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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 16 February 2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-17 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2/16/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lebendt et al. (Publication No.: US 2020/0131987 A1, herein known as D1).
With respect to claim 1, D1 discloses a method for monitoring an operation of an internal combustion engine, the method comprising the steps of:
detecting, during the operation of the internal combustion engine, an acoustic signal, at least partially, during a closing process of a gas exchange valve of the internal combustion engine;
evaluating, based on the acoustic signal which is detected, at least one functional state of the internal combustion engine (claim 1; [0015]-[0017] for a gas exchange valve in particular to be evaluated by a structure-borne sound sensor); and
selecting the at least one functional state of the internal combustion engine from a group consisting of a state of the gas exchange valve and a state of a structure-borne noise sensor used to detect the acoustic signal (claim 1, [0024]).
With respect to claim 2, D1 further discloses a method wherein the acoustic signal is at least partially detected during a closing process of an inlet valve of the internal combustion engine (valve clearance is measured, which is done in the closing process; [0015]).
With respect to claims 3-5, D1 further discloses a method wherein the acoustic signal is detected in a detection range from 240 degrees KW to 135 degrees KW (claim 3), 225 to 135 (claim 4) or 210 to 150KW (claim 5), before a top dead center of a piston of the internal combustion engine assigned to an ignition timing ([0024] and [0031] see recitations below).
[0024]: “In the spectrogram, therefore, acoustic amplitudes are plotted over a crank angle between 0 and 720° CA and a frequency between 0 and 30 kHz. Alternatively, any other frequency range may be analyzed if this is important for the wear condition of a component. A reference point of the spectrogram, which consists of a crank angle, a frequency and a frequency amplitude, is hereinafter referred to as a “feature”. There is a certain number of features per spectrogram depending on the resolution. According to the invention, an increment of 5° CA is advantageously selected for the resolution of the crank angle so that a corresponding number of features results for a spectrogram.”
[0031]: “The measurement signals are synchronized via the crank angle to the top dead center of the high-pressure phase of the first cylinder within a working cycle of the internal combustion engine”.
With respect to claim 15, D1 appears to further disclose a method wherein the operation of the internal combustion engine with a plurality of combustion chambers is monitored, wherein an acoustic signal is detected separately for each individual one of the plurality of combustion chambers, and wherein the at least one functional state of the internal combustion engine is evaluated with respect to each individual one of the plurality of combustion chambers (D1 describes testing multiple chambers and engine locations in claims 1 and [0024]).
Even if this is not the case, it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious variant over the prior art of record. In this case, detecting faults in each chamber of the engine would allow for a more complete understanding of the condition of the engine.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, see the rejection of claim 1 above. The structure required to perform the method is described in D1 and needed for the method rejected above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With respect to claim 7, D1 does not explicitly disclose a method wherein a magnitude variable of the acoustic signal which is detected is formed, from which a magnitude signal is obtained.
However, this appears to be a simple manipulation of a signal which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would be capable of performing, and D1 discloses manipulating and transforming the signal data before being evaluated by the regression models (claim 1; [0024]).
With respect to claim 9, D1 does not explicitly disclose a method wherein the acoustic signal which is detected is integrated over an integration range within the detection range, from which an integral value is obtained.
However, this appears to be a simple manipulation of a signal which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would be capable of performing, and D1 discloses manipulating and transforming the signal data before being evaluated by the regression models (claim 1; [0024]).
With respect to claim 11, see the rejection of claims 7 and 9 above.
It should be noted that with these claims, the claims are only directed towards the modification of a signal, which is held to be obvious. Claims 12-14, on the other hand, perform calculations and evaluations with these signals, and therefore considered to be more and are the reasons for the indications of allowable subject matter below (as these manipulations and calculations are not explicitly laid out in D1 and considered to be more than just manipulating the signals).
It should also be noted that Publication No.: DE 10 2005 058 863A1, cited in full below, teaches determining the peak value and integrating the signals for evaluation (“An evaluation of the signal strength of the characteristic signals 101 - 106 can be done, for example, that simply the peak value, that is, the maximum deflection of the characteristic signals 101 - 106 compared with each other. Another way to evaluate the signal strength is to evaluate the energy content of the characteristic signals. Such an evaluation of the energy content can be done, for example, that the characteristic signals 101 - 106 each rectified and then the rectified signal is integrated”). However, as noted above, there is no indication to be using thresholds, time, or other evaluation methods using these modified signals to determine an engine state.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Horlbeck et al. (Publication No.: US 2013/0340512 A1, herein known as D2).
With respect to claim 6, D1 does not explicitly disclose a method wherein the acoustic signal which is detected is filtered by way of a low-pass filter, from which a filtered acoustic signal is obtained (no filtering is described).
D2 teaches receiving an audio signal sample from an engine to determine a misfire condition, and utilizes a low-pass filter to reduce frequency components that do not correspond to the desired measurements, reflections and resonances in the signal path, or other noise ([0076]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of D1 by utilizing low-pass filters to filter the signal as taught by D2 in order to reduce noise and other artifacts to improve accuracy of the acoustic detection.
With respect to claim 8, see the rejection of claims 6 and 7 above.
With respect to claim 10, see the rejection of claims 6 and 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 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.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kluth et al. (Publication No.: DE 10 2005 058 863 A1), cited above
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
3/21/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852