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 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.
Claims 1-7 & 9-22 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 in the claims than the abstract idea itself. These Claims are directed to an abstract idea, which have been found ineligible by judicial exception under Supreme Court Cases including Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 2368 (2014)[hereinafter “Alice Corp.”] and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 56/826 U. S. (2012) [hereinafter “Mayo”]. The Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as addressed below.
Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (MPEP 2106.03).
Applied to the present application, under step 1 of the Guidance analysis, the Claims belong to the statutory class of a process (method of Claims 1-7 & 9-22).
Eligibility Step 2a: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception (MPEP 2106.04).
Step 2a is two prong analysis:
Prong One Asks: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Claims 1-7 & 9-22 recite an abstract idea that is subject to a judicial exception as the claims pertain to a judicial exception such as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Concepts The Courts Have Identified As Abstract Ideas. In Applicant' s case the following judicial exception is applied.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I & III) "Mathematical Concepts" and “Mental Processes”. This exclusion has recently been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Alice Corp. decision. Recent Federal Circuit cases have further found that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis are directed to a composite of abstract ideas under step 2A of the guidance (Part/Step 1 of the Mayo test). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas--the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work' that are open to all.' " 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person' s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit explained that concepts of collecting and analyzing information fall within the "realm of abstract ideas" because information is intangible.
Independent Claim 1 recites a process for analyzing a state of at least one component of a pump assembly, through the mental process using analysis with mathematical concepts of a signal of the pump assembly corrected for ambient noise. The claims recite a concrete element of a pump assembly which is the monitored equipment with the claims directed to processing acoustic sound from the pump to determine a condition of the monitored pump assembly.
Claim 1. The limitations directed to data collection and mathematical analysis.
to determine a rotational speed of the pump assembly or with regard to an error, through analysis of an airborne sound emitted by the pump assembly (mathematical analysis).
recording at least a first audio signal during operation of the pump assembly at a first geometric location (P.sub.far) and a first distance (D.sub.far) from the pump assembly, and recording a second audio signal during operation of the pump assembly at a second geometric location (P.sub.near) and a second distance (D.sub.near) from the pump assembly, which second distance is less than the first distance (D.sub.far) (data collection for use in the abstract idea).
determining the state of at least one component of the pump assembly through analysis of a signal of the pump assembly corrected for ambient noise of at least one secondary sound source and reconstructed through a comparison of amplitude values of the first and second audio signals (mathematical analysis).
Claims 2-7 & 9-14. The limitations are directed to mathematical computation and analysis
monitored sound in support of the abstract idea of determining a condition of a pump assembly.
Claim 2- the amplitude values being spectral components determined from the first and second audio signals (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 3- determining one spectrum of the first and second audio signals is determined and a ratio (F.sub.k) of amplitude values of corresponding spectral components (f.sub.k, f.sub.k−1, f.sub.k+1) of the two spectra or spectra derived from them is formed, and the reconstructed signal is formed from the amplitude values of those spectral components (f.sub.k) of one of the two spectra or spectra derived from them for which the ratio (F.sub.k) lies beyond a predetermined limit value (F.sub.threshold), in order to eliminate the ambient noise in the first and/or second audio signal (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 4- the two spectra are frequency spectra and the spectral components are frequencies (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 5- the reconstructed signal is formed from the amplitude values of the spectral components (f.sub.k) of the spectrum of the second audio signal or a spectrum derived from the same (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 6- a number of dominant spectral components (f.sub.k) are first determined from each of the two spectra, the dominant spectral components (f.sub.k) with their amplitude values form the respective derived spectrum, and the ratio of the amplitude values is of the amplitude values of the dominant spectral components (f.sub.k) (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 7- two spectra are divided into intervals and a number of dominant spectral components (f.sub.k) is determined and selected for each interval (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 9- the dominant spectral components are determined through application of a sorting algorithm configured to execute the following steps: a. initially check all spectral components (f.sub.k) sequentially to determine which spectral component (f.sub.k) has the highest amplitude, b. subsequently, check the remaining spectral components (f.sub.k) sequentially to determine which of the remaining spectral components (f.sub.k) has the highest amplitude, and c. repeat step b) N.sub.peak−2 times, where N.sub.peak is the number of dominant spectral components (f.sub.k) (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 10- The method according to claim 3, wherein the amplitude ratios are formed in such a manner that, for one spectral component (f.sub.k), the ratio (F.sub.k) of the amplitude value of the spectral component (f.sub.k) in the spectrum of the second audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that to the amplitude value of the corresponding spectral component (f.sub.k, f.sub.k−1, f.sub.k+1) in the spectrum of the first audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that is calculated (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 11- the ratio (F.sub.k) of the amplitude value of the spectral component (f.sub.k) in the spectrum of the second audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that to the amplitude value of the same spectral component (f.sub.k) in the spectrum of the first audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that is calculated for a spectral component (f.sub.k) only when both aforementioned amplitude values are greater than zero (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 12- an offset correction is performed in forming the amplitude ratios, by a. for the spectral component (f.sub.k) calculating the ratio (F.sub.k) of the amplitude value of the spectral component (f.sub.k) in the spectrum of the second audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that to the amplitude value of the same spectral component f.sub.k in the spectrum of the first audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that when both aforementioned amplitude values are greater than zero, and/or b. for the spectral component (f.sub.k), calculating the ratio (F.sub.k) of the amplitude value of the spectral component (f.sub.k) in the spectrum (40) of the second audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that to the amplitude value of the previous spectral component (f.sub.k−1) in the spectrum of the first audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that when both aforementioned amplitude values are greater than zero, and/or c. for the spectral component (f.sub.k), calculating the ratio (F.sub.k) of the amplitude value of the spectral component (f.sub.k) in the spectrum of the second audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that to the amplitude value of the next spectral component (f.sub.k+1) in the spectrum of the first audio signal or in the spectrum derived from that, when both aforementioned amplitude values are greater than zero (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 13- sequentially checking, for all spectral components (f.sub.k), for which spectral component (f.sub.k) a determined amplitude ratio exceeds the limit value (f.sub.threshold) and by those spectral components (f.sub.k) where this is the case, along with the amplitude values assigned to these spectral components (f.sub.k) from the spectrum of the second audio signal, forming the reconstructed signal (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 14- the limit value (F.sub.threshold) is calculated under consideration of a ratio of the two distances (D.sub.far, D.sub.near) to each other (mathematical computation and analysis).
Claim 15 Recites a data gathering step where the data gathering of acoustic sound is a known concept
Claims 16-17. Recite a concrete element of an acoustic sensor, which is a generic known element for data collection of monitored sound.
Claim 18. Recite a concrete element of an optical sensor which is a generic known element for data collection of monitored distance.
Claim 19. Recite concrete elements of an acoustic sensor, which is a generic known element for data collection of monitored sound; an optical sensor which is a generic known element for data collection of monitored distance; and a software application having program instructions recorded thereon that are configured so that when they are executed by the analysis device cause the analysis device to execute the determination of the abstract idea.
Claims 20-21. Recite concrete elements of a display to organize data, a control element that is an undefined element without function and an acoustic sensor is a generic known element for data collection of the monitored sound. A claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Claim 22. Recites the concrete element of the optical sensor is a camera which is a generally known data collection device for obtaining images without any steps for unique processing of the steps provide subject matter in excess of the abstract idea.
With regard to the instant case the following similar cases to Applicant' s claimed invention are also directed to organizing, collecting, monitoring, comparing and analyzing data:
collecting, displaying, and manipulating data, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340, 121 USPQ2d 1940, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
creating an index, and using that index to search for and retrieve data, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
organizing information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
And the additional non-precedential case cited in the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance of court decisions dated March 14, 2018.
collecting, organizing and analyzing sensor data, TDE Petroleum Data Solutions v. AKM Enterprise, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
(2) Prong Two Asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Independent Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The pump assembly is the monitored element with no technological improvement made to the pump assembly.
Dependent Claims 16-22. The claims cite concrete generic elements used for data gathering and organizing the data in support of the abstract concept.
The non-transitory memory and software application and display are cited at their highest level of established tools to perform their generic functions in support of the abstract concepts of data collection and mathematical correlation using a mental process or generic computer-implemented processing and display steps (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding an optical sensor that is a camera the courts have held where an element is generic if the element provides no improvement to the functioning of a computer or its components or to a technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity it is 2106.05(d)II. In the words of the court, claimed elements such as identifying the camera, the image sensors, and the lenses were “simply a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea.” Yu v. Apple Inc., (Fed. Cir., June 11, 2021).
The recitation of a control element without cited function does not add any steps the claimed process and are cited without a useful function or improvement to the method.
The recitation of an acoustic sensor is claimed as a generic device to record sound which is an established generic data gathering element.
Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More (MPEP 2106.05).
The Claims when analyzed as a whole do not recite elements "significantly more" than just the abstract idea itself, and are comparable to items discussed in the cases mentioned above or are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the relevant art without providing elements or steps directed to the following guidance of significantly more:
For Applicant' s invention, the recitation of the elements do not provide an additional transformation, particular machine, improvement to a computer function or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.
Claims 1-7 & 9-22 as a whole do not confine the claims to a particular useful application of the abstract idea, the claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105.05(II)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1) 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.
Claims 1-7 & 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the specification, while being enabling for an acoustic sensor that is a microphone ([0026] & [0116]) and an optical sensor that is a camera [0097-0098], [0019] [0141] & [0145] the disclosure does not support the scope of all established acoustic and optical sensors.
Claims 1-7 & 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the scope of enablement requirement. In Applicant' s case the breadth of the claims extends beyond the disclosure of a microphone as an acoustic sensor and a camera as an optical sensor.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” In this case, the relevant Wand factors Examiner has considered are :
2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors [R-01.2024]
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The disclosure does not provide additional working examples or indication of any other type of acoustic or optical sensor than the disclosed microphone and camera. The inventor has reduced to practice at the time enabling an acoustic sensor that is a microphone and an optical sensor that is a camera. Absence of disclosure all types of acoustic sensors
(i.e. Photodiodes, Phototransistors, and Photoconductive Cells (LDRs) for basic light detection, plus specialized forms like Fiber Optic Sensors, Photoelectric Sensors (through-beam, diffuse, retro-reflective), Image Sensors (CMOS, CCD), Ambient Light Sensors, Spectrometers, and Time-of-Flight (ToF) sensors)
or optical sensors
(i.e. Photodiodes, Phototransistors, and Photoconductive Cells (LDRs) for basic light detection, plus specialized forms like Fiber Optic Sensors, Photoelectric Sensors (through-beam, diffuse, retro-reflective), Image Sensors (CMOS, CCD), Ambient Light Sensors, Spectrometers, and Time-of-Flight (ToF) sensors)
places on the public the entire quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the full scope of the acoustic and optical sensors of Claims 1-7 & 9-21 and over reaches the disclosed concept of microphones and cameras.
Claims 1-7 & 9-21 therefore recites subject matter directed to the broadest level of a concept of acoustic and optical sensors.
Consistent with office policy, Examiner has weighed all the evidence for and against enablement of this invention and has concluded based on guidance provided by the MPEP and case law (including the Wands factors) that there is not enough evidence in favor of the scope of the enablement of this invention.
Applicant may submit factual affidavits under 37 CFR 1.132 or cite references to show what one skilled in the art knew at the time of filing the application. A declaration or affidavit is, itself, evidence that must be considered. The weight to give a declaration or affidavit will depend upon the amount of factual evidence the declaration or affidavit contains to support the conclusion of enablement. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert' s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”); cf. In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1174, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (declarations relating to the written description requirement should have been considered)”.
2) 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.
Claims 1-7 & 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the preamble “method for analysing the state of at least one component of a pump assembly, notably to determine the rotational speed of the pump assembly or with regard to an error through analysis of the airborne sound emitted by the pump assembly” which is unclear as a relative term “notably” is used which does not provide any weight to the preamble and the method is cited in the alternative which is unclear as to the claimed process.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a ratio (F.sub.k) of amplitude values of corresponding spectral components (f.sub.k, f.sub.k−1, f.sub.k+1) of the two spectra or spectra derived from them is formed” which is unclear for two reasons where first the step of what is required to form “a ratio” is unclear and second the terms the “two spectra or spectra derived” are not described or distinctly claimed. Looking to the specification the first and second audio signal is combined to form a combinedspectra (e.g. two spectra) where a ratio of amplitude values of corresponding spectral components of the two spectra are used to remove noise forming a derived spectra [0060-0061].
Claim 3 recites “the reconstructed signal is formed from the amplitude values of those spectral components (f.sub.k) of one of the two spectra or spectra derived from them for which the ratio (F.sub.k) lies beyond a predetermined limit value (F.sub.threshold)” which is unclear as what “a reconstructed signal” requires as it is not distinctly defined. It seems the noise filtered “derived spectra” is used to form a reconstructed first and/or second acoustic signal formed from their original amplitude values of those spectral components with eliminated ambient noise spectral components.
Claims 19-21 recite an optional optical sensor where optional language does not distinctly claim the optical sensor and it is unclear if the optical sensor is required to meet the claimed limitation.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 & 9-15 are objected to and would be allowable if:
1) Rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
2) Rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3. The closest prior art is Munk (US 20170241422) discloses a method for determining a rotational speed of the pump assembly, through analysis of an airborne sound emitted by the pump assembly, comprising recording at least a first audio signal during operation of the pump assembly at a first geometric location a first distance from the pump and determining the state of at least one component of the pump assembly through analysis of a signal of the pump assembly corrected for ambient noise.
Munk does not disclose recording a second audio signal during operation of the pump assembly at a second geometric location and a second distance from assembly, which second distance is less than the first distance, and determining the state of at least one component of the pump assembly through analysis of a signal of the pump assembly corrected for ambient noise of at least one secondary sound source and reconstructed through a comparison of amplitude values of the first and second audio signals and determining the state of at least one component of the pump assembly through analysis of a signal of the pump assembly corrected for ambient noise of at least one secondary sound source and reconstructed through a comparison of amplitude values of the first and second audio signals then determining respectively one spectrum of the first and second audio signals is determined and a ratio of amplitude values of corresponding spectral components of the two spectra or spectra derived from them is formed, and the reconstructed signal is formed from the amplitude values of those spectral components of one of the two spectra or spectra derived from them for which the ratio lies beyond a predetermined limit value, in order to eliminate the ambient noise in the first and/or second audio signal.
Regarding dependent Claims 4-7 & 9-15 are objected to based on their dependence on the indicated allowable material of Claim 3.
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, 16-17 & 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munk (US 20170241422) in view of Larsen (US 20210157292: “Larsen”).
Claim 1. Munk discloses a method for analysing a state of at least one component (125 impeller shaft rotations) [0047] of a pump assembly (20/120), notably to determine a rotational speed of the pump assembly or with regard to an error, through analysis of an airborne sound emitted by the pump assembly [0047: The estimation of the rotational speed may be carried out via a spectral analysis. This may for instance be carried out by sampling and optionally down-sampling the measured sound signal after which the sampled signal is run through a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT), and wherein the FFT signal is analysed in order to locate peaks. The peaks will correspond to the rotational speed of the shaft] comprising recording [0052] at least a first audio signal during operation of the pump assembly (20/120) at a first geometric location (P.sub.far) and a first distance (D.sub.far) from the pump assembly (20/120)[0015] and determining the state of at least one component (123 shaft speed) of the pump assembly (20/120) through analysis of a signal of the pump assembly (20/120)[0083][0128]. Munk does not explicitly disclose:
recording a second audio signal during operation of the pump assembly at a second geometric location (P.sub.near) and a second distance (D.sub.near) from the pump assembly, which second distance is less than the first distance (D.sub.far), and determining the state of at least one component of the pump assembly through analysis of a signal of the pump assembly corrected for ambient noise of at least one secondary sound source.
Larsen teaches determining, based on the measured first sound signal and based on at least one of a received user indication of a degree of the user-perceived acoustic-noise induced discomfort and a received first operational parameter of the pump assembly [Abstract]. Larsen further teaches recording a second audio signal during operation of the pump assembly (20) at a second geometric location (P.sub.near) and a second distance (D.sub.near) from the pump assembly (20) [0023: In step S62, the process determines a noise class based on the extracted features. To this end, the process may employ a suitable classifier. A classifier provides the functions or rules that are used to divide the feature space into various regions, where each region belongs to a particular noise class. Generally, classifiers can be categorized as parametric and nonparametric classifiers, based on the knowledge of signal distribution parameters], which second distance is less than the first distance (D.sub.far)[0162: The distance from the device to the pump assembly is from around 1 meter to a few centimetres, typically in the range from 5 cm to 30 cm from the pump assembly], and determining the state of at least one component of the pump assembly (20) through analysis of a signal of the pump assembly (20) corrected for ambient noise of at least one secondary sound source [0023: Measuring multiple sound signals at different times and/or locations thus allows the process to determine correlations between the measured sound signals and other information, in particular the operational conditions of a pump assembly of the water utility system, and to use the determined correlations in determining suitable parameters for reducing the acoustic noise].
Claim 2. Dependent on the method according to claim 1. Munk further discloses the amplitude values are spectral components determined from the first and second audio signals [0047: estimation of the rotational speed may be carried out via a spectral analysis. This may for instance be carried out by sampling and optionally down-sampling the measured sound signal after which the sampled signal is run through a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT), and wherein the FFT signal is analysed in order to locate peaks. The peaks will correspond to the rotational speed of the shaft] & [0063].
Claim 16. Dependent on the method according to claim 1. Munk further discloses the sound pressure level is measured using an acoustic sensor (30) [0100] and the first and second audio signal respectively forming a sound pressure level/time gradient of the sensor [0063: the at least one rotating shaft is swept from a first rotational speed to a second rotational speed over a pre-set time period, and wherein the method a spectrogram is measured and processed].
Claim 17. Dependent on the method according to claim 1. Munk, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
1) the second distance (D.sub.near) is a separate distance (D.sub.far).
2) the second distance (D.sub.near) is half the first distance (D.sub.far).
With regard to 1) Larsen teaches determining, based on the measured first sound signal and based on at least one of a received user indication of a degree of the user-perceived acoustic-noise induced discomfort and a received first operational parameter of the pump assembly [Abstract]. Larsen further teaches the second distance (D.sub.near) is a separate distance (D.sub.far) [0162: The distance from the device to the pump assembly is from around 1 meter to a few centimetres, typically in the range from 5 cm to 30 cm from the pump assembly].
With regard to 2) The setting of the second distance to a point half the distance to a monitored object from the first distance is a routine optimization of a measurement where the courts have in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), establishes that finding the best parameter ranges (like temperature, concentration) through routine experimentation on known conditions isn't inventive and generally isn't patentable, as it's considered obvious. Additional regarding optimization of a measurement are found in MPEP 2144.05 (II)(a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optimize reception of an acoustic signal closer to the actual monitored source as Munk’s, as modified by Lawrence’s multi-location measurements because placing an acoustic sensor next to a monitored object improves the accuracy of the acoustic measurement by receiving sound signatures directly from the monitored object.
Claim 19. Dependent on the method according to claim 1. Munk further discloses a software application [0103: The handheld communication device 30 may comprises a processing unit, such as a microcomputer or a digital sound processor and/or a software application installed on the handheld communication device 30 for processing a sound signal measured via the microphone 32] configured for a mobile analysis device (30/130) having with a display (34/133)[0107] & [0117], at least one control element (131) and an acoustic sensor (32/132) and optionally an optical sensor , comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium (131)[0018] having program instructions (131)[0018-0019] recorded thereon that are configured so that when they are executed by the analysis device (30/ 130) cause the analysis device (30/ 130) to execute the method [0018-0019] according to claim 1.
Claim 20. Dependent on the method according to claim 1. Munk further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (131)[0018] having program instructions (131)[0018-0019] recorded thereon that are configured so that when they are executed by an analysis device (30/130) having a display (34/133) , at least one control element (131) and an acoustic sensor (32) and optionally an optical sensor (Figs. 4-5: 34/133), cause the analysis device (30/130) [0106: The handheld communication device 130 comprises a microcomputer 131 for assisting and interpreting data. The fault detection system may comprise a dedicated system, e.g. a microcomputer or digital signal processor particularly designed for detecting fault conditions, but in a preferred embodiment, the fault detection system comprises a dedicated software application, which is installed on the handheld communication device 13] to execute the method according to claim 1.
Claim 21. Dependent on the method according to claim 1. Munk further discloses a mobile analysis device (30/130) having a display (Figs. 4-5: 34/133), at least one control element (131)[0106] and an acoustic sensor (32/132) to record audio [0172] and optionally an optical sensor (Fig. 4: camera in 130) wherein the analysis device (30/130) is configured to execute [0018-0019] the method according to claim 1.
Claim 22. Dependent on the method according to claim 18. Munk further discloses the optical sensor is a camera (Fig. 4: camera in 130). Munk, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
the pump assembly is recorded visually in at least one image using the camera and each of the at least one image is analysed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munk in view of Larsen and in further view of Irie (US 20190214416: “Irie”).
Claim 18. Dependent on the method according to claim 1. Munk, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
the distances (D.sub.far, D.sub.near) respectively are determined by an optical measurement, in which the pump assembly is recorded using an optical sensor, respectively from the first and second geometric locations (P.sub.far, P.sub.near).
Irie teaches imaging controller 11A performs photometry (calculation of the brightness of the subject) and distance measurement (calculation of the phase difference) on the basis of one or a plurality of captured image signals which are output from the imaging element 5 through the live view imaging control before the imaging instruction is issued, and determines the first imaging condition on the basis of the results of the photometry and the distance measurement [0107]. Irie teaches the distances (D.sub.far, D.sub.near) respectively are determined by an optical measurement [0174-0175], in which respectively from the first and second geometric locations (P.sub.far, P.sub.near)[0175].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Irie’s camera processing for determining an object’s distance with Munk’s camera because providing distance determination of a measured object improves the accuracy of the measurement by adjusting the measured signal by distance to the imaged object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Monica S Young whose telephone number is (303)297-4785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-05:30 MST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-273-2375. 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.
/MONICA S YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855