, magnetic permeability, or return loss magnitude of the at least one signal to a corresponding reference resonance shift, reference magnetic permeability, or reference return loss magnitude for the rotating machine, (Figs. 3F; [0092] – “a defined shift in frequency or frequencies (as caused by the carbon-based microstructures) can form one or more signal signatures indicative of the material, or condition of the material, into which the sensor is incorporated.”) the processor further configured to determine whether the anomaly has occurred (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) based on the comparison, and to identify at least one type of anomaly of a plurality of types of anomalies (Figs. 3F; [0158] – “More specifically, the outermost body ply and/or tread layer has been worn away completely. As such, a ping stimulus at 1.0 GHz would not result in a response from the outermost ply. This is shown in the chart as a first response attenuation 387. As the tire continues to undergo tread wear, ping responses from the next body ply and/or tread layer and ping responses from the next successive body ply and/or tread layer and so on will be attenuated, which attenuation can be used to measure total tread wear of the tire.” [0149] – “FIG. 3F3 depicts a graph of measured resonant signature signal intensity (in decibels, db) against height (in millimeters, mm) of tire tread layer loss, according to some implementations.”)
While US 10749612 B1 to Iannotti teaches anomaly determination of a rotating shaft, the examiner considers a rejection of the claim to require impermissible hindsight reconstruction of references requiring information gleaned only from the Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 12,
Stowell teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Stowell further teaches:
The radio frequency sensing apparatus of claim 11, wherein the rotating machine comprises a rotating shaft, (implicit in a rotating tire) and
wherein at least one signal is transmitted from at least one signal source and (Fig. 1; [0090] – “The transceiver 114 (and/or a resonator, not shown in FIG. 1A) can be configured to transmit chirp signals 110 to any one or more of the tuned RF resonance components 108 to digitally recognize frequency shift and/or attenuation of the chirp signals 111 (referred to as the returned signals 112 in FIG. 1A) from any one or more of the tuned RF resonance components 108.”)
The prior art of record does not teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim:
reflected off of the rotating shaft
While US 10749612 B1 to Iannotti teaches anomaly determination of a rotating shaft, the examiner considers a rejection of the claim to require impermissible hindsight reconstruction of references requiring information gleaned only from the Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claims 13-14,
The claims recite limitations requiring reflection at the rotating shaft similar to those of claim 12. Therefore, Examiner’s reasons for allowance for claims 12-14n are similar to those regarding claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 15,
Iannotti teaches:
A method of detecting an anomaly in a rotating machine, comprising:
providing at least one radio frequency sensor;
receiving at least one signal from a rotating machine, (Fig. 1; [col. 4, line 42 – col. 5, line 50] – “stator antenna 114 that is separate and spaced apart from the shaft 102… the RF sensor 106 is configured to generate measurement signals as the shaft 102 spins or rotates. The measurement signals are communicated from the RF sensor 106 to the rotor antenna 108, and from the rotor antenna 108 to the stator antenna 114 across the air gap 122.”) the at least one signal being indicative of at least one of resonance ([col. 3, lines 39-59] – “The measurement signal that is generated by the SAW sensor and transmitted back to the stator antenna may include a frequency spectrum with nulls or voids in the spectrum corresponding to the frequencies at which the resonators of the SAW sensor resonate.” [col. 6, lines 7-34]) (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference)
comparing, via a processor, the at least one of resonance ([col. 8, lines 1-19] – “The controller 116 is configured to determine one or more properties of the shaft 102, such as strain, torque, temperature, or the like, based on the determined resonating frequencies of the resonators 142, 144, 146.”) to a corresponding reference resonance ([col. 9, lines 30-42] – “For example, the one or more processors 118 may be configured to utilize the calibration information with the determined resonating frequencies of the first and second resonators 142, 144 to derive a torque through the shaft 102.” [col. 6, lines 1-6] – “The controller 116 may be configured to compare the measurement signals generated by the multiple different RF sensors 106 when determining one or more properties of the shaft 102, such as torque, bending, fatigue, stress, strain rate, or the like.” Calibration info or measurements from different RF sensors used for comparison may correspond to reference values.)
determining, via the processor, whether the anomaly has occurred in the rotating shaft based on the comparison of the at least one of resonance
identifying, via the processor, at least one type of anomaly of a plurality of types of anomalies including the anomaly that has occurred in the rotating shaft based on the comparison of the at least one of resonance([col. 13, line 56- col. 14, line 3] – “The sensor system 100 may be incorporated with at least one of these shafts 602, 604, 606, 608 to monitor properties of the shafts such as, but not limited to, strain, torque, temperature, or rotational speed… The controller 116 may be configured to control the operation of the power-generating machine 600 based on one or more determined properties of the shaft 102. For example, the power-generating machine 600 may have a designated torque value or range. If the sensor system 100 determines a torque value for the shaft 102 that is outside of the torque range, the controller 116 may generate a control signal configured to change an operating setting of the power-generating machine 600, such as to increase the power output of the machine 600 or to decrease the power output based on the determined torque value.”)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights