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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 02/08/2024 and 08/12/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form and uses the implied phrase, “the present disclosure”. (Emphasis added). See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A gearbox fault detection method, comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
acquiring a plurality of Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components of a vibration acceleration signal of a gearbox, Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components corresponding to different parts of the gearbox;
“acquiring a plurality of Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components …” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (i.e., Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components).
“IMF components” is a mathematical concept/degree/value/amount.
from spectrum of the plurality of IMF components, extracting frequency components corresponding to faults of the different parts as fault frequencies, and frequency components corresponding to the different parts as relevant frequencies; and
abstract idea
math process
“extracting frequency components ~” is a math process performed using mathematical/arithmetic algorithm. (para 0072-0077).
“spectrum of the plurality of IMF components” and “frequency components” are mathematical concepts/values/amounts.
determining a fault type of the gearbox according to the fault frequencies and the relevant frequencies.
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“determining a fault type of the gearbox …” is math or mental process based on the collected data. (para 0072-0077, 0078-0103).
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “from spectrum of the plurality of IMF components, extracting frequency components corresponding to faults of the different parts as fault frequencies, and frequency components corresponding to the different parts as relevant frequencies” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations related to extracting the frequency components from spectrum of the routine data (i.e., IMF components of the signal), where the extracting may be performed by a mathematical/arithmetic program algorithm, and “IMF components”, “spectrum of the plurality of IMF components” and “frequency components” are mathematical concepts/values/amounts. (See at least paragraphs 0072-0077). Similarly, “determining a fault type of the gearbox according to the fault frequencies and the relevant frequencies” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematically calculating gear fault frequency component and/or inferring the fault type of the gearbox based on the mathematical results (i.e., the fault frequencies and the relevant frequencies). (See at least paragraphs 0072-0077 and 0078-0103).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a processor to perform mathematical calculations of “from spectrum of the plurality of IMF components, extracting frequency components corresponding to faults of the different parts as fault frequencies, and frequency components corresponding to the different parts as relevant frequencies” and “determining a fault type of the gearbox according to the fault frequencies and the relevant frequencies”. The limitation of “acquiring a plurality of Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components of a vibration acceleration signal of a gearbox, Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components corresponding to different parts of the gearbox” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary merely recited to collect routine data (i.e., Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components) which are used to perform abstract idea (i.e., calculating the spectrum of the plurality of IMF components, mathematical calculations related to extracting the fault frequencies and the relevant frequencies, and calculating the fault type). See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “acquiring a plurality of Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components of a vibration acceleration signal of a gearbox, Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components corresponding to different parts of the gearbox” is an insignificant pre-solution activity to merely gather routine data (i.e., Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the data processor of the computer to perform “from spectrum of the plurality of IMF components, extracting frequency components corresponding to faults of the different parts as fault frequencies, and frequency components corresponding to the different parts as relevant frequencies” and “determining a fault type of the gearbox according to the fault frequencies and the relevant frequencies” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-14, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitation of “determining the fault type of the gearbox according to a combined harmonic frequency of the fault frequencies and the relevant frequencies, wherein the combined harmonic frequency is determined according to a harmonic frequency of a fault frequency and a harmonic frequency of a relevant frequency” in claim 2 and “determining the fault type of the gearbox according to an amplitude ratio of a sum of amplitude values of the combined harmonic frequency to a sum of amplitude values of a relevant frequency” in claim 3 may encompass mathematically calculating the combined harmonic frequency and mathematical calculations related to summing the amplitude values. “a gear assembly phase frequency” in claim 4 and “a relevant frequency corresponding to the fixed shaft gear comprises a gear mesh frequency; and a fault of the fixed shaft gear comprises at least one of a fixed shaft driving gear fault or a fixed shaft driven gear fault, a fault frequency corresponding to the fixed shaft driving gear fault comprises a driving gear fault frequency, and a fault frequency corresponding to the fixed shaft driven gear fault comprises a driven gear fault frequency” in claim 4 are each indicative of a mathematical concept/value. “a fixed shaft gear” in claim 4, “a fixed shaft bearing” in claim 6, and “a planetary gear train (PGT)” in claim 7 are a high level of generality recited merely in field of use to be applied to the claimed invention. The fault types and various frequencies in the context of claims 4-8 are mathematical concept and/or inferred result related to the mathematical process (see at least paragraphs 0078-0103). The limitations of “determining a fault type of the gearbox according to comparisons of amplitude ratios corresponding to different faults and ratio thresholds, wherein different amplitude ratios correspond to different ratio thresholds” in claim 9, “determining a current feature vector of the gearbox according to the amplitude ratios corresponding to different faults, a time domain kurtosis factor of the vibration acceleration signal, and a crest factor of the vibration acceleration signal; and determining the fault type of the gearbox according to the current feature vector and a plurality of sample feature vectors corresponding to a plurality of fault types” in claim 10, “calculating a relation degree of the current feature vector and each of the plurality of sample feature vectors respectively; sorting relation degrees; and determining the fault type of the gearbox according to a result of a result of the sorting” in claim 11, “performing EMD or EEMD on the vibration acceleration signal to obtain a plurality of candidate IMF components; and determining the plurality of IMF components from the plurality of candidate IMF components, according to relevant parameters of the different parts of the gearbox” in claim 13, “removing a false IMF component from the plurality of candidate IMF components according to relations between the plurality of candidate IMF components and the vibration acceleration signal; and determining the plurality of IMF components from the plurality of candidate IMF components after removing the false IMF component” in claim 14 may encompass mathematically calculating the fault type of the gearbox and perform its related calculations (see at least paragraphs 0078-0103).
For the reasons described above with respect to claim 2-14, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 16, it is a device type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of the memory and the processor are high level of generalities merely recited to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component.
Regarding Claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional element of the processor is high level of generalities merely recited to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (CN 112326236 A, hereinafter referred to as “WANG” cited in IDS dated 02/08/2024) in view of WU et al. (CN 105510023 A, hereinafter referred to as “WU” cited in IDS dated 02/08/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, WANG teaches a gearbox fault detection method (at least Abstract, pages 2-3 of English machine translation teach a gear box operation state online monitoring method and system), comprising:
acquiring a plurality of Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components of a vibration acceleration signal of a gearbox, different IMF components corresponding to different parts of the gearbox (at least Abstract, pages 2-3 of English machine translation teach obtaining the real-time vibration signal from all the components to be tested of the gear box, decomposing the vibration signal to obtain several intrinsic mode function IMF);
from spectrum of the plurality of IMF components, extracting frequency components corresponding to faults of the different parts as fault frequencies, and frequency components corresponding to the different parts as relevant frequencies (at least Abstract, pages 2-3 of English machine translation teach obtaining the Hilbert spectrum of the IMF components, and comparing with the frequency spectrum graph in the frequency characteristic database, obtaining the fault frequency, and marking the fault frequency on the frequency spectrum graph; “the obtaining method of the Hilbert spectrum of the component to be tested comprises the following steps: …decompose the vibration signal to obtain several intrinsic mode function IMF … performing Hilbert transform for each extracted IMF to obtain the signal time,” in pages 2-3 of English machine translation); and
determining a fault type of the gearbox according to the fault frequencies and the relevant frequencies (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is indicative of determining/detecting a fault in the gearbox based on the extracted/calculated fault frequencies, which is explicitly or inherently taught by processes of analyzing spectrum of the IMF component with the frequency spectrum chart of the component to finally obtain the fault frequency, at least at Abstract, pages 2-3 of English machine translation; “summarizing the Hilbert spectrum of M IMF, taking it as the time spectrum of the original signal, comparing and analyzing with the frequency spectrum chart of the component under normal state in the frequency characteristic database, finally obtaining the fault frequency”).
WANG fails explicitly disclose, but WU teaches the claimed features related to, i.e., “different IMF components corresponding to different parts … the frequency components corresponding to the different parts are extracted as related frequencies, and the fault type is determined on the basis of the fault frequencies and the related frequencies” (WU teaches pre-processing vibration signal collected from gear box sensor, and calculating, for the vibration signal of a local fault of a sun gear, the local fault characteristic frequencies fs of the sun gear (i.e., equivalent to the fault frequencies), the absolute rotation frequency fs(r) of the sun gear (equivalent to the related frequencies) and the combination of fs±fs(r); for a distribution fault of a planetary gear train, peaks appear at positions of the distributed fault characteristic frequency fg of the gear, the passing frequency Nfc of the planetary gear, and the combination of fg±Nfc ( equivalent to different IMF components corresponding to different parts); feature quantities representing the fault type are selected, for example, the distributed fault of the planetary gear train A2=[Anfg, AmNfc], and the divergence between a sample to be tested and a standard sample is calculated, to locate the fault position and the fault mode (equivalent to extracting frequency components corresponding to the different parts as related frequencies, and determining the fault type on the basis of the fault frequencies and the related frequencies), (“step 4, identifying the failure mode … by observing a certain fault characteristic vector is calculated for determining the fault position and fault mode …” in pages 9-13 of English machine translation of WU).
WANG and WU are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rotary machine fault diagnosis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG to incorporate the teachings of WU by providing operations for obtaining and calculating different IMF components of different parts, the frequency components of the different parts which are extracted as related frequencies, and determining the fault type on the basis of the fault frequencies and the related frequencies, as taught by WU at least at pages 9-13 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 2, WANG fails explicitly disclose, but WU teaches wherein the determining a fault type of the gearbox comprises:
determining the fault type of the gearbox according to a combined harmonic frequency of the fault frequencies and the relevant frequencies, wherein the combined harmonic frequency is determined according to a harmonic frequency of a fault frequency and a harmonic frequency of a relevant frequency (at least pages 9-13, especially page 11 of WU’s English machine translation teaches the combined harmonic frequencies of the fault frequencies and the related frequencies to thereby determined the fault mode).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WANG to incorporate the teachings of WU by providing determining the fault mode based on the combined harmonic frequency, as taught by WU at least at pages 9-13 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 12, WANG teaches wherein the acquiring the plurality of IMF components of the vibration acceleration signal of the gearbox comprises:
performing Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) or Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (EEMD) on the vibration acceleration signal to obtain the plurality of IMF components (at least page 5 of English machine translation teaches “using empirical mode decomposition (EMD) method to adaptively decompose the vibration signal to obtain several intrinsic mode function (IMF ', determining the intrinsic mode parameter”).
Regarding Claim 13, WANG teaches wherein the acquiring the plurality of IMF components comprises:
performing EMD or EEMD on the vibration acceleration signal to obtain a plurality of candidate IMF components; and determining the plurality of IMF components from the plurality of candidate IMF components, according to relevant parameters of the different parts of the gearbox (at least pages 5-6 of English machine translation teach performing EMD to decompose the vibration signal to obtain several intrinsic mode function; “3.1) using empirical mode decomposition (EMD) method to adaptively decompose the vibration signal to obtain several intrinsic mode function (IMF ', determining the intrinsic mode parameter number K' apos; 3.2) the original signal to the variable-mode decomposition (VMD), the VMD needs to be set in advance of the mode number K, replaced by K, 'K' K, obtaining the new intrinsic mode function (IMF). analyzing each IMF, drawing each IMF energy map; calculating the correlation coefficient of each IMF and the original signal to be measured”).
Regarding Claim 14, WANG teaches wherein the acquiring the plurality of IMF components comprises:
removing a false IMF component from the plurality of candidate IMF components according to relations between the plurality of candidate IMF components and the vibration acceleration signal; and determining the plurality of IMF components from the plurality of candidate IMF components after removing the false IMF component (at least page 6 of English machine translation teaches performing EMD to decompose the vibration signal to obtain several intrinsic mode function after removing the false IMF component; “obtaining new intrinsic mode function IMF; analyzing each IMF, drawing each IMF energy map; 3.3) … keeping the effective intrinsic mode function IMF number in the threshold range, removing the false component in the IMF; finally obtaining M effective intrinsic mode function IMF”).
Regarding Claim 16, it is a device type claim and has similar limitations as of a part of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of the processor and the memory are taught by WANG at least page 4 of English machine translation.
Regarding Claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional element of the processor is taught by WANG at least page 4 of English machine translation.
Examiner Note
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action. No prior art rejection has been made because the prior art of record take alone or in combination fails to teach the following features:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of Claim 3,
"determining the fault type of the gearbox according to an amplitude ratio of a sum of amplitude values of the combined harmonic frequency to a sum of amplitude values of a relevant frequency".
Claims 4-11 are dependent on claim 3.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vedula (US 11188065 B2) teaches systems and methods for monitoring a rotating equipment, are provided, where a sensor that is in proximity of the rotating equipment senses vibrations of the rotating equipment. The sensor generates a digital signal corresponding to the vibrations of the rotating equipment and transmits the digital signal over a communication network, where a server receives the digital signal and pre-processes the digital signal using ensemble empirical mean decomposition (EEMD) technique, where the server processes the digital signal using wavelet neural network (WNN) to detect faults in the rotating equipment, and where further, the server processes the digital signal using the wavelet neural network to predict remaining useful life (RUL) of the rotating equipment.
Ito et al. (US 8018670 B1) teaches an apparatus having a controller (208) which receives error between detection value of controlled variable sampled at predetermined sampling frequency and desired value of controlled variable, where a response detection unit (230) detects input/output response of control system in aliasing frequency to which frequency component of disturbance signal is folded by sampling process, where a transfer characteristics calculating section (240) calculates transfer characteristics of controlled object in aliasing frequency based on input/output response.
Hatch et al. (US 8171797 B2) teaches a method for assessing deterioration in a gearbox, where data is obtained from an operating gearbox regarding harmonic frequencies and their related sidebands generated as a consequence of the gearbox operation, where in a first embodiment, a Sideband Energy Ratio (SER) is calculated by dividing the amplitude of the sum of sideband signals associated with a harmonic to the amplitude of the harmonic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights