NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 § 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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barber (US 6,285,972, B1, cited by the applicants) in view of Fu Xiang et al. (CN 114755027 A, cited by the applicants, “Xiang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Barber discloses a computer implemented method (fig.1-2, col.3; line 44 – col.4; line 59) of controlling a physical system having at least one actuator (fig.1; element 15) coupled to a test specimen (fig.1; element 18) to apply forces to or displace the test specimen of portions thereof, the physical system receiving a drive (element 17) comprising a plurality of drive command signals (col.4; lines 7-10) from a controller (element 23) for the at least one actuator (element 15) and outputting a response (element 21) to the controller (element 23), the response comprising a plurality of outputs from sensors (elements 20) measuring parameters of the physical system (fig.1-2, col.4; line 44 – col.4; line 13), the method comprising: accessing pre-qualified reference data (desired response data 22) comprising pre-qualified reference values for the outputs (actuator command signal 19), (col.3; lines 58-63; col.4; lines 46-49, col.7; lines 4-18, Fig.3D); generating a first drive using the controller and applying the first drive to the physical system (first iteration from the iterative process in fig.8A-8C, col.6; lines 15-49); receiving, using the controller, a first response from the physical system (col.6; lines 15-35); for each output of the first response, comparing a received value with the associated one or more first limit values (preselected threshold disclosed in col.6; lines 15-35, Claim 1 (h)).
As to the limitation “rendering to an operator on a display one or more acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response,” Barber teaches a computer 30;2 and col.6; lines 15-23 discloses threshold values. Thus, the limitation may be implicitly taught by Barber.
Barber does not explicitly teach regarding rendering to an operator on a display one or more acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response; and identifying to the operator on the display one or more outputs having a value violating one or more of the acceptable first limit values for the associated output of the first response.
However, Xiang teaches provides a multi-axis loading test bench and test method and medium for a whole vehicle, which can upgrade the elevator main control program without stopping the machine and without manual operation [0004] wherein the test system responsible for real-time monitoring of the test bench and test vehicle is equipped with corresponding fault diagnosis alarm and feedback adjustment functions, which are divided into three levels of fault diagnosis protection [0070]. (1) Level 1 fault is when some monitoring parameter values exceed the set limit. If the test continues, it will not cause damage to the prototype or equipment, nor will it have a significant impact on the test results [0071]. (2) Level 2 faults occur when certain monitoring parameter values exceed the set limits. If the test continues, it may damage the prototype or equipment [0072]. (3) Level 3 faults are the highest level of faults, such as when a wheel is significantly out of contact with the double rollers; the dynamometer makes abnormal noise or smokes; the belt breaks or is obviously plastically deformed; the constant velocity joint has cracks; the connecting bolts fall off or break; the electromagnetic clutch makes abnormal noise or malfunctions; the front and rear sensors fail or have obvious measurement errors; cracks appear in the corresponding stress concentration parts of the suspension or the vehicle; and other situations that affect the safety and results of the test. Press the emergency stop switch to immediately cut off all power and stop the test [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Barber by incorporating the teaching of Xiang regarding fault diagnosis alarm and feedback adjustment functions because utilizing the teaching one of ordinary skill in the art may teach the limitation “render to an operator on a display one or more acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response; and identify to the operator on the display one or more outputs having a value violating one or more of the acceptable first limit values for the associated output of the first response” which would prevent damage to the test vehicle or test equipment caused by abnormal data, excessive battery temperature, hardware cracks, excessive load, etc [0070].
Regarding Claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches that the method further comprising calculating the first acceptable limit values from pre-qualified reference values corresponding to each output ((col.3; lines 58-63; col.4; lines 46-49, col.7; lines 4-18, Fig.3D) teach regarding desired response data and manipulation. Utilizing the teaching of Barber one of ordinary skill in the art may calculate the first acceptable limit values from pre-qualified reference values corresponding to each output. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by barber).
Regarding Claim 3, the method of claim 2 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Modified Barber further teaches wherein rendering to the operator on the display includes rendering the pre-qualified reference value for associated output and identifying that the pre-qualified reference value is to be replaced with a value from the received response (Xiang: [0070-0073]).
Regarding Claim 4, the method of claim 3 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches that the method further comprising replacing each pre-qualified reference value with the associated value from the response when the associated value does not violate the associated first acceptable limit values (implicitly taught in col.3; lines 58-63; col.4; lines 46-49, col.7; lines 4-18, Fig.3D).
Regarding Claim 5, the method of claim 1 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Modified Barber further teaches that the method further comprising after rendering to the operator on the display the one or more acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response, receiving input from the operator comprising one or more adjustments to the one or more acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response (Xiang: [0070] - fault diagnosis alarm and feedback adjustment functions can function the limitation).
Regarding Claim 6, the method of claim 5 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Modified Barber discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each limit adjustment value is indicative of a percentage. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make each limit adjustment value as indicative of a percentage, since applicant has not disclosed that such percentage conversion solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with method of modified Barber.
Regarding Claim 7, the method of claim 1 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches wherein the acceptable first limit values correspond to a statistical measure of each output measured over a time period (col.10; lines 7-21), the statistical measure being at least one of a minimum value during the time period, a maximum value during the time period, a mean value during the time period, a root mean square value during the time period, or a standard deviation value during the time period (col.10; lines 7-21 implicitly teaches the limitation based on fact that the statistical measure such as a minimum value during the time period, a maximum value during the time period, a mean value during the time period, a root mean square value during the time period, or a standard deviation value during the time period are well known mathematical operation in the art).
Regarding Claim 8, the method of claim 7 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Modified Barber further discloses wherein one or more of the outputs have associated acceptable first limit values associated with two or more statistical measures, and wherein identifying comprises identifying which associated acceptable first limit value of which statistical parameter has been violated (Xiang: [0070] - fault diagnosis alarm and feedback adjustment functions can function the limitation).
Regarding Claim 9, the method of claim 1 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches the method further comprising: prior to obtaining the acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response, deriving the first drive by applying successive test drives to the physical system and comparing associated received responses until the associated received response suitably corresponds to a desired response, and then storing the desired response as the pre-qualified reference data (Fig.6).
Regarding Claim 10, the method of claim 2 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches the method further comprising: accessing pre-qualified second reference data comprising pre-qualified second reference values for the outputs and rendering to the operator on the display one or more acceptable second limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response; after applying the first drive, generating a second drive using the controller and applying the second drive to the physical system; receiving, using the controller, a second response from the physical system; for each output of the second response, comparing a received value with the associated one or more second limit values; and identifying to the operator on the display one or more outputs having a value violating one or more of the acceptable second limit values for the associated output of the second response (implicitly taught in col.3; lines 58-63; col.4; lines 46-49, col.7; lines 4-18, Fig.3D).
Regarding Claim 11, Barber teaches a testing system for testing a test specimen (fig.1-2, col.3; line 44 – col.4; line 59), the testing system comprising: an actuator (fig.1; element 15) couplable to the test specimen (fig.1; element 18) to apply forces (element 17, a drive) to or displace the test specimen of portions thereof (col.3; lines 44-67); sensors (element 20) for providing outputs of measured parameters of the test specimen or the actuator (col.3; lines 44-63); memory (element 34) having pre-qualified reference data (col.6; lines 46-49); a display (computer 30 implicitly comprises a display); and a controller (element 23) coupled to the memory (element 34) and the display (computer 30 implicitly comprises a display) and configured to control the actuator using drives (col.4; lines 7-10) and configured to receive associated responses (element 21) comprising the outputs from sensors (element 20) and wherein the controller is configured to render on the display one or more acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response (fig.1-2, col.4; line 44 – col.4; line 13), the one or more acceptable first limit values being based on a pre-qualified reference values (desired response data 22) in the pre-qualified reference data for each output (actuator command signal 19) (col.3; lines 58-63; col.4; lines 46-49, col.7; lines 4-18, Fig.3D); generate a first drive using the controller and apply the first drive to the actuator (first iteration from the iterative process in fig.8A-8C, col.6; lines 15-49); receive a first response from the sensors (col.6; lines 15-35); for each output of the first response, comparing a received value with the associated one or more first limit values (preselected threshold disclosed in col.6; lines 15-35, Claim 1 (h)).
Barber does not explicitly teach regarding identifying to the operator on the display one or more outputs having a value violating one or more of the acceptable first limit values for the associated output of the first response.
However, Xiang teaches provides a multi-axis loading test bench and test method and medium for a whole vehicle, which can upgrade the elevator main control program without stopping the machine and without manual operation [0004] wherein the test system responsible for real-time monitoring of the test bench and test vehicle is equipped with corresponding fault diagnosis alarm and feedback adjustment functions, which are divided into three levels of fault diagnosis protection [0070]. (1) Level 1 fault is when some monitoring parameter values exceed the set limit. If the test continues, it will not cause damage to the prototype or equipment, nor will it have a significant impact on the test results [0071]. (2) Level 2 faults occur when certain monitoring parameter values exceed the set limits. If the test continues, it may damage the prototype or equipment [0072]. (3) Level 3 faults are the highest level of faults, such as when a wheel is significantly out of contact with the double rollers; the dynamometer makes abnormal noise or smokes; the belt breaks or is obviously plastically deformed; the constant velocity joint has cracks; the connecting bolts fall off or break; the electromagnetic clutch makes abnormal noise or malfunctions; the front and rear sensors fail or have obvious measurement errors; cracks appear in the corresponding stress concentration parts of the suspension or the vehicle; and other situations that affect the safety and results of the test. Press the emergency stop switch to immediately cut off all power and stop the test [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system of Barber by incorporating the teaching of Xiang regarding fault diagnosis alarm and feedback adjustment functions because utilizing the teaching one of ordinary skill in the art may teach the limitation “identifying to the operator on the display one or more outputs having a value violating one or more of the acceptable first limit values for the associated output of the first response” which would prevent damage to the test vehicle or test equipment caused by abnormal data, excessive battery temperature, hardware cracks, excessive load, etc [0070].
Regarding Claim 12, the testing system of claim 11 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches wherein the controller is configured to calculate the first acceptable limit values from the pre-qualified reference value corresponding to each output ((col.3; lines 58-63; col.4; lines 46-49, col.7; lines 4-18, Fig.3D) teach regarding desired response data and manipulation. Utilizing the teaching of Barber one of ordinary skill in the art may calculate the first acceptable limit values from pre-qualified reference values corresponding to each output. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by barber).
Regarding Claim 13, the testing system of claim 12 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Modified Barber further teaches wherein rendering to the operator on the display includes rendering the pre-qualified reference value for associated output and identifying that the pre-qualified reference value is to be replaced with a value from the received response (Xiang: [0070-0073]).
Regarding Claim 14, the testing system of claim 13 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches wherein the controller is configured to replace each pre-qualified reference value with the associated value from the response when the associated value does not violate the associated first acceptable limit values (implicitly taught in col.3; lines 58-63; col.4; lines 46-49, col.7; lines 4-18, Fig.3D).
Regarding Claim 15, the testing system of claim 14 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Modified Barber further teaches wherein the controller is configured to receive input from the operator comprising one or more adjustments to the one or more acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response (Xiang: [0070] - fault diagnosis alarm and feedback adjustment functions can function the limitation).
Regarding Claim 16, the testing system of claim 14 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches wherein the acceptable first limit values correspond to a statistical measure of each output measured over a time period (col.10; lines 7-21), the statistical measure being at least one of a minimum value during the time period, a maximum value during the time period, a mean value during the time period, a root mean square value during the time period, or a standard deviation value during the time period (col.10; lines 7-21 implicitly teaches the limitation based on fact that the statistical measure such as a minimum value during the time period, a maximum value during the time period, a mean value during the time period, a root mean square value during the time period, or a standard deviation value during the time period are well known mathematical operation in the art).
Regarding Claim 17, the testing system of claim 16 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Modified Barber further teaches wherein one or more of the outputs have associated acceptable first limit values associated with two or more statistical measures, and wherein identifying comprises identifying which associated acceptable first limit value of which statistical parameter has been violated (Xiang: [0070] - fault diagnosis alarm and feedback adjustment functions can function the limitation).
Regarding Claim 18, the testing system of claim 17 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches wherein the controller is configured to prior to obtaining the acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response, derive the first drive by applying successive test drives to the actuator and comparing associated received responses until the associated received response suitably corresponds to a desired response, and then store the desired response as the pre-qualified reference data (Fig.6).
Regarding Claim 19, the testing system of claim 17 is taught by Barber in view of Xiang.
Barber further teaches wherein the controller is configured to access pre-qualified second reference data comprising pre-qualified second reference values for the outputs and render on the display one or more acceptable second limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response; after applying the first drive, generate a second drive using the controller and apply the second drive to the actuator; receive a second response from sensors; for each output of the second response, compare a received value with the associated one or more second limit values; and identify on the display one or more outputs having a value violating one or more of the acceptable second limit values for the associated output of the second response (implicitly taught in col.3; lines 58-63; col.4; lines 46-49, col.7; lines 4-18, Fig.3D).
Regarding Claim 20, the testing system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to after rendering on the display the one or more acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response, receive input from an input device, the input comprising one or more adjustments to the one or more acceptable first limit values associated with each of the outputs of the response (Xiang: [0070] - fault diagnosis alarm and feedback adjustment functions can function the limitation).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Muthukumar (US 20150005982 A1) teaches an invention related to automobile or transportation domain and more particularly into vehicles utilising pneumatic tires [0001].
Watson et al. (US 3389789 A) teaches a flaw detector for inspecting material such as, for ex- ample, wood products and the like, includes a television camera for scanning across the material as such material is moved relative to the camera on a conveyor. The camera produces an output indicative of flaws or imperfections therein, and the number of flaw indications is totaled in a counter. As plural scans intersect the inspected material within a predetermined distance 'along the material, indicating a flaw bridging such distance, an additional value is added to the cumulative count. Plural actuating means responsive to the counter classify the material according to flaw content [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 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.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855