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 .
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.
Priority
US National Stage of PCT
Acknowledgment is made that this application is the US national phase of international application PCT/JP2022/028270 filed 07/20/2022 which designated the U.S. and claims the benefit of JP2021-139382, filed 08/27/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 08/25/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered based thereon. Please see NOTE below.
Examiner additionally notes that JP-20192731-A appears to be an incomplete number.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the Examiner on form PTO-892 or properly by Applicant in an IDS, they have not been considered.
NOTE: The Examiner has endeavored to correct the aforementioned deficiencies; please see PTO-892 to verify the references desired to be considered have been considered and are of record.
Drawings
The drawings (fig(s). 1-2 & 4) are objected to because unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a) which states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
The drawings are correspondingly objected to for failing to comply with PCT Rule 11 as catchwords are indispensable to the understanding of the unlabeled non-descriptive representations, wherein PCT Rule 11.11 Words in Drawings states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawings shall not contain text matter, except a single word or words, when absolutely indispensable, such as "water," "steam," "open," "closed," "section on AB," and, in the case of electric circuits and block schematic or flow sheet diagrams, a few short catchwords indispensable for understanding.
(b) Any words used shall be so placed that, if translated, they may be pasted over without interfering with any lines of the drawings.
Non-descriptive representation(s) of what appears to be amplifier 170 in fig. 1 (in fig. 1, this is merely a blank box; see fig. 2 for reference), 171, 172, 135, 136 of fig. 2, and 135 of fig. 4 need (an) appropriate legend(s) in the form of descriptive text label(s) in addition to any reference character(s) already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. The Examiner emphasizes that the requested text matter is indispensable for proper understanding. The descriptive text labels should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(n) (conventional symbols), 1.84(o) (required descriptive legends), & 1.84(p) (standards for the text labels), MPEP § 608.02(b)(II)(¶ 6.22) (“descriptive text label”), and MPEP Appendix T Rule 11.11. Appropriate Correction is required.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that reference characters are not properly applied (fig. 1). MPEP § 608.02(e) Examiner Determines Completeness and Consistency of Drawings: “The examiner should ensure that the figures are correctly described in the brief description of the several views of the drawing section of the specification, that the reference characters are properly applied, that no single reference character is used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part, and that there are no superfluous illustrations.” In the present case, Applicant has not provided any reference characters for the unlabeled boxes in fig. 1, the Examiner suggesting “170” (amplifier).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Additionally the Examiner notes that 37 CFR 1.438 is summarized as:
Preferably 50-150 words. Should contain:
(A) Indication of field of invention.
(B) Clear indication of the technical problem.
(C) Summary of invention’s solution of the problem.
(D) Principal use or uses of the invention.
(E) Reference numbers of the main technical features placed between parentheses.
(F) Where applicable, chemical formula which best characterizes the invention.
Should not contain:
(A) Superfluous language.
(B) Legal phraseology such as “said” and “means.”
(C) Statements of alleged merit or speculative application.
(D) Prohibited items as defined in PCT Rule 9.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
superfluous language that can be implied (“Provided is”); and
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 18-24 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 18,
the acronym/abbreviation “6DoF” is utilized without first introducing the acronym/abbreviations in the claim, thereby being inconveniently unclear (without rising to the level of a rejection as understood), and the Examiner again suggests that the first instance of an acronym/abbreviation be spelled out, such as “six degrees-of-freedom (6DOF)”.
Dependent claim(s) of objected to claim(s) is/are likewise objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Williamson et al (US 20170115179 A1; hereafter “Williamson”) in view of newly cited Nasle (US 20070285079 A1; hereafter “Nasle”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Williamson teaches a vibration test support network system (fig. 1) (Title “VIBRATION TESTING SYSTEM AND METHODOLOGY”; Abstract “A vibration testing system (VTS) including a vibration testing apparatus, which includes a power amplifier operatively coupled to an electrodynamic shaker” and “A data logger measures and records respective values of operational parameters of the shaker over time” and “computes a remaining service-life or a consumed service life of the electrodynamic shaker based on the accumulated number of armature force cycles and a predetermined service-life of the vibration testing apparatus”; [0048] “various forms of correlation analysis between operational parameters from different vibration testing apparatuses may be exploited to improve or validate formulas for estimating the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses”), comprising:
a plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) ([0048] “a plurality of vibration testing systems”) each having a shaker (fig. 1, shaker 104) configured to shake a shaker (fig. 1, shaker 104) table (fig. 1, payload support structure 107) ([0041] “payload support structure 107. The latter holds a payload 106”; [0006] “payload on the electrodynamic shaker”; at once so envisaged as a shaker table, additional obviousness analysis provided),
a network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127) that connects the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) ([0045] “a data communication link 119 to an internet connected computer server 116. The latter may reside in a cloud based computing center. The data communication link 119 may utilize a TCP/IP protocol in the communication channel” and “can be accessed from numerous geographical locations via suitably configured internet-based data communication services and channels 117”; [0046] “data communication link 119, e.g. comprising the TCP/IP communication channel, for transmission”; [0047] “internet-based data communication service and channel 127”; [0048] “The skilled person will appreciate that the presence of the optional internet connected computer server 116 in present vibration testing system 100 may provide numerous advantages in terms of geographically flexible and near instant access to the recorded values of the operational parameters and/or remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the vibration testing apparatus and system. Another advantage of the internet connected computer server 116 is that the latter may store, e.g. in suitable database, recorded values of the operational parameters of a plurality of vibration testing systems such that various forms of correlation analysis between operational parameters from different vibration testing apparatuses may be exploited to improve or validate formulas for estimating the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses”; it is the Examiner’s position that an ordinary artisan would at once envisaged that since the internet portion is optional, the cloud portion is in addition to, not strictly in the alternative; additional obviousness analysis provided), and
an analysis device (service computer 120 with computer server 116 with on-site service PC 112) connected to the network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127) and configured to transmit and receive information to and from the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) via the network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127) ([0027] “processor or controller of the vibration testing apparatus”; [0044] “on-site service PC 112) or a display of portable terminal or device, for example integrated in a smartphone or tablet”; [0045] “internet connected computer server 116”; [0049] “system reference database 220 may be located physically at different locations such as in a memory inside the housing of the vibration testing apparatus or in a memory of the previously discussed internet connected computer server 116”),
wherein the information includes at least any of:
self-diagnosis information related to the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1), which is generated by the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) (Abstract “The controller computes a remaining service-life or a consumed service life of the electrodynamic shaker”; [0002] “A processor or controller of the vibration testing system is configured to read and process logged values of the one or more operational parameters and determining an accumulated number of armature force cycles based on the recorded values over time of the one or more operational parameters”; [0056] “an accurate measure of the amount of wear and tear induced on the shaker by its operation since the last service or repair operation”);
remote diagnosis information related to the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1), which is generated by the analysis device (fig. 1, service computer 120 with computer server 116 with on-site service PC 112);
maintenance information related to updates, maintenance, or support of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1); or
vibration test information related to vibration tests performed on the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1),
the self-diagnosis information includes at least one of ([0012] “information in a straight forward and easily understandable format such as a meter or bar graph, e.g. resembling a car fuel meter/fuel gauge, of a graphical user interface of the display”; [0031] “determining and displaying remaining service-life or consumed service life”; [0036] “predetermined service life of the vibration testing apparatus is preferably stored in the previously discussed system reference database or table for example expressed as a time period in days, months or hours, The maximum or total number armature force cycles on the shaker which corresponds to this predetermined service life is also stored in the system reference database or table”; [0045] “The remaining service-life and/or consumed service life may of course be updated at regular time intervals such as a time interval between 1 second and 10 minutes, e.g. about every 10 seconds. Hence, it is possible to remotely monitor the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the vibration testing apparatus. It is also possible to observe the rate of change of remaining service life”):
a failure determination (e.g., no/empty remaining service-life or completed/full consumed service life; recorded observation) (see preceding citations for empty remaining life / fully consumed life; additionally, [0007] “reactive observation of the behaviour of the vibration testing system in question. The regime of reactive observation means that malfunctions or errors of the vibration testing system that occur in-between the planned service intervals have only been detected and reported by the operator or user when obvious errors such as audible, tactile or visible anomalies in the function of the electrodynamic shaker are noticeable”; [0029] “monitor the performance of the shaker between the service intervals and possibly issue early warnings about upcoming wear-and-tear failures of the shaker by detecting variations in the reference behaviour”; [0030] “indicative of a shaker requiring maintenance or repair”),
a failure prediction ([0003] “indicating remaining service-life”; [0029] “monitor the performance of the shaker between the service intervals and possibly issue early warnings about upcoming wear-and-tear failures of the shaker by detecting variations in the reference behaviour”; [0062] “the remaining service life may be displayed numerically or graphically for example as an absolute time period, e.g. 3 months in the above example, or as a percentage of the predetermined service-life value, e.g. 25% as discussed above. In the latter situation, the shaker operator may convert the percentage value to the corresponding remaining service life by knowledge of the predetermined service-life (e.g. 12 months)”), or
a performance limit determination (e.g., maximum cycles, limit of service/consumed life, threshold of abnormality including pertaining to operational parameters such as voltage/current/frequency/acceleration and maximum/threshold/limit) ([0059] “maxim number of armature force cycles”; [0030] “The logged values of the one or more operational parameters such as the a.c. current or a.c. voltage in the armature coil may be used to determine changes in certain frequency response characteristics of the shaker over time. The frequency response characteristics may for example comprise the fundamental resonance frequency or a compliance or resistance of a suspension of the vibrateable armature. An abnormal or unexpected change of one or more of the shaker frequency response, the armature fundamental resonance frequency and the compliance of the suspension may be indicative of a shaker requiring maintenance or repair”; [0025] “accelerometers on suitable location(s)”),
each of which is information related to the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1), and
the remote diagnosis information includes at least one of ([0062] “access to the consumed and remaining service life data of the vibration testing apparatus from numerous geographical locations as discussed above. As also mentioned before, the software component running on the internet connected computer server may have recorded respective values of the operational parameters of numerous vibration testing systems. As schematically illustrated by step 216, the software component can perform various types of useful correlation analysis between recorded operational parameters from the numerous vibration testing systems to refine or validate formulas and table data for estimating the accumulated number of armature force cycles and computing the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses. The results of these correlation assessments may be stored in the previously discussed database running on the internet connected computer server in step 218”; [0048] “recorded values of the operational parameters of a plurality of vibration testing systems such that various forms of correlation analysis between operational parameters from different vibration testing apparatuses may be exploited to improve or validate formulas for estimating the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses”; [0050] “experimental operation of an identical or similar shaker to the one of the vibration testing apparatus in suit to determine how the armature force impacts the accumulation of armature force cycles, and hence the consumption of service life, across a broad range of realistic armature force levels and vibration frequencies” and “system life table mapping an accumulated number of armature force cycles to the consumed service life”; [0051]-[0052]):
a failure frequency (e.g., how often a failure takes place in the identical/similar vibration test devices, such as measured in time based on the updated database information; at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided),
a failure probability (e.g., probability of failure taking place in the identical/similar vibration test devices, such as measured in percentage of life remaining or life consumed based on the updated database information; at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided), or
a maintenance/inspection timing (improved planning intervals for repair/overhaul) ([0006] “the vibration test apparatus is designed to be repairable/over-hauled and kept in an operational condition” and “service interval”; [0008] “time between the planned service intervals”; [0010] “improve production planning by preventing unexpected wear and tear induced failures and eliminate unnecessary and wasteful service or maintenance activities”; [0030] “indicative of a shaker requiring maintenance or repair” and “The logged values of the one or more operational parameters such as the a.c. current or a.c. voltage"),
each of which is information related to the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) ([0050] “The data held in this system life table may have been derived from experimental operation of an identical or similar shaker to the one of the vibration testing apparatus in suit to determine how the armature force impacts the accumulation of armature force cycles, and hence the consumption of service life, across a broad range of realistic armature force levels and vibration frequencies”; [0062] “results of these correlation assessments may be stored in the previously discussed database running on the internet connected computer server in step 218”).
With respect to the shaker table, Examiner acknowledges item 1) that Williamson does not explicitly nomenclaturally reference the payload support structure that holds the payload on the shaker as a table. With respect to self and remote computer/storage, the Examiner acknowledges item 2) that Williamson teaches the local and “optional” internet (remote) without explicitly stating which of the aforementioned diagnosis information is explicitly local/remote stored and/or calculated. The Examiner also acknowledges item 3) that Williamson does not explicitly state nomenclature of failure frequency nor failure probability.
Regarding item 1):
It is the Examiner’s position that an ordinary artisan would at once envisaged the aforementioned payload support structure as reasonably interpreted as a table (([0041] “payload support structure 107. The latter holds a payload 106”; [0006] “payload on the electrodynamic shaker”; see fig. 1).
The Examiner additionally notes that USPTO, EPO, CNO are all in agreement that Williamson CPCF is G01M7/02 “Vibration-testing {by means of a shake table}”.
Furthermore, the Examiner takes Official Notice that shaker tables are definitionally (see preceding classification as factual evidence) conventional in the art.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Williamson’s shaker payload support structure is a shaker table, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a conventional shaker table for Williamson’s shaker payload support structure thereby providing a conventional mounting structure that is well-known and readily available and which provides a convenient location for supporting a payload to be shook.
Regarding item 2):
Either one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisaged the
combination from the generic teachings thereof and/or specific possible choices of the structural components
thereof (i.e., retaining the local and further augmenting with the “optional” internet connected database & computer), or, in the alternative, it at least would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to nevertheless so combine the above features for the
purpose and combinations as proposed by said reference and as analyzed by the Examiner
including the citations and/or Examiner comments provided above in reference to the claimed features.
Pertinently, the Examiner further notes that "Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness", see Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
The Examiner additionally notes that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (BPAI. 1969), and that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art, Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893); see also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), and MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate computer storage & operations to specialized computers as convenient.
In view of the above, it is Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Williamson’s embodiment of self/local computer storage and calculations for the vibration testing device with Williamson’s (optional) internet based embodiment of a plurality of vibration testing devices connected to a cloud database & computer for the purpose of providing redundancy of data storage, reliability of local data and performance even when the internet is unavailable, while also enabling aggregation & more robust correlative analysis calculations remotely (e.g., on the cloud) which saves on local computer costs and reduces unnecessary repetitive calculations for each vibration testing device by outsourcing to a central location (e.g., local memory and computer capabilities can be significantly less by holding local data and local calculations, whereas the remote memory can be more substantial as a shared resource).
Regarding item 3):
It is the Examiner’s position that an ordinary artisan would at once envisaged that the measure of how often a failure takes place in the identical/similar vibration tests devices as recorded in the life table mapping and involved in the correlation analysis (see preceding citations) reasonably teaches the failure frequency, and likewise an ordinary artisan would at once envisaged that the related and correlated indicative life percentages similarly reasonably teaches the failure probability.
Additionally, the Examiner takes Official Notice that calculating failure frequency and failure probability are conventional calculation well known in the art.
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Nasle explicitly teaches calculating failure frequency and failure probability (Title; Abstract; [0169] “reliability indices can be determined such as probability and frequency of failure”; [0056] “minimize the risk of catastrophic equipment failure by predicting future failures and providing prompt, informative information concerning potential/predicted failures before they occur. Avoiding catastrophic failures reduces risk and cost, and maximizes facility performance and up time”; [0060] “alarm condition (i.e., alarm threshold value)”; [0061] “indicative of a need for a repair event or maintenance to be done on the monitored system”; [0066] “able to understand component mean time to failure rates through observation and system availability characteristics”; [0067] “assist in uncovering the patterns and sequencing of alarms to help pinpoint the location of the (impending) failure, its context, and even the cause”; [0167] “analysis can include the resulting failure rates, repair rates” and “costs, failure duration, system unavailability, etc. can all be evaluated”).
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Williamson reasonably teaches failure frequency & probability, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conventional determinations of these reliability metrics—as factually supported by Nasle’s explicit calculations of the aforementioned reliability metrics—thereby providing well-known and/or well-understood metrics that are easily calculated and/or easily understood and are useful for predictions, avoiding risk, and/or for timing/prioritizing maintenance.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Williamson as modified (including by Nasle) suggests (see analysis of independent claim) wherein the analysis device (fig. 1, service computer 120 with computer server 116 with on-site service PC 112) includes (storage/database citations: [0016] “certain pre-stored system parameters”; [0020] “pre-stored system parameters of the vibration testing apparatus may be stored in a system reference database or table accessible to the processor and holding technical apparatus data indicating one or more of: [0021] the predetermined service life of the vibration testing apparatus; [0022] the magnetic flux density or field strength in the armature air gap versus field coil current; [0023] a conductor length of a moving coil of the vibrateable armature”; [0024] “measured operational parameters and pre-stored system parameters”; [0036] “predetermined service life of the vibration testing apparatus is preferably stored in the previously discussed system reference database or table for example expressed as a time period in days, months or hours, The maximum or total number armature force cycles on the shaker which corresponds to this predetermined service life is also stored in the system reference database or table”; [0047] “store the previously discussed recorded values of the operational parameters” and “recorded values of the operational parameters may for example be stored in a suitable database running on the internet connected computer server 116”; [0048] “store, e.g. in suitable database, recorded values of the operational parameters of a plurality of vibration testing systems such that various forms of correlation analysis between operational parameters from different vibration testing apparatuses may be exploited to improve or validate formulas for estimating the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses”; [0049] “a system reference database 220 holding various types of useful technical data about characteristics of the vibration testing apparatus including the predetermined service life of the vibration testing apparatus. The system reference database 220 may be located physically at different locations such as in a memory inside the housing of the vibration testing apparatus or in a memory of the previously discussed internet connected computer server 116”; [0053] “computed at either regular or variable time intervals based on the measured armature current, the above-mentioned technical data from system reference database”; [0059] “system life table of the system reference database”; [0061] “computed value of the remaining service life is stored in an optional results database which may be used for various analysis purposes as described below in additional detail”; [0062] “The optional results database 212 may reside in the vibration testing apparatus or may reside within the previously discussed remote cloud based computing center” and “results of these correlation assessments may be stored in the previously discussed database”):
a self-diagnosis information storage (portion of storage which stores the failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination; additional obviousness analysis provided for distinct component) configured to store the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) associated with each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) (Self-diagnosis citations Abstract; [0002]; [0056]; [0012]; [0031]; [0036]; [0045]; [0007]; [0003]; [0029]; [0062]; [0059]; [0030]; [0025]; see independent claim for further details);
a remote diagnosis reference storage (portion of storage which stores information for remote diagnosis; additional obviousness analysis provided for distinct component) configured to store remote diagnosis reference information related to the remote diagnosis ([0062] “the software component running on the internet connected computer server may have recorded respective values of the operational parameters of numerous vibration testing systems. As schematically illustrated by step 216, the software component can perform various types of useful correlation analysis between recorded operational parameters from the numerous vibration testing systems to refine or validate formulas and table data for estimating the accumulated number of armature force cycles and computing the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses. The results of these correlation assessments may be stored in the previously discussed database running on the internet connected computer server in step 218”); and
a remote diagnosis unit (portion of analysis device which generates the failure frequency, failure probability, maintenance/inspection timing; additional obviousness analysis provided for distinct component) configured to generate remote diagnosis information (failure frequency, failure probability, maintenance/inspection timing) (previously modified to be explicit for frequency/probability, Nasle [0169] “reliability indices can be determined such as probability and frequency of failure”) based on the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) stored in the self-diagnosis information storage (portion of storage which stores the failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) and the remote diagnosis reference information stored in the remote diagnosis reference storage (portion of storage which stores information for remote diagnosis) (Failure/Maintenance/Inspection citations: [0006]; [0008]; [0010]; [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0050]; [0051]-[0052]; see independent claim for further details).
The Examiner again acknowledges that Williamson teaches the local and “optional” internet (remote) without explicitly stating which of the aforementioned diagnosis information is explicitly local/remote calculated, and the Examiner further acknowledges that Williamson does not explicitly state that the aforementioned components of self-diagnosis information storage, remote diagnosis reference storage, and remote diagnosis unit are so distinctly nomenclaturally referenced. However, the Examiner’s analysis is substantially similar to the analysis of local/remote in the independent claim (see thorough analysis of independent claim), again noting that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate computer storage & operations to specialized computer components as convenient, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Williamson’s embodiment of self/local computer storage and calculations for the vibration testing device with Williamson’s (optional) internet-based embodiment of a plurality of vibration testing devices connected to a cloud database & computer for the same combination and motivation provided for the independent claim, the Examiner emphasizing that only ordinary skill in the art is required to have local specialized memory, remote (e.g., server/cloud) specialized memory, and a remote computer unit component, even when nomenclaturally ascribed the claimed names, and that specialized computer components enable modularization commercially useful for sourcing, updating, upgrading, and/or replacement.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 2,
Williamson as modified (see analysis of preceding claims) suggests wherein each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) includes:
a detector (detecting portion of vibration testing systems comprising current, voltage, acceleration detectors) configured to detect a state of the vibration test device (vibration testing system) ([0004] “detect the reliability and ability of the equipment to sustain mechanical vibration without malfunctioning”; [0007] “reactive observation means that malfunctions or errors of the vibration testing system that occur”; [0030] “The logged values of the one or more operational parameters such as the a.c. current or a.c. voltage in the armature coil may be used to determine changes in certain frequency response characteristics of the shaker over time. The frequency response characteristics may for example comprise the fundamental resonance frequency or a compliance or resistance of a suspension of the vibrateable armature. An abnormal or unexpected change of one or more of the shaker frequency response, the armature fundamental resonance frequency and the compliance of the suspension may be indicative of a shaker requiring maintenance or repair”; [0025] “direct measurement of the time varying force on the vibrateable armature may be performed by placing one or more accelerometers on suitable location(s) of the vibrateable armature structure. Hence, in this embodiment, at least one of the operational parameters of the electrodynamic shaker comprises the acceleration of the armature as measured by the accelerometer(s) mounted thereon”);
a self-diagnosis reference storage (portion of local memory of vibration testing system for storing local vibration testing system information) configured to store self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) related to self-diagnosis (storage/database citations: [0016]; [0020]; [0024]; [0036]; [0047]; [0048]; [0049]; [0053]; [0059]; [0061]; [0062]; see preceding claims for further details); and
a self-diagnosis unit (computer portion of on-site service PC 112 for self-diagnosis) configured to generate the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) based on a detection signal output (e.g., output from current, voltage, motion) from the detector (detecting portion of vibration testing systems comprising current, voltage, acceleration detectors) and the self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) stored in the self-diagnosis reference storage (portion of local memory of vibration testing system for storing local vibration testing system information), and
the analysis device (fig. 1, service computer 120 with computer server 116 with on-site service PC 112; Examiner notes above distinction carve out of nomenclature for self-diagnosis portion; additional obviousness analysis provided)
performs data analysis (e.g., correlation analysis between operation parameters of numerous vibration testing systems) based on the detection signal (e.g., based on current, voltage, motion) and the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) obtained from each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) via the network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127), and
generate self-diagnosis reference update information (e.g., improve/validate/refine formulas and table data) for updating the self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) based on a result of the data analysis (e.g., correlation analysis between operation parameters of numerous vibration testing systems), and
updates, via the network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127), the self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) stored in the self-diagnosis reference storage (portion of local memory of vibration testing system for storing local vibration testing system information) of each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) based on the self-diagnosis reference update information (e.g., improve/validate/refine formulas and table data) ([0062] “the software component running on the internet connected computer server may have recorded respective values of the operational parameters of numerous vibration testing systems. As schematically illustrated by step 216, the software component can perform various types of useful correlation analysis between recorded operational parameters from the numerous vibration testing systems to refine or validate formulas and table data for estimating the accumulated number of armature force cycles and computing the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses”; [0048] “Another advantage of the internet connected computer server 116 is that the latter may store, e.g. in suitable database, recorded values of the operational parameters of a plurality of vibration testing systems such that various forms of correlation analysis between operational parameters from different vibration testing apparatuses may be exploited to improve or validate formulas for estimating the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses”).
The Examiner again acknowledges that Williamson teaches the local and “optional” internet (remote) without explicitly stating which of the aforementioned diagnosis information is explicitly local/remote calculated, and the Examiner further acknowledges that Williamson does explicitly state that the aforementioned components of self-diagnosis reference storage, and self-diagnosis unit are so nomenclaturally referenced and distinct from the analysis device. However, the Examiner’s analysis is substantially similar to the analysis of local/remote in the independent claim (see thorough analysis of independent claim), again noting that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate computer operations to specialized computer components as convenient, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Williamson’s embodiment of self/local computer storage and calculations for the vibration testing device with Williamson’s (optional) internet-based embodiment of a plurality of vibration testing devices connected to a cloud database & computer for same combination and motivation provided for the independent claim, the Examiner emphasizing that only ordinary skill in the art is required to have local specialized memory, remote (e.g., server/cloud) specialized memory, and both local computer unit components and remote computer unit components, even when nomenclaturally ascribed the claimed names, and that specialized computer components enable modularization commercially useful for sourcing, updating, upgrading, and/or replacement.
Claim(s) 3 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Williamson in view of newly cited Nasle and in further view of newly cited Pal et al (US 20170011298 A1; hereafter).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1,
Williamson as modified including by Nasle suggests (see analysis of independent claim) wherein the analysis device (fig. 1, service computer 120 with computer server 116 with on-site service PC 112) includes:
a self-diagnosis information storage (portion of storage which stores the failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination; additional obviousness analysis provided for distinct component) configured to store the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) associated with each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) (storage/database citations: [0016] “certain pre-stored system parameters”; [0020] “pre-stored system parameters of the vibration testing apparatus may be stored in a system reference database or table accessible to the processor and holding technical apparatus data indicating one or more of: [0021] the predetermined service life of the vibration testing apparatus; [0022] the magnetic flux density or field strength in the armature air gap versus field coil current; [0023] a conductor length of a moving coil of the vibrateable armature”; [0024] “measured operational parameters and pre-stored system parameters”; [0036] “predetermined service life of the vibration testing apparatus is preferably stored in the previously discussed system reference database or table for example expressed as a time period in days, months or hours, The maximum or total number armature force cycles on the shaker which corresponds to this predetermined service life is also stored in the system reference database or table”; [0047] “store the previously discussed recorded values of the operational parameters” and “recorded values of the operational parameters may for example be stored in a suitable database running on the internet connected computer server 116”; [0048] “store, e.g. in suitable database, recorded values of the operational parameters of a plurality of vibration testing systems such that various forms of correlation analysis between operational parameters from different vibration testing apparatuses may be exploited to improve or validate formulas for estimating the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses”; [0049] “a system reference database 220 holding various types of useful technical data about characteristics of the vibration testing apparatus including the predetermined service life of the vibration testing apparatus. The system reference database 220 may be located physically at different locations such as in a memory inside the housing of the vibration testing apparatus or in a memory of the previously discussed internet connected computer server 116”; [0053] “computed at either regular or variable time intervals based on the measured armature current, the above-mentioned technical data from system reference database”; [0059] “system life table of the system reference database”; [0061] “computed value of the remaining service life is stored in an optional results database which may be used for various analysis purposes as described below in additional detail”; [0062] “The optional results database 212 may reside in the vibration testing apparatus or may reside within the previously discussed remote cloud based computing center” and “results of these correlation assessments may be stored in the previously discussed database”); and
a remote diagnosis unit (portion of analysis device which generates the failure frequency, failure probability, maintenance/inspection timing; additional obviousness analysis provided for distinct component) with a learning model (software is able to improve/validate/refine formulas and table data based on input knowledge, and therefore at once so envisaged as a learning model; additional obviousness analysis provided for nomenclature learning model) that is trained to output remote diagnosis information (failure frequency, failure probability, maintenance/inspection timing) (previously modified to be explicit for frequency/probability, Nasle [0169] “reliability indices can be determined such as probability and frequency of failure”) upon input of the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) (Failure/Maintenance/Inspection citations: [0006]; [0008]; [0010]; [0030]; [0062]; [0048]; [0050]; [0051]-[0052]; see independent claim for further details).
The Examiner again acknowledges that Williamson teaches the local and “optional” internet (remote) without explicitly stating which of the aforementioned diagnosis information is explicitly local/remote calculated, and the Examiner further acknowledges that Williamson does not explicitly state that the aforementioned components of self-diagnosis information storage, and remote diagnosis unit are so distinctly nomenclaturally referenced. However, the Examiner’s analysis is substantially similar to the analysis of local/remote in the independent claim (see thorough analysis of independent claim), again noting that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate computer storage & operations to specialized computer components as convenient, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Williamson’s embodiment of self/local computer storage and calculations for the vibration testing device with Williamson’s (optional) internet-based embodiment of a plurality of vibration testing devices connected to a cloud database & computer for the same combination and motivation provided for the independent claim, the Examiner emphasizing that only ordinary skill in the art is required to have local specialized memory, remote (e.g., server/cloud) specialized memory, and a remote computer unit component, even when nomenclaturally ascribed the claimed names, and that specialized computer components enable modularization commercially useful for sourcing, updating, upgrading, and/or replacement.
The Examiner acknowledges that Williamson does not nomenclaturally reference software utilized in improving/validating/refining formulas and table data based as a learning model.
Pal explicitly teaches a learning model (Title; Abstract; [0044]; [0011]; [0033]; [0038]; [0087]).
Either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Williamson reasonably teaches a learning model, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pal’s explicit (real-time) machine learning model with Williamson’s system thereby providing a scalable learning system that addresses data volume, speed scalability, and/or complexity of mapping data for analytical purposes (Pal, [0010]) as well as providing additional more in depth physics based determinations to increase the accuracy and/or precision of the determinations.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 3,
Williamson as modified (see analysis of preceding claims) suggests wherein each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) includes:
a detector (detecting portion of vibration testing systems comprising current, voltage, acceleration detectors) configured to detect a state of the vibration test device (vibration testing system) ([0004] “detect the reliability and ability of the equipment to sustain mechanical vibration without malfunctioning”; [0007] “reactive observation means that malfunctions or errors of the vibration testing system that occur”; [0030] “The logged values of the one or more operational parameters such as the a.c. current or a.c. voltage in the armature coil may be used to determine changes in certain frequency response characteristics of the shaker over time. The frequency response characteristics may for example comprise the fundamental resonance frequency or a compliance or resistance of a suspension of the vibrateable armature. An abnormal or unexpected change of one or more of the shaker frequency response, the armature fundamental resonance frequency and the compliance of the suspension may be indicative of a shaker requiring maintenance or repair”; [0025] “direct measurement of the time varying force on the vibrateable armature may be performed by placing one or more accelerometers on suitable location(s) of the vibrateable armature structure. Hence, in this embodiment, at least one of the operational parameters of the electrodynamic shaker comprises the acceleration of the armature as measured by the accelerometer(s) mounted thereon”);
a self-diagnosis reference storage (portion of local memory of vibration testing system for storing local vibration testing system information) configured to store self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) related to self-diagnosis (storage/database citations: [0016]; [0020]; [0024]; [0036]; [0047]; [0048]; [0049]; [0053]; [0059]; [0061]; [0062]; see preceding claims for further details); and
a self-diagnosis unit (computer portion of on-site service PC 112 for self-diagnosis) configured to generate the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) based on a detection signal output (e.g., output from current, voltage, motion) from the detector (detecting portion of vibration testing systems comprising current, voltage, acceleration detectors) and the self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) stored in the self-diagnosis reference storage (portion of local memory of vibration testing system for storing local vibration testing system information), and
the analysis device (fig. 1, service computer 120 with computer server 116 with on-site service PC 112; Examiner notes above distinction carve out of nomenclature for self-diagnosis portion; additional obviousness analysis provided)
performs data analysis (e.g., correlation analysis between operation parameters of numerous vibration testing systems) based on the detection signal (e.g., based on current, voltage, motion) and the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) obtained from each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) via the network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127), and
generate self-diagnosis reference update information (e.g., improve/validate/refine formulas and table data) for updating the self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) based on a result of the data analysis (e.g., correlation analysis between operation parameters of numerous vibration testing systems), and
updates, via the network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127), the self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) stored in the self-diagnosis reference storage (portion of local memory of vibration testing system for storing local vibration testing system information) of each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) based on the self-diagnosis reference update information (e.g., improve/validate/refine formulas and table data) ([0062] “the software component running on the internet connected computer server may have recorded respective values of the operational parameters of numerous vibration testing systems. As schematically illustrated by step 216, the software component can perform various types of useful correlation analysis between recorded operational parameters from the numerous vibration testing systems to refine or validate formulas and table data for estimating the accumulated number of armature force cycles and computing the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses”; [0048] “Another advantage of the internet connected computer server 116 is that the latter may store, e.g. in suitable database, recorded values of the operational parameters of a plurality of vibration testing systems such that various forms of correlation analysis between operational parameters from different vibration testing apparatuses may be exploited to improve or validate formulas for estimating the remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of the apparatuses”).
The Examiner again acknowledges that Williamson teaches the local and “optional” internet (remote) without explicitly stating which of the aforementioned diagnosis information is explicitly local/remote calculated, and the Examiner further acknowledges that Williamson does explicitly state that the aforementioned components of self-diagnosis reference storage, and self-diagnosis unit are so nomenclaturally referenced and distinct from the analysis device. However, the Examiner’s analysis is substantially similar to the analysis of local/remote in the independent claim (see thorough analysis of independent claim), again noting that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate computer operations to specialized computer components as convenient, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Williamson’s embodiment of self/local computer storage and calculations for the vibration testing device with Williamson’s (optional) internet-based embodiment of a plurality of vibration testing devices connected to a cloud database & computer for same combination and motivation provided for the independent claim, the Examiner emphasizing that only ordinary skill in the art is required to have local specialized memory, remote (e.g., server/cloud) specialized memory, and both local computer unit components and remote computer unit components, even when nomenclaturally ascribed the claimed names, and that specialized computer components enable modularization commercially useful for sourcing, updating, upgrading, and/or replacement.
Regarding claim 14 and claim 15, where claim 14 depends on claim 2 and where claim 15 depends on claim 3,
Williamson as modified (see analysis of preceding claims) suggests wherein each of the plurality of the vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) includes:
a detector (detecting portion of vibration testing systems comprising current, voltage, acceleration detectors) configured to detect a state of the vibration test device (vibration testing system) ([0004]; [0007]; [0030]; [0025]),
a self-diagnosis reference storage (portion of local memory of vibration testing system for storing local vibration testing system information) configured to store self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) related to self-diagnosis (storage/database citations: [0016]; [0020]; [0024]; [0036]; [0047]; [0048]; [0049]; [0053]; [0059]; [0061]; [0062]; see preceding claims for further details), and
a self-diagnosis unit (computer portion of on-site service PC 112 for self-diagnosis) configured to generate the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) based on a detection signal output (e.g., output from current, voltage, motion) from the detector (detecting portion of vibration testing systems comprising current, voltage, acceleration detectors) and the self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) stored in the self-diagnosis reference storage (portion of local memory of vibration testing system for storing local vibration testing system information), and
the analysis device (fig. 1, service computer 120 with computer server 116 with on-site service PC 112)
includes a learning model (software is able to improve/validate/refine formulas and table data based on input knowledge, and therefore at once so envisaged as a learning model; additional obviousness analysis provided for nomenclature learning model) that is trained to output self-diagnosis reference update information (e.g., improve/validate/refine formulas and table data) that updates the self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) upon input of the detection signal (e.g., based on current, voltage, motion) and the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) obtained from each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) via the network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127), and
updates the self-diagnosis determination reference (e.g., reference for remaining service-life and/or consumed service life of particular vibration testing system) stored in the self-diagnosis reference storage (portion of local memory of vibration testing system for storing local vibration testing system information) of each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) based on the self-diagnosis reference update information (e.g., improve/validate/refine formulas and table data) output from the learning model via the network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127).
The Examiner again acknowledges that Williamson teaches the local and internet (remote) without explicitly stating which of the aforementioned diagnosis information is explicitly local/remote calculated, and the Examiner further acknowledges that Williamson does explicitly state that the aforementioned components of self-diagnosis reference storage, and self-diagnosis unit are so nomenclaturally referenced and distinct from the analysis device. However, the Examiner’s analysis is substantially similar to the analysis of local/remote in the independent claim (see thorough analysis of independent claim), again noting that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate computer operations to specialized computer components as convenient, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Williamson’s embodiment of self/local computer storage and calculations for the vibration testing device with Williamson’s (optional) internet-based embodiment of a plurality of vibration testing devices connected to a cloud database & computer for same combination and motivation provided for the independent claim, the Examiner emphasizing that only ordinary skill in the art is required to have local specialized memory, remote (e.g., server/cloud) specialized memory, and both local computer unit components and remote computer unit components, even when nomenclaturally ascribed the claimed names, and that specialized computer components enable modularization commercially useful for sourcing, updating, upgrading, and/or replacement.
The Examiner acknowledges that Williamson does not nomenclaturally reference software utilized in improving/validating/refining formulas and table data based as a learning model.
Pal explicitly teaches a learning model (Title; Abstract; [0044]; [0011]; [0033]; [0038]; [0087]).
Either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Williamson reasonably teaches a learning model, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pal’s explicit (real-time) machine learning model with Williamson’s system thereby providing a scalable learning system that addresses data volume, speed scalability, and/or complexity of mapping data for analytical purposes (Pal, [0010]) as well as providing additional more in depth physics based determinations to increase the accuracy and/or precision of the determinations.
Regarding claim 16 and claim 17, where claim 16 depends on claim 14 and where claim 17 depends on claim 15,
Williamson as modified (especially by Pal) suggests wherein the analysis device (fig. 1, service computer 120 with computer server 116 with on-site service PC 112) retrains the learning model (Williamson’s software is able to improve/validate/refine formulas and table data based on input knowledge; as previously modified by Pal to be an explicit real time big data machine learning model) using the detection signal (e.g., based on current, voltage, motion) and the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination) obtained from each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) via the network (network comprising wired/wireless communication inclusive of internet/cloud/communication channels; see exemplary cloud 116 and directional communication arrows including of 119, 117, 127).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Williamson in view of newly cited Nasle and in further view of Applicant cited Mae* et al (JP-2021096238-A); hereafter “Mae”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document utilized for providing English citations
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 1,
Williamson as modified (see analysis of independent claim) suggests wherein each of the plurality of vibration test devices (vibration testing systems; see exemplary vibration testing system comprising shaker 104 in fig. 1) includes:
a drive controller (drive control portion of vibration testing system; not fully shown, however at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided) configured to control drive of the shaker (fig. 1, shaker 104) by controlling current and voltage applied to the shaker (fig. 1, shaker 104) ([0041] “DC current values and/or DC voltage values of a field coil (not shown) of the electrodynamic shaker 104”; [0030] “operational parameters such as the a.c. current or a.c. voltage in the armature coil may be used to determine changes in certain frequency response characteristics of the shaker over time”; [0016] “power amplifier driving the shaker”; [0018] “an a.c. current of the moving coil of the vibrateable armature”; [0019] “a d.c. current or d.c. voltage of a field coil of the shaker”);
a current detector (current sensor; not fully shown) configured to detect the current that controls vibration of the shaker (fig. 1, shaker 104) ([0041] “In addition, DC current values and/or DC voltage values of a field coil (not shown) of the electrodynamic shaker 104 are also measured and recorded” and “RMS and peak current values may be measured directly or indirectly by suitable current sensors mounted inside the power amplifier 108 or current sensors mounted in the electrodynamic shaker 104. Various well-known types of current sensors may be utilized for this purpose such as Hall effect elements and inductive a.c. current sensors”; [0030] “operational parameters such as the a.c. current or a.c. voltage in the armature coil may be used to determine changes; [0019] “a d.c. current or d.c. voltage of a field coil of the shaker”);
a voltage detector (voltage sensor; not fully shown) configured to detect the voltage that controls vibration of the shaker (fig. 1, shaker 104) ([0041] “DC voltage values of a field coil (not shown) of the electrodynamic shaker 104 are also measured and recorded”; [0030] “operational parameters such as the a.c. current or a.c. voltage in the armature coil may be used to determine changes; [0019] “d.c. voltage of a field coil of the shaker”);
a motion detector (accelerometer(s); not fully shown) configured to detect physical quantities related to a motion of the shaker (fig. 1, shaker 104) table (fig. 1, payload support structure 107) ([0025] “a direct measurement of the time varying force on the vibrateable armature may be performed by placing one or more accelerometers on suitable location(s) of the vibrateable armature structure. Hence, in this embodiment, at least one of the operational parameters of the electrodynamic shaker comprises the acceleration of the armature as measured by the accelerometer(s) mounted thereon”); and
a self-diagnosis unit (computer portion of on-site service PC 112 for self-diagnosis) that generates the self-diagnosis information (failure determination, failure prediction, performance limit determination), including a failure determination (e.g., no/empty remaining service-life or completed/full consumed service life; recorded observation) ([0007]; [0029]-[0030]), a failure prediction ([0003]; [0029]; [0062]), and a performance limit determination (e.g., maximum cycles, limit of service/consumed life, threshold of abnormality including pertaining to operational parameters such as voltage/current/frequency/acceleration and maximum/threshold/limit) ([0059]; [0030]), based on detection signals output from the current detector (current sensor; not fully shown), the voltage detector (voltage sensor; not fully shown), and the motion detector (accelerometers; not fully shown) (at once so envisaged that as these operational parameters are referenced by —see e.g., [0002], [0013], [0016], [0028]-[0031]—an ordinary artisan would consider the combination of the more; additional obviousness analysis provided).
The Examiner again acknowledges that Williamson teaches the local and internet (remote) without explicitly stating which of the aforementioned diagnosis information is explicitly local/remote calculated, and the Examiner further acknowledges that Williamson does explicitly state that the aforementioned component of self-diagnosis unit is so nomenclaturally referenced and distinct from the analysis device. However, the Examiner’s analysis is substantially similar to the analysis of local/remote in the independent claim (see thorough analysis of independent claim), again noting that only ordinary skill in the art is required to reallocate computer operations to specialized computer components as convenient, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Williamson’s embodiment of self/local computer storage and calculations for the vibration testing device with Williamson’s (optional) internet-based embodiment of a plurality of vibration testing devices connected to a cloud database & computer for same combination and motivation provided for the independent claim, the Examiner emphasizing that only ordinary skill in the art is required to have local specialized memory, remote (e.g., server/cloud) specialized memory, and both local computer unit components and remote computer unit components, even when nomenclaturally ascribed the claimed names, and that specialized computer components enable modularization commercially useful for sourcing, updating, upgrading, and/or replacement.
Williamson does not explicitly state item: 1) a drive controller configured to control drive of the shaker by controlling current and voltage applied to the shaker. Williamson does not explicitly state and show in a single embodiment item 2) that the self-diagnosis information is based on detection signals output from all of the current detector, the voltage detector, and the motion detector.
Regarding items 1) and 2), Mae discloses a vibration test device (fig. 3 with fig. 1) (Title “EXCITATION CAPABILITY PREDICTION/EVALUATION DEVICE, EXCITATION CAPABILITY PREDICTION/EVALUATION METHOD, AND EXCITATION CAPABILITY PREDICTION/EVALUATION PROGRAM FOR VIBRATION TEST”) including a shaker (fig. 3, vibration test device 100) configured to shake a shaker table (fig. 3, table 104) (Abstract), the vibration test device (fig. 3 with fig. 1) comprising: a drive controller (not fully shown; controller for driving drive coil 108 and exciting coil 118) configured to control drive of the shaker (fig. 3, vibration test device 100) by controlling current and voltage applied to the shaker (fig. 3, vibration test device 100) (page 2, 1st paragraph “exciting coil 118 causes a constant magnetic flux to flow through the magnetic path member 116 by applying a DC voltage”; page 2, 3rd paragraph “The drive coil 108 is attached so as to be orthogonal to the magnetic field (static magnetic field) generated by the exciting coil 118, and the movable portion 102 can be vibrated by passing an alternating current through the drive coil 108. By changing the magnitude of the alternating current flowing through the drive coil 108, the magnitude of the generated vibration (excitation force) can be controlled”; page 2, 4th paragraph “the alternating current applied to the drive coil 108 is PSD (power spectral density) according to the vibration test pattern given to the test object T. It is applied to the drive coil 108 as an electrical signal based on the profile. Further, when performing a sine vibration test or a shock vibration test, an alternating current is applied to the drive coil 108 as an electric signal based on information on the vibration test pattern”); a current detector (not fully shown; means for detecting/measuring output current) configured to detect the current that controls vibration of the shaker (fig. 3, vibration test device 100) (page 3, 4th paragraph “measured output current”); a voltage detector (not fully shown; means for detecting/measuring output voltage) configured to detect the voltage that controls vibration of the shaker (fig. 3, vibration test device 100) (page 3, 4th paragraph “output voltage transmission rate (output voltage PSD / test target acceleration PSD), which is the ratio of the actually measured output voltage PSD to the test target acceleration PSD, and the actually measured output current PSD and the test target acceleration PSD. The output current transmission rate (output current PSD / test target acceleration PSD), which is the ratio of the above, can be used”); a motion detector (fig. 1, acceleration pickup 105) configured to detect physical quantities related to a motion of the shaker table (fig. 3, table 104) (page 2, 5th paragraph “acceleration, velocity, exciting force, displacement, etc. generated by the vibration test device 100 are configured to be acquired by using the acceleration pickup 105 provided on the test table 104”); and a diagnosis unit (diagnosing portion of fig. 1 comprising evaluation device 10) that generates diagnosis information, including a failure prediction (e.g., unable to meet excitation specification and therefore predicted to fail at performing the vibration test and therefore not even selected or further tested), and a performance limit determination (e.g., evaluating the performance limiting capacity of the excitation used to predict failure at performing the vibration test), based on detection signals output from the current detector (not fully shown; means for detecting/measuring output current), the voltage detector (not fully shown; means for detecting/measuring output voltage), and the motion detector (fig. 1, acceleration pickup 105) (Abstract “excitation capability prediction/evaluation device, an excitation capability prediction/evaluation method, and an excitation capability prediction/evaluation program which predict excitation specification required for a vibration test so as to quickly and precisely select a vibration test device and determine whether or not the vibration test can be performed by an owned vibration test device”; page 2, last paragraph “configured to calculate the excitation capacity based on the vibration test conditions including the information regarding the vibration test device and the information regarding the vibration test pattern”; page 2, 2nd paragraph “the specifications of the vibration test device 100, for example, the maximum vibration force and frequency range in the vertical direction and the horizontal direction, the maximum acceleration, the maximum speed, the maximum displacement, the maximum load mass, the weight and size of the test table 104, and the like are used” and “data on the transmission characteristics of the vibration test device 100 can be obtained”; page 4, 1st paragraph “the specifications of each vibration test device 100 are stored in the vibration capability prediction evaluation device 10 in advance”; page 6, third to last paragraph “judged whether or not it is possible to perform a vibration test”).
Either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Williamson reasonably teaches the driving controller, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mae’s explicit drive controller with each of Williamson’s vibration test devices which are driven for the expected purpose of providing expected and widely known hardware for the Mae’s conventional driving and thus simplifying commercial aspects thereof including related to availability and/or installation/repair/maintenance/programming. Additionally, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Williamson reasonably teaches that the self-diagnosis information is based on detection signals output from all (based on: at least one; one or more) of the current detector, the voltage detector, and the motion detector, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mae’s explicit diagnostic determinations—which include transmission rate characteristics—based on current, voltage, & acceleration and the associated hardware therefor with each of Williamson’s vibration test devices, thereby providing more in-depth operational parameters and understanding thereof for the purposes of correlations and diagnostics and thus increasing accuracy and precision of said diagnostics, including especially where acceleration disassociates with expectations based on electrical inputs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 19-24 is/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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 19,
the prior art fails to disclose or motivate one skilled in the art to manufacture a vibration test support network system comprising (omissions/paraphrasing for brevity/clarity; additional emphasis in italics) “a drive controller configured to control drive of the shaker by controlling current and voltage…”, “a current detector…”; “a voltage detector…”, “a motion detector configured to detect…motion of the shaker table”, “a motion calculation unit configured to calculate physical quantities related to a 6DoF motion of the shaker table…”, and “a self-diagnosis unit that generates the self-diagnosis information, including a failure determination, a failure prediction, and a performance limit determination, based on detection signals output from the current detector, the voltage detector, and the motion detector…” “…by adding the physical quantities related to the 6DoF motion calculated by the motion calculation unit” in further combination with the remaining limitation(s) of the claim.
The Examiner notes that to meet the claim limitations requires using the invention as a roadmap to find prior art and then further as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention as a whole therefrom requiring more than ordinary skill and knowledge in the art at the time the invention was filed to hindsightly so recreate. See Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005), Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In the particular case, while 6DoF shaker tables are known including use of triaxial accelerometers measuring motion, the taking into account the physical quantities of the 6DoF motion in combination with current & voltage detection increases the accuracy of performing self-diagnosis related to failure determination, failure prediction, and performance limit determination of the vibration test device, and is beyond ordinary skill in the art and would require more than ordinary skill to recreate. The Examiner yet further notes that this indication of allowable subject matter appears to be analogously consistent with patent JP 7261270 B2 directed to similar subject matter; see JPO patented claim 1 thereof.
Further dependent claim(s) of the above indicated claim is/are likewise indicated as comprising allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
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 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 15NOV2025