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
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)(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 1-2, 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Discenzo US publication no.: US 2010/0076714 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Discenzo teaches, A motor monitoring sensor (see figure 1 and paragraphs 8-9 and 55), comprising: an acceleration sensor (see paragraph 106, where an accelerometer is disclosed) attachable to a motor to be monitored to detect vibration of the motor (see paragraph 55 where the sensor is attached to a motor); a processor (processing element 112, figure 3) configured to generate state information indicating a state of the motor based on a detection value indicating the vibration of the motor detected by the acceleration sensor (see paragraph 104 “condition of equipment/motor or machine” and paragraph 107); a transmitter (wireless transceiver 302, figure 3) configured to transmit the generated state information to a host device (see paragraph 77); and a vibration-powered generator attachable to the motor to generate power with the vibration of the motor and supply the generated power to the acceleration sensor, the processor, and the transmitter (see paragraph 113 and figure 9 where the power is supplied to the components via generator).
Regarding claim 2, Discenzo teaches, the motor monitoring sensor according to claim 1, wherein the vibration-powered generator includes a vibration power generation element configured to generate power with the vibration of the motor and a power storage configured to store the power generated by the vibration power generation element, and the vibration-powered generator supplies the power stored in the power storage to the processor and the transmitter (see figure 9 and paragraphs 113-114 where there are elements like energy storage component and a generator component within the adaptive self-powered sensor).
Regarding claim 4, Discenzo teaches, the motor monitoring sensor according to claim 1, wherein the processor adds, to the state information, information indicating that the motor is stopped in response to the power supplied from the vibration-powered generator being less than or equal to a predetermined threshold (see “distress message” paragraphs 93-94).
Regarding claim 6, Discenzo teaches, the motor monitoring sensor according to claim 1, wherein the processor generates the state information based on time-series data about the detection value detected by the acceleration sensor (see paragraphs 86 and 109).
Regarding claim 7, Discenzo teaches, the motor monitoring sensor according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines a failure value indicating a degree of failure of the motor based on the detection value and adds the failure value to the state information (see paragraph 149).
Regarding claim 8, Discenzo teaches, the motor monitoring sensor according to claim 7, wherein the failure value includes three or more levels of index values each corresponding to the degree of failure of the motor (see paragraph 109 and 149-151).
Regarding claim 9, Discenzo teaches, the motor monitoring sensor according to claim 7, wherein the failure value includes an index value indicating normality of the motor (see paragraph 109 for “no major equipment fault”) or an index value indicating abnormality of the motor.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Discenzo US publication no.: US 2010/0076714 A1 in view of Baldwin US publication no.: US 2012/0041695 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Discenzo is silent on specifically teaching, the motor monitoring sensor according to claim 1, further comprising: a battery, wherein the motor monitoring sensor supplies power from the battery to the processor and the transmitter in response to the power generated by the vibration-powered generator being insufficient to drive the processor and the transmitter
However, Baldwin is in the same field of art and teaches: a battery, wherein the motor monitoring sensor supplies power from the battery to the processor and the transmitter in response to the power generated by the vibration-powered generator being insufficient to drive the processor and the transmitter (see figure 10 for battery and paragraphs 124-127).
In view of Baldwin’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Discenzo to include; a battery, wherein the motor monitoring sensor supplies power from the battery to the processor and the transmitter in response to the power generated by the vibration-powered generator being insufficient to drive the processor and the transmitter, for the purpose providing an variant power source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHEB S IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4308. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-730pm.
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, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/ZOHEB S IMTIAZ/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights