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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1–9, and 13–16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nackers et al. (US Pat. # 11840826), hereinafter referred to as Nackers.
Regarding claim 1, Nackers teaches, “A work machine (Fig. 1) comprising: a frame (110); a controller (Fig. 2, ref. # 154) configured to control operation of the work machine; an implement (124) supported by the frame; a hydraulic cylinder (120) connected to the implement and the frame, configured to be actuated by an operator input (ref. # 108; col. 4, ln. 35–39) connected to the controller; and a sensor (144b, 146c1, 146c2, 146d1, 146d2) attached to the hydraulic cylinder and connected to the controller, the sensor configured to gather actuation data, the controller configured to receive the actuation data from the sensor, evaluate a drift rate of the hydraulic cylinder, and provide a service notification if the drift rate is greater than a drift threshold (col. 25, ln. 66–col. 26, ln. 9; col. 26, ln. 35–44; col. 27, ln. 24–45; col. 28, ln. 12–32; abstract and col. 9, ln. 7–15; determining status of drift as “out of specification” or “normal/passing” teaches the evaluation within or out of a threshold).”
Regarding claim 2, Nackers teaches, “wherein the actuation data from the sensor further comprises a displacement of the hydraulic cylinder (col. 25, ln. 66–col. 26, ln. 9; col. 26, ln. 35–44; col. 27, ln. 24–45; col. 28, ln. 12–32).”
Regarding claim 3, Nackers teaches, “wherein the actuation data from the sensor further comprises a rotational position of the implement relative to the frame (col. 5, ln. 29–54; col. 21, ln. 22–30).”
Regarding claim 4, Nackers teaches, “wherein the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors (col. 5, ln. 29–54).”
Regarding claim 5, Nackers teaches, “wherein the plurality of sensors further comprises a position sensor (see at least col. 26, ln. 14–28; ref. # 144b; length measured).”
Regarding claim 6, Nackers teaches, “wherein the plurality of sensors further comprises an angle sensor (ref. # 142; col. 21, ln. 22–30; col. 5, ln. 29–54).”
Regarding claim 7, Nackers teaches, “wherein the plurality of sensors further comprises a cylinder pressure sensor (see at least ref. # 146c2, 146d2; col. 22, ln. 10–col. 23, ln. 14).”
Regarding claim 8, Nackers teaches, “A hydraulic cylinder (120), comprising: a cylinder body having a first body end and a second body end, the cylinder body having a cylinder connector at the second body end, the cylinder body being hollow (col. 4, ln. 65–col. 5, ln. 5); a rod having a first rod end and a second rod end, the rod having a rod connector at the first rod end (col. 4, ln. 65–col. 5, ln. 5); a piston connected to the second rod end, the piston interfacing with an inside wall of the cylinder body (the cylinder rod combo as described inherently includes a piston, which is inherent to a hydraulic cylinder; see col. 4, ln. 65–col. 5, ln. 5); a sensor (144b, 146c1, 146c2, 146d1, 146d2) disposed on the hydraulic cylinder (120), the sensor configured to measure an actuation of the hydraulic cylinder; and a controller (Fig. 2, ref. # 154) connected to the sensor, the controller configured to receive a measurement of the actuation from the sensor, evaluate a drift rate of the hydraulic cylinder, and provide a service notification if the drift rate is greater than a drift threshold (col. 25, ln. 66–col. 26, ln. 9; col. 26, ln. 35–44; col. 27, ln. 24–45; col. 28, ln. 12–32; abstract and col. 9, ln. 7–15; determining status of drift as “out of specification” or “normal/passing” teaches the evaluation within or out of a threshold).”
Regarding claim 9, Nackers teaches, “a first volume within the cylinder body between the piston and the second body end and a second volume within the cylinder body, surrounding the rod, between the piston and the first body end (the cylinder rod combo as described inherently includes a piston, which is inherent to a hydraulic cylinder; see col. 4, ln. 65–col. 5, ln. 5).”
Regarding claim 13, Nackers teaches, “wherein the sensor is a position sensor, and the actuation of the hydraulic cylinder is measured as displacement of the rod relative to the cylinder body (see at least col. 26, ln. 14–28; ref. # 144b; length measured).”
Regarding claim 14, Nackers teaches, “wherein the sensor is an angle sensor, and the actuation of the hydraulic cylinder is measured as change in a rotational position of the hydraulic cylinder (ref. # 142; col. 21, ln. 22–30; col. 5, ln. 29–54).”
Regarding claim 15, Nackers teaches, “A method of monitoring drift in a hydraulic cylinder (120), comprising: providing a work machine having an implement actuated by the hydraulic cylinder (see Fig. 1, ref. # 124, 120), a sensor (144b, 146c1, 146c2, 146d1, 146d2) attached to the hydraulic cylinder configured to measure a displacement of the hydraulic cylinder and a controller (154); identifying a cycle start of the hydraulic cylinder; identifying a cycle end of the hydraulic cylinder (status of drift determined and in/out of specification determination required to have a start/stop cycle time determination; see col. 25, ln. 66–col. 26, ln. 9; col. 26, ln. 35–44; col. 27, ln. 24–45; col. 28, ln. 12–32); calculating a drift rate of the hydraulic cylinder (see below); determining if the drift rate is greater than a drift threshold (see below); and notifying service personnel that service of the hydraulic cylinder is required, if the drift rate is greater than the drift threshold (col. 25, ln. 66–col. 26, ln. 9; col. 26, ln. 35–44; col. 27, ln. 24–45; col. 28, ln. 12–32; abstract and col. 9, ln. 7–15; determining status of drift as “out of specification” or “normal/passing” teaches the evaluation within or out of a threshold).”
Regarding claim 16, Nackers teaches, “the step of identifying the cycle start further comprising recording a start displacement of the hydraulic cylinder, and a start time; and the step of identifying the cycle end further comprising recording an end displacement of the hydraulic cylinder, and an end time (col. 25, ln. 66–col. 26, ln. 9; col. 26, ln. 35–44; col. 27, ln. 24–45; col. 28, ln. 12–32).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nackers (US Pat. # 11840826).
Regarding claim 20, Nackers teaches a processor including a microcontroller and digital signal processor (DSP) (see Col. 7, Ln. 53–Col. 8, Ln. 4), but does not necessarily teach, “applying a digital filter after calculating the drift rate in order to remove excess noise or outlier points.” However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nacker’s invention to include applying a digital filter after calculating the drift rate in order to remove excess noise or outlier points for at least the purpose of eliminating bad data from the testing process, resulting more accurate detection. Here the examiner takes Official notice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10–12, 17–18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 10–12, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “a first orifice at the first body end of the cylinder body having a first fluid passage connecting the first orifice to the first volume”, in combination with the previously claimed language.
Regarding claims 17–18, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “wherein calculating the drift rate further comprises calculating a delta displacement between the start displacement and the end displacement, and calculating a delta time between the start time and the end time.”
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “after calculating the drift rate further comprising the steps of: calculating a rate of change of the drift rate; predicting a target date when the drift rate will exceed the drift threshold; and notifying service personnel that service of the hydraulic cylinder is required at the target date.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach hydraulic cylinder monitoring apparatuses and methods with configurations similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852