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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claim(s) 11 and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 1-10, 12-20 and 22 are currently pending.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
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 claimed limitation of claim(s) 1-10, 12-20 and 22 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 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.
Claim(s) 20 & 22 is 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. In particular, claim 20 recites “a modulation of the excited acoustic wave is effected exclusively by an operation of the mechanical apparatus”, however it is unclear. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret that the modulation acoustic wave is exclusively excited by the mechanical apparatus. In particular, claim 22 is presented in a dependent form (depending on claim 19) however it claims an arrangement in the preamble presented in an independent form which makes it indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant meant to claim an independent claim or a dependent claim.
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) 1, 14-19 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzynski et al. (“Jarzynski”, US 6360610 B1, IDS) in view of Stepinski et al. (“Stepinski”, WO 2006110089 A1) and Zhou et al. (“Zhou”, CN 102457462 A). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 19, Jarzynski discloses a device (Fig. 2: machine housing and condition monitoring system 50) for determining characteristics of a mechanical apparatus (abstract; Col. 2, lines 38-45), comprising: a transmitter (first transducer 52). As per the limitation the transmitter for exciting a continuous acoustic wave in the apparatus. Stepinski discloses, in abstract; page 13, lines 13-24, the concept of transmitting a continuous wave to enable acoustic evaluation for inspecting a mechanical apparatus.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of transmitting a continuous wave to enable acoustic evaluation for inspecting a mechanical apparatus, with the motivation to enhance the excitation features of the system. As per the limitation a receiver for receiving the acoustic wave (second transducer 54); an evaluation unit (Jarzynski: Fig. 2: analyzer 38b) for determining information on characteristics of the apparatus by evaluating a signal generated by the receiver on receipt of the acoustic wave (Jarzynski: Col. 2, lines 38-45; Col. 6, lines 48-65). As per the limitation wherein the evaluation unit is configured for demodulation of the signal generated by the receiver. Jarzynski discloses, in Col. 5, lines 57-65, that the analyzer may be configured to perform fast Fourier Transform techniques. Zhou discloses, in abstract, the concept of using a demodulation step to receive acoustic wave signal when performing fast Fourier Transform techniques.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a demodulation step to receive acoustic wave signal when performing fast Fourier Transform techniques, with the motivation to enhance the signal reception features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 14 the method according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic wave excited in the apparatus is an acoustic surface wave (Jarzynski: Col. 8, lines 45-67). 3) Regarding claim 15 the method according to claim 1, wherein he excitation of the acoustic wave excited in the apparatus is effected by means of a transmitter arranged on the apparatus (Jarzynski: Fig. 2). 4) Regarding claim 16 the method according to claim 15, wherein the transmitter and the receiver are formed by a single, combined transmitter and receiver unit (Jarzynski: Fig. 1 illustrates another embodiment that using a single transducer 34, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate single transducer, with the motivation to enhance the design option features of the system). 5) Regarding claim 17 the method according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a bearing, a seal (Jarzynski: abstract; Col. 4, lines 59-65; Fig. 2) or a toothing. 6) Regarding claim 18 the method according to claim 1, wherein the information on characteristics of the apparatus is information with respect to a lubricant present in the apparatus (Jarzynski: Col. 4, lines 59-65), a sealing ring and/or with respect to a moving component of the apparatus. 7) Regarding claim 22, an arrangement comprising a mechanical apparatus (Jarzynski: Fig. 2) and a device according to claim 19 (see analysis of the rejection of claim 19) for determining characteristics of the mechanical apparatus (see analysis of the rejection of claim 19), wherein the transmitter and the receiver are arranged on the mechanical apparatus (Jarzynski: Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 2-5 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzynski in view of Stepinski and Zhou, and in further view of Hikita et al. (“Hikita”, GB 2319936 A). 1) Regarding claim 2 the method according to claim 1, wherein the excitation of the continuous acoustic wave in the apparatus is effected by using a non-modulated carrier signal with a carrier frequency. Hikita, discloses , in abstract; claim 24-25, the concept of using a non-modulation signal with a modulation signal excited by a transducer to enable carrier recovery. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a non-modulation signal with a modulation signal excited by a transducer to enable carrier recovery, with the motivation to enhance signal recovery features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 3 the method according to claim 2, wherein the excitation of the continuous acoustic wave in the apparatus is effected by means of a transmitter which generates the acoustic wave in dependence on the non-modulated carrier signal. Hikita, discloses , in abstract; claim 24-25, the concept of using a non-modulation signal with a modulation signal excited by a transducer to enable carrier recovery.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a non-modulation signal with a modulation signal excited by a transducer to enable carrier recovery, with the motivation to enhance signal recovery features of the system. 3) Regarding claim 4 the method according to claim 2, the acoustic wave excited in the apparatus initially is not modulated (Jarzynski: Col. 6, lines 48-57; Fig. 2). 4) Regarding claim 5 the method according to claim 2, wherein a modulation of the excited acoustic wave is caused exclusively by a movement of at least one component of the mechanical apparatus (Jarzynski: Col. 6, lines 35-38, with regard to the rotating portion 20). 5) Regarding claim 20, wherein the transmitter is configured to generate the acoustic wave in dependence on a non-modulated carrier signal and a modulation of the excited acoustic wave is effected exclusively by an operation of the mechanical apparatus. Hikita, discloses , in abstract; claim 24-25, the concept of using a non-modulation signal with a modulation signal excited by a transducer to enable carrier recovery.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a non-modulation signal with a modulation signal excited by a transducer to enable carrier recovery, with the motivation to enhance signal recovery features of the system.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzynski in view of Stepinski and Zhou, and in further view of Ahmed et al. (“Ahmed”, US 20120207248 A1). 1) Regarding claim 6 the method according to claim 2, wherein the demodulation of the signal generated by the receiver is effected by means of a reference signal whose frequency depends on the carrier frequency. Ahmed discloses, in ¶¶7, 18, the concept of using a reference signal depended upon a carrier frequency when performing demodulation. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a reference signal depended upon a carrier frequency when performing demodulation, with the motivation to enhance the demodulation features of the system.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzynski in view of Stepinski and Zhou, and in further view of Ahmed and Linder et al. (“Linder”, US 20120067111 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claim 7 the method according to claim 1, wherein the demodulation of the signal generated by the receiver is effected such that an amplitude and/or phase information is obtained with respect to the signal. Ahmed discloses, in ¶¶, 7, 18, 85, the concept of evaluating amplitude when performing demodulation by a receiver. Linder discloses, in ¶¶11, 15, 23, the concept of evaluating amplitude when inspecting a mechanical apparatus.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of evaluating amplitude when performing demodulation by a receiver amplitude when inspecting a mechanical apparatus , with the motivation to enhance the evaluation features of the system.
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzynski in view of Stepinski and Zhou, and in further view of Carlin et al. (“Carlin”, US 8601877 B2, IDS). 1) Regarding claim 8 the method according to claim 1, wherein the demodulation of the signal generated by the receiver is effected by using a lock-in method. Carlin discloses, in Col. 2, lines 61-62; Col. 8, lines 11-24, the concept of using a Phase-Locked Loop Quadrature Amplitude Demodulation method. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a Phase-Locked Loop Quadrature Amplitude Modulation method, with the motivation to enhance the signal analyzing features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 9 the method according to claim 1, wherein the demodulation of the signal generated by the receiver is effected by using an IQ demodulation. Carlin discloses, in Col. 2, lines 61-62; Col. 8, lines 11-24, the concept of using In-phase Quadrature demodulation method.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using In-phase Quadrature demodulation method, with the motivation to enhance the signal analyzing features of the system. 3) Regarding claim 10 the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the demodulation is effected by means of a quadrature sampling detector and the I and/or Q components of the signal determined by means of the IQ demodulation is/are filtered by means of a low-pass filter. Carlin discloses, in Col. 2, lines 61-62; Col. 8, lines 11-24, the concept of using In-phase Quadrature demodulation method using a low pass filter demodulator.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using In-phase Quadrature demodulation method using a low pass filter demodulator, with the motivation to enhance the signal analyzing features of the system.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzynski in view of Stepinski, Zhou and Hikita, and in further view of Fujibayashi (US 20120256673 A1). 1) Regarding claim 12 the method according to claim 1, wherein several different carrier frequencies are used, wherein for each of the carrier frequencies an evaluation of the signal each generated by the receiver is effected by demodulating the signal. Fujibayashi discloses, in ¶3, the concept of using different carrier frequencies when using performing demodulation.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using different carrier frequencies when using performing demodulation, with the motivation to enhance the signal analyzing features of the system.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarzynski in view of Stepinski, Zhou and Hikita, and in further view of Buckley (US 6057690 A). 1) Regarding claim 13 the method according to claim 1, wherein the carrier frequency is not more than 1 MHz or not more than 400 kHz. Buckley discloses, in Col. 2, lines 44-57; Col. 6, line 66 through Col. 3, line 9, the known concept of using a 400 kHz carrier frequency when evaluating acoustic waves.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate , the known concept of using a 400 kHz carrier frequency when evaluating acoustic waves, with the motivation to use a known carrier frequency to that enables evaluation of acoustic waves as intended.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685