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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the servo drive and other key electronics components must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 32-51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 32 line 2 and line 3, claim 33 line 2, and claim 51 line 3, “a structure” should be –the structure--;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 33, 35, and 38-45 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 33 line 1, “the device” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 33 line 2 recites “a single box / frame”. It is not clear how this relates to the “a stiff frame” of claim 32.
Claim 33 line 2 recites “easily be attached”. The term “easily” is relative and the measure of what would be considered easy is not clear from the instant application.
Claim 35 line 4 recites “control computer”. It is unclear how this relates to the “control unit of claim 32. Is this an additional controller or is this supposed to refer to the control unit?
Claim 38-39 recite “a controller”. It is not clear how this “controller” relates to “a control unit” of claim 32.
Claims 35-37, 42 and 45 each recite “a motor” in some form or another. Claim 32 recites an actuator. Because these claims depend on claim 32 there appears to be an issue as the motor is the actuator as per the specification. Said another way, the device dos not have a motor and an actuator to move the mass.
In re claim 44, the claim recites a “servo-drive”. It is not clear what this servo drive is for with respect to the system and the claim is not clear. How does the servo-drive fit into the vibration damping arrangement? Further, “other key electronics components” is not defined in the spec and it is not understood what elements would be key.
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.
Claim(s) 32-33, 35, 38, 49, and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) in view of Heilman (WO9844275).
In reference to claims 32 and 51, McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) teaches an active mass damper system to reduce vibrations in a structure (abstract), the system comprising a stiff frame (104, 200) securable to a structure (102), the system further comprising one or more accelerometers (114) which take instantaneous absolute measurements of vibrations in a structure (page 7 line 30 – page 8 line 6), means for feeding the instantaneous absolute measurements to a control unit and using this to drive an actuator (110), in which the actuator moves a mass block (106) substantially vertically in the stiff frame; the stiff frame transmits dynamic forces generated by the internal motion of the mass block to cancel out or dampen vibrations in the structure in use (this is how mass dampers work, in order to damp the vibrations the counter force of the mass must be fed back through the housing 200 and 104).
McGregor Stothers is silent to the mounting of the mass in the system.
Heilman teaches a similar active mass damping system where the mass members (302, 307) are guided by linear bearings (303).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to have provided McGregor with the linear bearings of Heilman to maintain the mass member of McGregor in place and to provide support. (Heilman Page 11 line 21-25) Please note that once the bearings of Heilman are placed in McGregor, substantial vertical motion would be ensured and the dynamic forces of the mass block would channeled to the frame structure of McGregor.
In reference to claim 33, McGregor teaches the device is contained within a single enclosed box/frame (104, 200) that can easily be attached to a structure and left to run autonomously. There is nothing in the disclosure that prevents this device from meeting the claimed limitations.
In reference to claim 35, McGregor teaches a system comprising a motor (110).
In reference to claim 38, McGregor teaches a controller (116).
In reference to claim 49, McGregor teaches a structure (102).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) in view of Heilman (WO9844275) and in view of Heilemann (US20200120427).
McGregor as modified by Heilemann WO lacks a teaching that the device can be connected to the internet.
Heilemann US teaches a control system for vibrating structures and teaches that the system can be connected to the internet (Paragraph 58). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this connection would clearly enable the upload performance data, the receiving firmware updates and report faults and failures to a central monitoring service.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the system of McGregor with an internet connection to provide the ability to upload software updates and to have the ability to monitor the operation of the device as would be notoriously known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) in view of Heilman (WO9844275) and in view of Ehmann (WO2020078558).
McGregor is silent to the type of actuator used.
Ehmann teaches an actuator / drive unit (paragraph 67) for moving a mass (130). Ehmann teaches that the motor can be an iron-core linear motor or an ironless motor (Paragraph 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the system of McGregor with the drive motors as taught by Ehmann merely as a simple substitution of one known element (the actuator of McGregor) for another (the motors of Ehmann). It should be noted that the linear motors of Ehmann would be well suited to drive the linear motion in the mass system of McGregor.
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) in view of Heilman (WO9844275) and in view of Nan (CN2446299).
McGregor is silent to the controller having multiple CPUs with separation of tasks.
Nan teaches the use of a controller for mechanical equipment that adopts plural CPUs that are able to multi task including time critical controller functionality to optimize the system. (Last paragraph of the translation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the system of McGregor with the plural CPUs as taught by Nan in order to improve the speed of the system (Nam last paragraph).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) in view of Heilman (WO9844275) and in view of Nan (CN2446299) and further in view of Pani et al (20180321320).
McGregor as modified by Nan fails to teach monitoring the current to detect faults. Pani teaches a motor there the voltage and current on each phase are monitored to detect a fault in the motor (paragraph 10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the diagnostic system of Pani in the damping system of McGregor as modified by Nam, merely to ensure the system is running properly and at peak efficiency.
Claim(s) 42-43 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) in view of Heilman (WO9844275) and further in view of Mitsutani et al (20100244558).
IN reference to claims 42-43, McGregor is silent to how the actuator is electrically connected.
McGregor’s actuator drives the mass and can be considered a motor. It is well established in the electrical arts that motors are switched on an off by relays. Also, McGregor’s system depicts a single device, but one of ordinary skill in that art would readily recognize that plural damping devices could be utilized in multiple locations.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide the system of McGregor as modified at multiple locations as a mere duplication of the essential parts of the system
Mitsutani teaches an exemplary electrical system where relays (SMR1M, SMR2M, SMR3M, SMR1S, SMR2S, and SMR3S) are used to control two motors (MG1, MG2). Mitsutani teaches enabling operating of the motors in a limp mode (paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the system of McGregor with the electrical relays and limp mode capability as taught by Mitsutani to enable operation of the device in a limp mode to maintain some performance of the device (paragraph 8). One of ordinary skill would recognize that this would enable the damping system of McGregor to operate at some capacity in a limp mode. One of skill in the art would recognize that if there is a problem with one of the damping arrangements of McGregor, they would shut down that arrangement to make repairs. Further, the systems of McGregor are capable of be operated in the manner claimed.
Claim(s) 46 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) in view of Heilman (WO9844275) and further in view of CN110822832.
McGregor lacks a teaching of how the device is secured to a structure.
CN teaches a vibration damping device (figure 1) with feet or legs (3) that are secured with a bolt to mount the device.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to have provided the arrangement of McGregor with feet / legs and a bolt to provide a means to rigidly attach the device to the structure to be damped thereby improving the efficiency of the device.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) in view of Heilman (WO9844275) and further in view of Pan (CN2172986).
McGregor is silent to the internal parts of the system or a frame, however, the system does have an outer case / housing (200). One of ordinary skill would recognize that the system of McGregor MUST have a frame internal to the device to provide support for the actuator, mass and other parts.
Pan teaches a frame (21 and other supporting parts for the device) supporting the internal essential parts of a damping device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the system of McGregor with an internal frame in order to assembly the internal parts of McGregor in a working manner.
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor Stothers (GB2599614) in view of Heilman (WO9844275) and further in view of Fallahi (20100057260).
McGregor is silent to sensing the position of the mass.
Fallahi teaches a transducer to sense the position of the mass to actively provide control to a motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the system of McGregor with a position sensing mechanism as taught by Fallahi in order to provide precise feedback to accurately control the motor.
Note that claim 44 has not been treated with art due to the numerous issues with clarity presented in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON C KRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7118. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7AM-4PM; Friday Mornings.
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.
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.
DEVON C. KRAMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3746
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741