DETAILED ACTION
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8 and 17-20, drawn to a device / system for detecting ultrasonic waves / machine diagnostics, classified in G01M15/02.
II. Claims 9-16, drawn to a method for detecting ultrasonic waves from a machine, classified in G01H17/00 or G01H1/00. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, at least the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product, such as one without a display device, with the attachment mechanism directly coupling to the sensor (i.e., claims 1 and 17 each recite the attachment mechanism and sensor are at different positions in the inner chamber). Also, regarding claim 17, the process of invention II could be practiced on a device other than an engine. The examiner notes the further divergence of claims 12-16.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Rhett Sexton on 02/10/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute invention I, claims 1-8 and 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-8 and 17-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 17-20: A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p) II. Some examples of such limitations are “wherein the sensor detects ultrasonic waves and converts the ultrasonic waves to electrical signals” and “an electrical connection that electrically connects to the sensor and outputs the electrical signals from the sensor”. These limitations may be interpreted as active steps being required to be performed. The 112b rejections of this manner may be easily overcome in this case by simply using language such as “configured to” (e.g., wherein the sensor is configured to detect ultrasonic waves). For the purposes of examination, any such limitations of the instant claims are interpreted as being “configured to” type limitations.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 8, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan (US 20190072525 A1) in view of Kraige et al. (US 20150241463 A1).Regarding claim 1:Flanagan teaches (FIG. 1) a sensing apparatus for detecting ultrasonic waves from a vibration-generating machine, the sensing apparatus comprising:
a housing (16);
an inner chamber (20) within the housing;
a sensor (12) at a first position of the inner chamber (top relative to FIG. 1), wherein the sensor detects ultrasonic waves and converts the ultrasonic waves to electrical signals (e.g., [0007]);
an electrical connection (28 or the connection between 28 and 12; [0032]) that electrically connects to the sensor and outputs the electrical signals from the sensor; and
an attachment mechanism (24 / 24 + 26) located at a second position of the inner chamber (at a bottom thereof; this limitation is also met upon combination), wherein the attachment mechanism is removably attachable to a machine to seal the inner chamber from external noise (e.g., [0006], [0039], [0044])Flanagan fails to teach:
the attachment mechanism is at least partially enclosed within the inner chamberKraige teaches (e.g., FIG. 4):
the attachment mechanism (magnet 136) is at least partially enclosed within the inner chamber (e.g., interior chamber formed by 104)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the attachment mechanism be at least partially enclosed within the inner chamber, as taught by Kraige, in the device of Flanagan, to protect the magnet from the external environment.
Regarding claim 2:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Flanagan also teaches:
wherein the attachment mechanism is a magnet (e.g., [0006], [0031]; this is also taught by Kraige)
Regarding claim 3:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Flanagan also teaches:
wherein the magnet includes an opening (e.g., FIGS. 3-4 and 6-8)
Regarding claim 4:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.Flanagan also teaches:
wherein the opening is configured to encompass a nut, bolt, or screw on the machine (the opening of Flanagan is inherently configured to encompass a nut, bolt, or screw of a diameter smaller than that of the opening - i.e., a nut, bolt, or screw with a diameter smaller than that of the opening can fit inside said opening)
Regarding claim 5:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Flanagan also teaches:
wherein the housing is made of rubber ([0009], [0034]-[0035])Flanagan fails to explicitly teach:
the rubber is silicone rubber
However, the examiner takes Official notice that silicone rubber is a well-known type of rubber for the use of forming a resiliently flexible tube. Still further, Flanagan teaches “rubber of polymer materials” ([0035]). As silicone itself is a polymer, silicone rubber is a polymer containing rubber. This further bolsters the examiners position that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it well-known and obvious to use silicone rubber as the rubber of Flanagan.
Regarding claim 6:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Flanagan also teaches:
wherein the housing shields the inner chamber from external noise (e.g., [0035])
Regarding claim 8:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Flanagan also teaches:
a display device connected to the connection port(inherent due to the generation of FIGS. 9A-C and associated discussion)
Regarding claim 17:Flanagan teaches (FIG. 1) a system for machine diagnostics comprising:
a machine (e.g., [0002], [0046]-[0047]; also taught/rendered obvious by Kraige - [0002]) with an engine that causes the machine to vibrate;
a sensing apparatus attached to the machine, the sensing apparatus comprising:
a housing (16);
an inner chamber (20) within the housing;
a sensor (12) at a first position of the inner chamber (top relative to FIG. 1), wherein the sensor detects ultrasonic waves and converts the ultrasonic waves to electrical signals (e.g., [0007]);
an electrical connection (28 or the connection between 28 and 12; [0032]) that electrically connects to the sensor and outputs the electrical signals; and
an attachment mechanism (24 / 24 + 26) located at a second position of the inner chamber (at a bottom thereof; this limitation is also met upon combination), wherein the attachment mechanism is removably attachable to the machine to seal the inner chamber from external noise (e.g., [0006], [0039], [0044])Flanagan fails to teach:
the attachment mechanism is at least partially enclosed within the inner chamberKraige teaches (e.g., FIG. 4):
the attachment mechanism (magnet 136) is at least partially enclosed within the inner chamber (e.g., interior chamber formed by 104)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the attachment mechanism be at least partially enclosed within the inner chamber, as taught by Kraige, in the device of Flanagan, to protect the magnet from the external environment.
Regarding claim 18:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Flanagan also teaches:
wherein the attachment mechanism is a magnet (e.g., [0006], [0031]; this is also taught by Kraige)
Regarding claim 19:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 18, as mentioned above.Flanagan also teaches:
wherein the magnet includes an opening (e.g., FIGS. 3-4 and 6-8)
Regarding claim 20:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Flanagan also teaches:
wherein the housing is made of rubber ([0009], [0034]-[0035])Flanagan fails to explicitly teach:
the rubber is silicone rubber
However, the examiner takes Official notice that silicone rubber is a well-known type of rubber for the use of forming a resiliently flexible tube. Still further, Flanagan teaches “rubber of polymer materials” ([0035]). As silicone itself is a polymer, silicone rubber is a polymer containing rubber. This further bolsters the examiners position that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it well-known and obvious to use silicone rubber as the rubber of Flanagan.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flanagan (US 20190072525 A1) in view of Kraige et al. (US 20150241463 A1) and further in view of Kloss et al. (WO 2013135273 A1 - all citations are to the attached English translation).Regarding claim 7:Flanagan and Kraige teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Flanagan fails to teach:
wherein the electrical connection is an integrated circuit piezoelectric (ICP) interfaceKloss teaches:
wherein the electrical connection is an integrated circuit piezoelectric (ICP) interface ([0004]-[0005], [0021]-[0022], [0036])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ICP electrical connection, as taught by Kloss, in the device of Flanagan to allow for the sensor to be directly connected to existing IEPE devices. Additionally / alternatively, the ICP connection of KIoss is an art-recognized equivalent to the electrical connection of Flanagan. Additionally / alternatively, Flanagan is silent as to the specific type of connection used. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look elsewhere for an appropriate connection. Kloss provides the well-known ICP / IEPE standard.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855