Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an aging detecting means” in claim 5; “state detection means” in claims 8 and 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the adapting device is further configured to adapt one or more of the adaptations based upon one or more changes in one or more of state parameters or environmental parameters in one or more of a summarized weighted manner or an individually weighted manner” which renders the claim indefinite because it is hard to ascertain what “a summarized weighted manner or an individually weighted manner” is.
The Specification does not provide a clear discussion of summarized weighted manner. The only place that the term “summarized weighted manner” appears is claim 10. Although Page 3 of originally filed discloses that “several machine and/or operating condition and/or environmental parameters can be detected and taken into account for adapting the structure-borne sound signal evaluation, wherein different parameters can be weighted differently and/or taken into account in different ways” and “alternatively, or additionally, however, consideration can also be taken into account on a summarized basis, for example in such a way that an adjustment is made if a predetermined change is exceeded when the parameters are taken into account on a summarized basis”, which is still unclear of what “summarized weighted manner”, it is still hard to ascertain what the term “summarized weight manner” is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “an apparatus comprising: at least one structure-borne sound sensor configured to detect structure-borne sound signals of one or more structural components of a work machine; evaluation device configured to evaluate …determine a damage state…a detection device configured to detect….and an adapting device configured to adapt one or more adaptations on a basis of at least one of the detected changes…”, which is one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial exception? Yes.
Limitation: “at least one structure-borne sound sensor configured to detect structure-borne sound signals of one or more structural components of a work machine”: the detect encompasses mental observations or evaluation, i.e. to detect sound signals which is data. This step is merely data gathering. The sensor recited is not particular device and recited in its generality and the step does not describe how the sensor detects the sound signals.
-Limitation “evaluation device configured to: evaluate one or more of the detected structure-borne sound signals; and determine a damage state of at least one of the structural components of the work machine on a basis of a comparison of the one or more of the evaluated structure-borne sound signals with one or more structure-borne sound signal reference patterns”: This step encompasses mental process (evaluate the detected sound signals) and a mathematical calculation (determine a damage state on the basis of comparison of the one or more of the evaluated sound signals with the sound signal reference patterns”. The evaluation device is recited to perform the evaluation and the damage determination on the basis of the comparison between the evaluated sound signals and the reference sound signal reference patterns; however, the evaluation device is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not prove any additional details about how the evaluation device operates or how the evaluation and determination of damage are done.
-Limitation “a detection device configured to detect one or more detected changes relevant to structure-borne sound, wherein one or more of the detected changes is selected from a group consisting of a state change, an environmental change and a combination thereof”: this step encompasses a mental process (detecting changes). The detection device is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not include any additional details about how the detection device operates or how the detection is made.
Therefore, limitations “at least one structure-borne sound sensor…”, “evaluation device…”, and “detection device…” encompass mental choices or evaluations and performing mathematical calculations. Therefore, those limitations fall within the mental processing groupings of abstract idea because the cover concepts performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III) and those limitations fall within mathematical calculation/concept (MPEP 21064.04, subsection II. B).
Therefore, claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Practical application? No.
Last limitation recites “an adapting device configured to adapt one or more adaptations on a basis of at least one of the detected changes, wherein one or more of the adaptations is selected from a group consisting of at least one of the structure-borne sound signal reference patterns, and an evaluation criterion and a combination thereof” in which the adapting device configured to adapt one or more adaptations on the basis of at least one of the detected changes in previous limitation. However, the plain meaning of “adapt” encompasses changing/adjusting, which in this claim is limited to adjusting/adapting based on the detected changes. The claim does not limit how the adaptation is performed. The claim recites that the “adapting device” (is) “configured to adapt one or more adaptations on a basis of at least one of the detected changes…thereof” but the claim does not include any additional details that explain how the adapting device is configured to adapt/how the adapting device performs the adapting action. The adapting device is recited at a high level of generality and it is used as a tool to perform generic function of adapting one or more adaptations on a basis of at least one of the detected changes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The “(adapted) one or more adaptations” as recited is mere data gathering and recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and, as such, this limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05.
The limitation “an adapting device…” can be considered as an additional element. However, when viewed in combination, the limitation does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does it affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Instead, the claim appears to monopolize the abstract idea itself for any purpose or in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. It can cover anything that could be done in the field of work machine.
The devices, work machine, structure, sensor as recited in claim 1 also merely indicates a field of use in which the judicial exception is performed.
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Dependent claim 2 adds a limitation which is insignificant merely extending the abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional details of how the adapting device estimates at least one of: an influence…or a correlation….”. This is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. This can be considered as an additional limitation; however, when viewed in combination, the limitation does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does it affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The “(estimated) influence or correlation….” is extra solution and its use is unlimited. For example, it can be used as recited in claim 3.
Dependent claim 3 adds a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea. The self-learning system is a field of use tool to perform the abstract idea. The limitation does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application
Dependent claim 4 adds a limitation which is data gathering. The AI-based module is recited at a high level of generality and it is used as a tool to perform generic function of adapting one or more adaptations on a basis of at least one of the detected changes (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not include any additional details that explain how the AI-based module performs the estimating. The limitation does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application
Dependent claim 5 adds a limitation which is data gathering. The claim does not include any additional details of how the aging detecting means of the detection device detects one or more of an age….and how the adapting device adapts at least one of the adaptations on a basis of one or more of the detections of the aging detecting means. The “(detected) age…” and the “(adapted) adaptation” are data and just the outcome of the adapting and the detection and are insignificant. Their usage is unlimited. The limitation does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 adds a limitation which is data gathering. The claim does not include any additional details of how the environment sensor system detects one or more influences acting on the work machine and how the adapting device adapts at least one of the adaptations on the basis of one or more of the detected environmental influences. The sensor system is recited at a high level of generality and it is used as a tool to perform the detection. The detected influences and the adapted one of the adaptations…are insignificant and merely data and does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 adds a limitation that include field of use devices (environmental sensor selected from group consisting of a temperature sensor…rain sensor, and a combination thereof). They are recited at a high level of generality and they are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, the claim does not include any additional details of how the adapting device adapts at least one of the adaptations on a basis…signal of at least one of the environmental sensors. The limitation does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 8 adds a limitation which does does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include any additional details of how the one state detection means detects one or more of a work machine state parameter and how the adapting device adapts at least one of the adaptations…The “(detected) state parameter” is merely data.
Dependent claim 9 adds limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 10 adds limitation which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional details of how the adapting device adapts one or more of the adaptations based upon one or more changes …weighted manner. Instead, the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome.
Dependent claim 11 adds limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding additional elements. Further, the claim recites field of use devices such as structure-bone sound sensors. The detected one or more structure bone sounds emitted at the bearing system is merely data.
Dependent claim 12 adds limitation merely field of use devices (two bearing rings and bearing systems) extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 13 +adds limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The “determined damage” is insignificant and the use is unlimited.
Dependent claim 14 adds limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea. The limitation can be considered as an additional element; however, when viewed in combination, the limitation does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does it affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Instead, the claim appears to monopolize the abstract idea itself for any purpose or in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Dependent claim 15 adds a limitation which is data (detected cracks) merely extending the abstract idea. The claim does not include any additional details of how the evaluation device accomplishes the crack detection.
Dependent claim 16 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea. The “(determined) damage” is data.
Dependent claim 17 adds a limitation that recites that the work machine is selected from a group consisting of a construction machine, material handling machine and a conveying machine. They are recited at a high level of generality. Further the claim does not recite any additional details of how the evaluation device determines the cracks in a large rolling bearing of the work machine. The “(determined) cracks….” is data and insignificant. Its use is unlimited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by EP 2544010 (submitted by Applicants) (English translation by Examiner) (hereinafter D1).
Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one structure-borne sound sensor (acoustic emission sensor, Fig. 1, Page 3, Summary of Invention, second Paragraph) configured to detect structure-borne sound signals of one or more structural components (such as guide member by contact and in particular a bearing housed in a bearing box or a linear guide device) of a work machine (D1: Page 3, Summary of Invention, First, Third, and Fourth Paragraphs; Also see Page 12);
evaluation device configured to: evaluate one or more of the detected structure-borne sound signals and determine a damage state of at least one of the structural components of the work machine on a basis of a comparison of the one or more of the evaluated structure-borne sound signals with one or more structure-borne sound signal reference patterns (D1 discloses at Page 4, second full Paragraph, that the acoustic sensors is integrated to a monitoring module comprising an electrical circuit for processing an acoustic emission signal emitted by the acoustic emission sensor in order to compare the acoustic emission signal with a characteristic signature of the bearing. and issue a diagnostic signal of the bearing. Also see Page 12);
a detection device configured to detect one or more detected changes relevant to structure-borne sound, wherein one or more of the detected changes is selected from a group consisting of a state change, an environmental change (also see Page 6, last full Paragraph) and a combination thereof (D1 discloses at Page 4, second full Paragraph, that the acoustic sensors is integrated to a monitoring module comprising an electrical circuit for processing an acoustic emission signal emitted by the acoustic emission sensor in order to compare the acoustic emission signal with a characteristic signature of the bearing. and issue a diagnostic signal of the bearing. This monitoring module may furthermore comprise a temperature sensor and / or a rotational speed sensor of the bearing connected to the electrical processing circuit, the diagnostic signal of the bearing being a function of the temperature and / or the speed. measured (s). In particular, the characteristic signature of the bearing may depend on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor and / or the speed measured by the speed sensor. Examiner’s position that this meets the recited “one or more of the detected changes” ); and
an adapting device configured to adapt one or more adaptations on a basis of at least one of the detected changes, wherein one or more of the adaptations is selected from a group consisting of at least one of the structure-borne sound signal reference patterns, and an evaluation criterion and a combination thereof (D1 discloses at Page 4, second full Paragraph, that the acoustic sensors is integrated to a monitoring module comprising an electrical circuit for processing an acoustic emission signal emitted by the acoustic emission sensor in order to compare the acoustic emission signal with a characteristic signature of the bearing and issue a diagnostic signal of the bearing. Further, D1 discloses at Page 6 it is advantageous to compare the measured acoustic signal, or others such as elastic waves with a characteristic signature of the bearing to carry out the diagnosis of the state of the bearing. D1 further discloses that it is possible to measure a rotational speed of the bearing, and to stop diagnosing the state of the bearing when the speed of rotation of the bearing remains below a predetermined threshold for a given time. D1 discloses at Page 9, first Paragraph, that the monitoring module is able to put the interrogation circuit out of standby when a physical parameter characteristic of the movement of the guide member by measured contact by the displacement sensor of the contact guiding member is greater than a predetermined threshold for a predetermined time. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that D1 meets the recited limitation “adapt one or more adaptations on a basis of at least one of the detected changes…”)
Notes: Examiner’s position: the monitoring module meets each of the devices as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the evaluation device and the adapting device are each further configured to estimate one of at least one of: an influence (that is configured to estimate at least one of: an influence (e.g. temperature sensor for detecting temperature as explained above in claim 1. See D1’s Page 4, fourth Paragraph) of at least one of the detected changes on the structure-borne sound of the work machine; or a correlation between one or more changes in one or more of the structure-borne sound signals and actual damage to one or more of the structural components (D1 discloses at Page 6, last full Paragraph: provide an autonomous monitoring module using exclusively the energy available in the direct environment of a rotary or linear contact-guiding member such as a rolling bearing or a sliding bearing, a linear guide device by rollers or by ball or roller pads, for monitoring the state of the guide member. More specifically, there is provided a module for monitoring at least one physical quantity characteristic of the state of a contact guiding member. Page 13, last 2 Paragraph: detect changes of state at each turn. The standby of the circuit can take place automatically at the end of a measuring cycle, or when the physical quantity characteristic of the state of the guiding member measured by the state sensor falls below a predetermined threshold, or even when the characteristic magnitude of the movement of the guide member, measured by the movement sensor of the guide member, falls below a predetermined threshold for a predetermined time ).
D1 discloses at Page 6 last full Paragraph that the monitoring module is an autonomous monitoring module and can compare the measured sound signals and others like temperature with a characteristic signature of the bearing and issue a diagnostic signal of the bearing and adapt to the changes, put the interrogation circuit out of standby when a physical parameter characteristic of the movement of the guide member by measured contact by the displacement sensor of the contact guiding member is greater than a predetermined threshold for a predetermined time (see claim 1’s explanation). Therefore, this meets the “self-learning system” in the Examiner’s position.
Regarding claim 6, D1 discloses wherein the detection device comprises an environmental sensor system (temperature sensor, Page 4 and Page 8, second Paragraph) for detecting one or more environmental influences acting on the work machine, and wherein the adapting device is further configured to adapt at least one of the adaptations on a basis of one or more of the detected environmental influences (D1: Page 4, Fifth Paragraph, the characteristic signature of the bearing may depend on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor and / or the speed measured by the speed sensor).
Regarding claim 7, D1 discloses wherein the environmental sensor system comprises at least one environmental sensor selected from group consisting of a temperature sensor (temperature sensor at Page 4, and Page 8, second Paragraph), air particle content sensor, salt content sensor, humidity sensor, UV dosimeter, snow and ice sensor, rain sensor, and a combination thereof; and wherein the adapting device is further configured to adapt at least one of the adaptations on a basis of at least one signal of at least one of the environmental sensors (D1: Page 4).
Regarding 8, D1 discloses wherein the detection device comprises at least one state detection means configured to detect one or more of a work machine state parameter or an operating state parameters and wherein the adapting device is further configured to adapt at least of the adaptations on a basis of one or more of the detections of at least one of the state detection means (D1 discloses at Page 8, Third and Eighth full Paragraphs: a monitoring module as described above, for monitoring at least one physical parameter characteristic of the state of the bearing, the sole of the monitoring module being in contact and in abutment against a wall of the box body or the cover of box, or through an opening of such a wall).
Regarding claim 9, D1 discloses wherein at least one of the state detection means is further configured to detect one or more of wear of one or more of the structural components, a bearing clearance, a load on one or more of the structural components or a setup condition of the work machine (D1: Page 6: monitoring the state of wear of a bearing disposed in a bearing box).
Regarding claim 11, D1 discloses wherein at least one of the structure-borne sound sensors is associated with a bearing system
Regarding claim 14, D1 discloses wherein the evaluation device is further configured to compare at least one of a live oscillatory response detected by one or more of the structure-borne sound sensors or a characteristic value determined therefrom with a tolerance limit (D1 discloses at Page 4, second full Paragraph, that the acoustic sensors is integrated to a monitoring module comprising an electrical circuit for processing an acoustic emission signal emitted by the acoustic emission sensor in order to compare the acoustic emission signal with a characteristic signature of the bearing and issue a diagnostic signal of the bearing. Also see Page 12. D1 discloses It is also possible to measure a rotational speed of the bearing, and to stop diagnosing the state of the bearing when the speed of rotation of the bearing remains below a predetermined threshold for a given time), and wherein a self-learning system is configured to adapt the tolerance limit continuously or cyclically on the basis of one or more current work machine condition variables and any previous tolerance limit exceedances (monitoring module of D1 adapts to changes as explained in claim 1. Further, D1 discloses at Page 3 that the invention remedy all or some of the disadvantages of the state of the art identified at Page 2 which is continuous monitoring of the bearings. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that D1 meets the claimed “adapt the tolerance limit continuously”).
Regarding claim 15, D1 discloses wherein the evaluation device is further configured to determine cracks in one or more races of at least one rolling bearing of the work machine (D1: Page 12, fifth Paragraph degradation such as cracks determination).
Regarding claim 16, D1 discloses a work machine comprising: the apparatus according to claim 1 configured to determine damage to one or more of the structural components of the work machine (D1: Page 14, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 17, D1 discloses wherein the work machine is selected from a group consisting of a construction machine, material handling machine and a conveying machine (D1: Page 14, lines 8-11, industrial machine); and wherein the evaluation device is configured to determine cracks in a large rolling bearing of the work machine (Page 2, third full Paragraph and Page 12, Fifth full Paragraph).
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.
Claims 3-5, 12, 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and EP 2402731 (submitted by Applicants) (translation by Examiner) (hereinafter "D2")..
Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses everything as applied above (see claims 1 and 2). D1 discloses the self- learning system for determining the recited estimated influences or estimated correlation; however, D1 does not explicitly disclose that the self-learning comprises “a regression analysis module (for determining at least one of: the estimated influences or the estimated correlation)”.
D2 teaches a regression analysis module for determining at least one of: the estimated influences or the estimated correlation (D2 teaches at Page 4 a device for evaluating recorded structure-borne sound conditional signal of the rolling bearing can be realized as a computer with corresponding evaluation software, for example in the form of hardware-related programming or also in the form of programming in scripting or scripting language. D2 further teaches a data-mining method which includes a regression tree along with others such as statistical method, association rules, a neural network etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify D1's invention using D2's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim to determine respective structure-borne sound model signal characteristics (D2: Page 4, last 3 Paragraphs).
Regarding claim 4, D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D1 discloses wherein the self-learning system comprises an AI-based estimation module (see claim 2’s explanation: D1’s module is a self-learning as explained in claim 2 and hence it is an AI-based module) for estimating one or more correlations between at least one of:
one or more of the detected structure-borne sound signals and one or more of the detected changes; or one or more changes in one or more of the structure-borne sound signals and the actual damage to one or more of the structural components (D1: Page 9 that the standby of the circuit can take place automatically at the end of a measuring cycle, or when the physical quantity characteristic of the state of the guiding member measured by the state sensor falls below a predetermined threshold, or even when the characteristic magnitude of the movement of the guide member, measured by the movement sensor of the guide member, falls below a predetermined threshold for a predetermined time); or one or more changes in one or more of the structure-borne sound signals and the actual damage to one or more of the structural components (D1 discloses from last Paragraph, Page 13-Page 14, first two Paragraphs that the processing circuit (of monitoring module) also includes storing the data. Depending on the level of acoustic emission measured, the operating state of the bearing is represented by an indicator that can take three states: Green: the bearing is healthy Orange: a start of flaking is detected. It is necessary to program a maintenance operation to replace it. This can be done at the same time as the next scheduled maintenance deadline. Red: The chipping condition is advanced. It is urgent to change the bearing concerned to avoid a risk of overheating, and possible breakage. Examiner interprets this as the recited “correlation”).
Regarding claim 5, D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D2 teaches wherein the detection device comprises an aging detecting means configured to detect one or more of an age an aging or operating hours of the work machine or one or more of the structural components, and wherein the adapting device is further configured to adapt at least one of the adaptations on a basis of one or more of the detections of the aging detecting means (D2: Page 2 teaches early detection of damage, specifically detection of damage location and severity (damage development) which can enable a timely and necessary replacement of this rolling bearing or the damaged rolling bearing part. In the Examiner’s position, this meets the recited aging detection because in order to detect early detection of damage to replace, the system has to measure and record the length of operation of the bearing which is shown in D2’s Page 2: analyzing structure-borne sound signals, for example in a time and / or frequency plane, such typical (damage) signatures and thus mechanical damage to rolling bearings can be detected or diagnosed).
Regarding claim 12, D1 and D2 disclose everything as applied above. In addition, D2 teaches wherein the bearing system comprises two bearing rings rotatable relative to each other; and wherein at least two of the structure-borne sound sensors is associated, one each, with each of the bearing rings (inner ring and outer ring) (D2: Page 6, lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 13, D1 discloses at Page 4, second full Paragraph, that the acoustic sensors is integrated to a monitoring module comprising an electrical circuit for processing an acoustic emission signal emitted by the acoustic emission sensor in order to compare the acoustic emission signal with a characteristic signature of the bearing and issue a diagnostic signal of the bearing. Also see Page 12; however, D1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation device is further configured to determine the damage state on a basis of one or more deviations of the evaluated structure-borne sound signals in an amplitude or in a frequency band or in a frequency pattern from at least one of the structure-borne sound signal reference pattern.
D2 teaches “wherein the evaluation device is further configured to determine the damage state on a basis of one or more deviations of the evaluated structure-borne sound signals in an amplitude or in a frequency band or in a frequency pattern from at least one of the structure-borne sound signal reference pattern” (D2 discloses at Page 2, third Paragraph “Mechanical faults or damage to rolling bearings, such as cracks, friction points or pits, generate - if such a damaged area is rolled over typical signatures in a structure-borne sound signal of the respective part. Characteristic of such cases are, for example, periodic, speed-synchronous components in the waveform. By analyzing structure-borne sound signals, for example in a time and / or frequency plane, such typical (damage) signatures and thus mechanical damage to rolling bearings can be detected or diagnosed. Also see D2’s Page 5: Using these structure-borne sound model signals of the rolling bearing, the state features are now determined, preferred as state features Characteristics in a time domain, in particular an effective value, a maximum value, an envelope, a signal power, a Kurtosisfaktor and / or a crest factor, and / or characteristics in a frequency range, in particular a broadband spectrum, an envelope spectrum, a narrowband spectrum, frequency-selective and / or component-specific characteristics , can be used or used (feature extraction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify D1's invention using D2's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 13 so that mechanical damage to rolling bearings can be detected or diagnosed (D2: Page 2, Third Paragraph).
Claim 10, as best understood, is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and Bittner et al. (hereinafter Bittner) (USPN. 11391704)(submitted by Applicants).
Regarding claim 10, D1 discloses everything as applied above (see claim 1). However, D1 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the adapting device is further configured to adapt one or more of the adaptations based upon one or more changes in one or more of state parameters or environmental parameters in one or more of a summarized weighted manner or an individually weighted manner”.
Bittner teaches “wherein the adapting device is further configured to adapt one or more of the adaptations based upon one or more changes in one or more of state parameters or environmental parameters in one or more of a summarized weighted manner or an individually weighted manner” (Bittner’s abstract teaches a method for early damage recognition of a machine wherein a frequency-transformed signal, filtered of dominant excitations, is supplied to a comparative early damage recognition, and wherein, after the filtering, damage of the machine is recognized by comparing the signal to a comparison value. Bittner further teaches col. 5, lines 38-col. 6, line 22: a characteristic value can be ascertained from the signal value or the signal value sequence. A group of preferred characteristic values will be illustrated hereafter on the basis of typical relationships. An arithmetic mean value can be a quotient of sum divided by number. A root mean square value (RMS) can be a square root of the quotient of the sum of the squares divided by number. A median value can be a mean value of a sorted series, for example, sorted by absolute value. A focal point frequency (spectral centroid) can be a weighted value, for example, weighted by absolute value and frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filling the Application to modify D1's invention using Bittner's invention to arrive at the claimed invention specified in claim 10 for early damage recognition of a machine (See Bittner: Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beard et al. (USPN. 6351713) (submitted by Applicants) discloses a distributed stress wave analysis system is disclosed for detecting structure borne sounds cause by friction. The detected information is processed using feature extraction and neural network artificial intelligence software. The system consists of stress wave sensors, interconnect cables, and preferably three modules: (1) distributed processing units, (2) maintenance advisory panel, and (3) laptop computer. A derived stress wave pulse train which is independent of background levels of vibration and audible noise is used to extract signature features, which when processed by neural networks of polynomial equations, characterize the mechanical health of the monitored components. The system includes an adjustable data fusion architecture to optimize indication thresholds, maximize fault detection probability, and minimize false alarms (Abstract; col. 4 and col. 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 December 20, 2025