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 .
Status of Claims
This is a nonfinal in response to an RCE filed on 06/11/2026. Claims 1 and 5-12 remain pending. Claims 1, 5-7, and 10-11 have been amended. Claims 13-14 have been added.
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 1, 5-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahrenholz et al (US 20180110190 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (US 20230304263 A1), Chen et al (US 20190257327 A1), Aki et al (US 20210102561 A1), and Tabor (US 20210310504 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Mahrenholz, Suzuki, Chen, Aki, and Tabor respectively)
Regarding Claim 1, Mahrenholz teaches an arrangement for monitoring movement of a piston rod in a pressure medium operated actuator (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0005, 0018, and 0032, the control system is an arrangement for monitoring the piston rod/hydraulic cylinder in a pressure medium operated actuator), the arrangement comprising:
at least one 3-axis sensor configured to determine a position in relation to a gravitational vector to monitor a movement of a machine part controlled by the pressure medium operated actuator in time and place and to produce at least terminal location data of each movement of the machine part (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0018, 0026, 0029, 0031-0032, and 0034, the IMUs, which include the 3-axis gyroscope for determining a position in relation to a gravitational vector, are used to monitor the movement of the machine part controlled by a pressure medium operated actuator and used to produce orientation/terminal location data of the machine part), and
a control unit (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraph 0028 and Figure 1).
Even though Mahrenholz teaches a 3-axis sensor, Mahrenholz fails to disclose the control unit is configured to…receive and store at least the terminal location data produced by the at least one 3-axis sensor.
However, Suzuki teaches receive and store at least the terminal location data produced by the at least one sensor (See at least Suzuki Paragraphs 0048-0049, the location data/angle of the machine part produced by the sensor is stored).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Mahrenholz with Suzuki to store the terminal location data. Storing location data is routine and well-known in the art, and allows the system to utilize the stored data at a later time.
Modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the control unit is configured to… calculate a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the pressure medium operated actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location data produced by the at least one 3-axis sensor.
However, Chen teaches calculate a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the pressure medium operated actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location data produced by the at least one sensor (See at least Chen Paragraphs 0020-0021, the machine linkage positions detected by the sensor are used to determine the cylinder/piston rod displacement/movement distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Chen to calculate a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location data produced by the sensor unit. This modification, as taught by Chen, would allow the system to determine the health and remaining useful life of the hydraulic cylinder/piston rod (See at least Chen Paragraphs 0020-0021), which would improve the safety of the system.
Modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the control unit is configured to… receive data on each movement distance of the piston rod and form a cumulative total movement distance,
compare the cumulative total movement distance with an entered reference value to monitor the degree of use of the pressure medium operated actuator…, and
responsive to the cumulative total movement distance being equal to or larger than the entered reference value, generating a maintenance notification advising that the pressure medium operated actuator has reached or is reaching the…maintenance interval.
However, Aki teaches receive data on each movement distance of the piston rod and form a cumulative total movement distance (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0033, and 0041-0042, the total travel/movement distance for the piston is calculated),
compare the cumulative total movement distance with an entered reference value to monitor the degree of use of the pressure medium operated actuator (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0030, 0033, and 0064, the total travel/movement distance is compared with a threshold/reference value entered by the person to monitor the degree of use of the actuator)…, and
responsive to the cumulative total movement distance being equal to or larger than the entered reference value, generating a maintenance notification advising that the pressure medium operated actuator has reached or is reaching the…maintenance interval (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0033, 0064, 0068-0069, 0077-0079, and Figure 4, when the cumulative total movement/travel distance is equal to or larger than the distance threshold/entered reference value, the results of the abnormality detecting unit advising that the actuator has an abnormality, which is interpreted as reached its maintenance interval, is output on the display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Aki to compare the total movement distance of the piston rod with a reference value and generate a maintenance notification advising that the actuator has reached its maintenance interval when the total movement distance is equal to or larger than the entered reference value. This modification, as taught by Aki, would allow the system to detect an abnormality such as a fault in the actuator and output the detection of the abnormality to the display, which would improve maintainability of the equipment (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0064, 0069, and 0079).
Even though Aki teaches an entered reference value, modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the entered reference value corresponding to a regularly scheduled maintenance interval of the pressure medium operated actuator.
However, Aki does teach that the entered reference value is the upper limit of the total travel distance of the actuator/piston, which is commensurate with the number of operations of the actuator/piston (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0033, the total travel distance is calculated using the number of operations of the actuator), and Tabor teaches that the predetermined number of operations/cycles is corresponding to a regularly scheduled maintenance interval of the pressure medium operated actuator (See at least Tabor Paragraph 0044, routine maintenance is performed when the number of cycles of the actuator reaches the predetermined number of cycles/reference value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Aki and Tabor to have the entered reference value correspond to a regularly scheduled maintenance interval of the pressure medium operated actuator. This modification, as taught by Tabor, would allow the system to indicate that routine maintenance should be performed when the actuator reaches the reference value (See at least Tabor Paragraph 0044), thus, improving the maintainability of the actuator.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Mahrenholz teaches the arrangement is fitted to a moving work machine (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0022-0023, and Figure 1), and wherein the at least one 3-axis sensor comprises a plurality of 3-axis sensors, each said 3-axis sensor being fitted to a different machine part of the moving work machine (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0034, and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Mahrenholz teaches the arrangement is fitted to a forestry machine (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0004, 0022-0023, and Figure 1) and wherein the plurality of 3-axis sensors are fitted to at least in two points in a boom system of the forestry machine (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0034, and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Mahrenholz teaches the at least one 3-axis sensor comprises an inertial sensor (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0017 and 0034).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Mahrenholz teaches the inertial sensor uses MEMS technology and comprises one or more MEMS-based one-axis accelerometers and/or MEMS-based gyroscopes (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0017 and 0034).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the control unit is configured to monitor the degree of use of the pressure medium operated actuator without generating the notification as long as the cumulative total movement distance is less than the entered reference value.
However, Aki teaches monitor the degree of use of the pressure medium operated actuator without generating the notification as long as the cumulative total movement distance is less than the entered reference value (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0062-0064, 0068-0069, and Figure 4, the degree of use is monitored in S12, and the notification regarding the abnormality of the actuator is not output if the total movement distance is less than the reference value/threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Aki to monitor the degree of use of the pressure medium operated actuator without generating the notification as long as the cumulative total movement distance is less than the entered reference value. This modification, as taught by Aki, would ensure the notification regarding the actuator is only output when the total movement distance is greater than the reference value/threshold and not when the total travel distance is still below the reference value/threshold (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0062-0064, 0068-0069, and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the basis for generating the maintenance notification is limited to the cumulative total movement distance data.
However, Aki teaches the basis for generating the maintenance notification is limited to the cumulative total movement distance data (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0062-0064, 0068-0069, 0077-0079, and Figure 4, the basis for generating the notification regarding the maintenance/abnormality of the actuator is limited to the cumulative total movement distance comparison performed in S12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Aki to have the basis for generating the maintenance notification be limited to the cumulative total movement distance data. This modification, as taught by Aki, would ensure the notification regarding the maintenance/abnormality of the actuator is only output when the total movement distance is greater than the reference value, which indicates the actuator has an abnormality and needs maintenance (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0062-0064, 0068-0069, 0077-0079, and Figure 4).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahrenholz in view of Suzuki Chen, and Aki
Regarding Claim 10, Mahrenholz teaches a method for monitoring movement of a piston rod in a pressure medium operated actuator (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0005, 0007, and 0032, the control system monitors the piston rod/hydraulic cylinder), wherein at least one 3-axis sensor is fitted to a machine part controlled by the pressure medium operated actuator (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0018, 0026, 0029, 0032, 0034 and Figure 2, the IMUs, which include the 3-axis gyroscope, is fitted to machine parts controlled by the actuator), the method comprising:
determining a position in relation to a gravitational vector for monitoring a movement of the at least one 3-axis sensor in time and place (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0018, 0026, 0029, 0031-0032, and 0034, the imus, which include the gyroscope for determining a position in relation to a gravitational vector, are used to monitor the movement of the machine part on which the sensor is fitted),
forming by the at least one 3-axis sensor at least terminal location data of each movement of the machine part (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0018, 0026, 0029, 0031-0032, and 0034, the IMUs are used to form orientation/terminal location data of the machine part).
Even though Mahrenholz teaches the at least one 3-axis sensor forming terminal location data, Mahrenholz fails to disclose storing the terminal location data produced by the at least one 3-axis sensor.
However, Suzuki teaches storing the terminal location data produced by the sensor (See at least Suzuki Paragraphs 0048-0049, the location data/angle of the machine part produced by the sensor is stored).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Mahrenholz with Suzuki to store the terminal location data. Storing location data is routine and well-known in the art, and allows the system to utilize the stored data at a later time.
Modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose calculating a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the pressure medium operated actuator from each two successive pieces of stored terminal location data produced by the at least one 3-axis sensor.
However, Chen teaches calculating a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the pressure medium operated actuator from each two successive pieces of stored terminal location data produced by the sensor (See at least Chen Paragraphs 0020-0021, the machine linkage positions detected by the sensor, which are stored by the electronic control unit, are used to determine the cylinder/piston rod displacement/movement distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Chen to calculate a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location data produced by the sensor. This modification, as taught by Chen, would allow the system to determine the health and remaining useful life of the hydraulic cylinder/piston rod (See at least Chen Paragraphs 0020-0021), which would improve the safety of the system.
Modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose calculating a cumulative total movement distance of the piston rod,
comparing the cumulative total movement distance with a given reference value to ensure the operating condition of the pressure medium operated actuator, and
generating a maintenance notification advising that the pressure medium operated actuator has reached or is reaching its maintenance interval in response to the cumulative total movement distance being equal to or larger than the given reference value.
However, Aki teaches calculating a cumulative total movement distance of the piston rod (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0033, and 0041-0042, the total travel/movement distance for the piston is calculated),
comparing the cumulative total movement distance with a given reference value to ensure the operating condition of the pressure medium operated actuator (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0030, 0033, and 0064, the total travel/movement distance is compared with a threshold/reference value entered by the person to monitor the degree of use of the actuator), and
generating a maintenance notification advising that the pressure medium operated actuator has reached or is reaching its maintenance interval in response to the cumulative total movement distance being equal to or larger than the given reference value (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0033, 0064, 0068-0069, 0077-0079, and Figure 4, when the cumulative total movement/travel distance is equal to or larger than the distance threshold/entered reference value, the results of the abnormality detecting unit advising that the actuator has an abnormality, which is interpreted as reached its maintenance interval, is output on the display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Aki to compare the total movement distance of the piston rod with a reference value and generate a maintenance notification advising that the actuator has reached its maintenance interval when the total movement distance is equal to or larger than the given reference value. This modification, as taught by Aki, would allow the system to detect an abnormality such as a fault in the actuator and output the detection of the abnormality to the display, which would improve maintainability of the equipment (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0064, 0069, and 0079).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mahrenholz teaches the at least one 3-axis sensor is an inertial sensor (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0017 and 0034).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahrenholz in view of Suzuki, Chen, Aki, and Tabor, and in further view of Hamada et al (US 20220172434 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Hamada)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the inertial sensor is arranged to store data on a transfer time between two successive terminal locations.
However, Hamada teaches the inertial sensor is arranged to store data on a transfer time between two successive terminal locations (See at least Hamada Paragraphs 0026, 0072, and Figure 6, the data recorded by the IMU regarding terminal locations is in time-series).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Hamada to store data on a transfer time between two successive terminal locations. Storing data in time-series, as taught by Hamada, is well-known and routine in the art, and allows for the system to determine the time between two successive terminal locations, which can be used calculate the velocity of the machine part, thus, increasing the awareness of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahrenholz in view of Suzuki, Chen, and Aki, and in further view of Hamada
Regarding Claim 12, modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the inertial sensor is arranged to store data on a transfer time between two successive terminal locations.
However, Hamada teaches the inertial sensor is arranged to store data on a transfer time between two successive terminal locations (See at least Hamada Paragraphs 0026, 0072, and Figure 6, the data recorded by the IMU regarding terminal locations is in time-series).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Hamada to store data on a transfer time between two successive terminal locations. Storing data in time-series, as taught by Hamada, is well-known and routine in the art, and allows for the system to determine the time between two successive terminal locations, which can be used calculate the velocity of the machine part, thus, increasing the awareness of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the claim to include the limitation “the entered reference value corresponding to a regularly scheduled maintenance interval of the pressure medium operated actuator”. However, this limitation is obvious over Aki and Tabor. Aki teaches, in Paragraph 0033, that the entered reference value is the upper limit of the total travel distance of the actuator. The total travel distance of the actuator is commensurate with the number of operations of the piston i.e. the number of operations times the stroke equals the total travel distance. Tabor teaches that routine maintenance should be performed on the actuator when the number of cycles/operations of the actuator has reached a predetermined number of cycles/operations. Since the total travel distance of the actuator is commensurate with the number of cycles/operations, the limitation “the entered reference value corresponding to a regularly scheduled maintenance interval of the pressure medium operated actuator” is obvious over Aki and Tabor.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant has stated, in page 6 of the remarks, that claim 10 depends from independent claim 1. However, claim 10 is an independent claim, and therefore, the rejection of claim 10 previously set forth is maintained.
Thus, for these reasons, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights