DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-14 and 17- 20 are allowed for having essentially the allowable subject matters indicated in the Office action of 2/27/2026.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder (US 2023/0175923 A1) in view of Geropp et al. (DE 19702234 A1; hereinafter “Geropp.” This Office action provides a machine translation of Geropp).
Schroeder teaches a method for detecting a bearing failure condition for a disk gang assembly (44) of an agricultural implement (10), the disk gang assembly (44) comprising a shaft (73), a bearing (75) rotatably supporting the shaft (73) for rotation about a rotational axis (71), and a plurality of disks (46) supported on the shaft (73) for rotation with the shaft (73) about the rotational axis (71), the method comprising (See fig. 3, reproduced below):
receiving, with a computing system 110 (Fig. 4), data generated by a sensor (80) provided in operative association with the disk gang assembly (44), the data being indicative of a disk gang-related parameter (e.g., loading, strain, etc.; Par. 0036);
identifying, with the computing system, when the bearing (75) is experiencing a bearing failure condition based at least in part on an evaluation of the data (Abstract; Pars. 0030-0032); and
performing, with the computing system, a control action associated with the agricultural implement (10) when the bearing (75) is identified as experiencing the bearing failure condition (as is obvious per Schroeder Pars. 0019; 0053-0054).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schroeder doesn’t teach:
the data generated by the sensor (80) provided in operative association with the bearing (75), the data being indicative of a bearing-related parameter;
converting, with the computing system, the data to a frequency domain using a spectral analysis technique, the data converted to the frequency domain indicating a magnitude of the bearing-related parameter at a detected rotational frequency;
identifying, with the computing system, when the bearing (75) is experiencing a bearing failure condition when the magnitude of the bearing-related parameter at the detected rotational frequency is greater than a baseline magnitude of the bearing-related parameter by at least a threshold difference.
Geropp teaches a method for detecting a bearing failure condition for a machine part, the machine part comprising a rotating part having a bearing, the method comprising (See fig. 2, reproduced and annotated below):
receiving, with a computing system (6-9), data generated by a sensor 5 (which may be a vibration sensor) provided in operative association with the bearing (of the rotating part; Pars. 0001, 0027), the data being indicative of a bearing-related parameter (e.g., vibration);
converting, with the computing system (6-9), the data to a frequency domain using a spectral analysis technique (e.g., a Fourier transformation; Fig. 2 below; Pars. 0004, 0016, 0027), the data converted to the frequency domain indicating a magnitude of the bearing-related parameter at a detected rotational frequency (detected by a further sensor 10 shown in fig. 2; Pars. 0001, 0027-0028);
identifying, with the computing system, when the bearing is experiencing a bearing failure condition when the magnitude of the bearing-related parameter (vibration) at the detected rotational frequency is greater than a baseline magnitude of the bearing-related parameter essentially by at least a threshold difference (Abstract; Pars. 0011, 0022, 0025); and
triggering, with the computing system, an alarm associated with the machine part when the bearing is identified as experiencing the bearing failure condition (Pars. 0011-0012, 0025).
The method may at least modify the threshold difference based on a speed, and/or load, and/or stress of the rotating part on the bearing in order to accurately identify when the bearing is experiencing the bearing failure condition (Abstract; Pars. 0008-0013, 0015-0016, 0021-0022).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
878
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Geropp teaching to Schroeder method by having the data generated by the sensor (80) provided in operative association with the bearing (75), the data being indicative of a bearing-related parameter; converting, with the computing system, the data to a frequency domain using a spectral analysis technique, the data converted to the frequency domain indicating a magnitude of the bearing-related parameter at a detected rotational frequency; identifying, with the computing system, when the bearing (75) is experiencing a bearing failure condition when the magnitude of the bearing-related parameter at the detected rotational frequency is greater than a baseline magnitude of the bearing-related parameter by at least a threshold difference. As such, the method may at least modify the threshold difference based on a speed, and/or load, and/or stress of the disk gang assembly (44) on the bearing (75) in order to accurately identify when the bearing (75) is experiencing the bearing failure condition.
23. Schroeder as modified teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the detected rotational frequency is a rotational frequency of the plurality of disks 46 (that would be detected by the further sensor 10 taught by Geropp. See discussion above in claim 21).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder in view of Geropp as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Thomson (US 9,989,439 B2).
Schroeder as modified teaches the method of claim 21, but is silent about: wherein receiving the data generated by the sensor (80/5) comprises receiving the data from a draft load sensor, the data being indicative of a load on the bearing (75).
Thomson teaches a method for detecting a bearing failure condition for mechanical systems (like wind turbines, trains, trucks, automobiles, etc.; Col. 1, lines 20-32), the method comprising receiving data generated by a sensor (12) being a draft load sensor (12), the data being indicative of a load on a bearing 10 (as is evident from at least in fig. 1, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
608
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1146
762
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note: Similar to Schroeder as modified, Thomson also teaches that the sensor 12 (Fig. 1) is provided in operative association with the bearing (10), the sensor (12) being configured to generate data indicative of a bearing-related parameter (e.g., vibrations of the bearing 10; Abstract);
and a computing system 14 (Fig. 1) configured to:
receive the data generated by the sensor 12 (Fig. 2, S100; Thomson claim 1);
convert the data to a frequency domain using a spectral analysis technique (e.g., Fourier Transform; S101; Thomson claim 1); and
identify when the bearing (10) is experiencing a bearing failure condition based at least in part on an evaluation of the data converted to the frequency domain (S107; Thomson claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to apply Thomson teaching to Schroeder method as modified by having the receiving the data generated by the sensor (80/5) comprises receiving the data from a draft load sensor (as an alternative), the data being indicative of a load on the bearing (75), so as to identify when the bearing (75) is experiencing the bearing failure condition as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed with the response on 5/27/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 11 and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schroeder and Geropp with respect to independent claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nguyen (Wyn) Q. Ha whose telephone number is (571) 272-2863, email: nguyenq.ha@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4:30 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/Nguyen Q. Ha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights