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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 12 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. In particular, while Applicant’s remarks regarding the Lund and Miller references have been considered, both independent claims 1 and 12 are no longer rejected with neither of Lund or Miller but instead the rejections thereto rely upon the newly discovered reference Tovar US PG-PUB 2022/0299013 A1 as noted in further detail below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments regarding claims 2-11 and 13-21 have been considered and claims 2-3 and 16-18 are objected to for the reasons indicated in further detail below and claims 4-11, 13-15, and 19-21 are rejected on various grounds under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as indicated in further detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tovar US PG-PUB 2022/0299013 A1 (hereafter Tovar).
As to claim 1: Tovar discloses a method comprising:
acoustically exciting a rotating component (see ¶ 82 regarding the emitted acoustic signal that excites a portion of root region 30 that is a rotating component as disclosed in ¶ 69 and 70);
measuring a signal response of the rotating component in response to the acoustic excitation (see ¶ 84-86 regarding the measured acoustic signal 108);
processing the signal response to determine a difference in a frequency of the signal response relative to a frequency of a baseline signal response (see ¶ 85 and 86 regarding the difference in waveforms that is determined as disclosed); and
determining an amount of wear and tear of the rotating component based on the difference in the frequency of the signal response relative to the frequency of the baseline signal response (see ¶ 85-87).
As to claim 10: Tovar discloses the method as described in claim 1, further comprising determining a positioning of the wear and tear of the rotating component (30) based on the signal response (see ¶ 84).
As to claim 11: Tovar discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the baseline signal response (see ¶ 85-87) is from the rotating component (30) after a certain period of time after wear and tear has occurred (see ¶ 85; the amount of time taken from when the baseline signal and the measured signal indicative of a defect is considered to be a certain period of time).
As to claim 12: Tovar discloses a system comprising:
an acoustic transmitter (100; see ¶ 80 and 81) configured to generate an acoustic signal (see ¶ 82);
a component (30) configured to rotate (see ¶ 69 and 70), wherein the acoustic signal acoustically excites the component (30) during a rotating state or a stationary state (see ¶ 82);
a sensor (112; see ¶ 91) configured to measure a frequency of a signal response of the component in response to the acoustic excitation (see ¶ 90 and 91); and
a processor (116; see ¶ 93) configured to process the signal response of the component (see ¶ 93), and wherein the processor (116) is further configured to determine a difference in the frequency of the signal response relative a frequency of a baseline signal response (see ¶ 85-87), and wherein the processor is further configured to determine an amount of wear and tear of the rotating component (30) based on the difference in the frequency of the signal response relative to the frequency of the baseline signal response (see ¶ 85-87).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar US PG-PUB 2022/0299013 A1 (hereafter Tovar) in view of Newman US Pat 5,146,289 (hereafter Newman), prior art of record.
As to claim 4: Tovar teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including acoustic excitation (see ¶ 82 regarding the emitted acoustic signal), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the acoustic excitation is for a range of frequencies.
However, Newman teaches that acoustic excitation may be carried out in a range of frequencies (see col. 3, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tovar’s acoustic excitation to be carried out in a range of frequencies because different devices resonate at different frequencies as noted in Newman col. 3, lines 12-14, and therefore allowing for multiple excitation frequencies increases the flexibility of Tovar’s device by allowing for multiple resonances of multiple devices to be reached in order to improve frequency response depending upon the specific device being impinged upon by the exciting acoustic signal.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar US PG-PUB 2022/0299013 A1 (hereafter Tovar) in view of Lee et al. US PG-PUB 2022/0187250 A1 (hereafter Lee), prior art of record.
As to claim 5: Tovar teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including determining amount of wear and tear based on a signal response (see ¶ 85-87), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining the amount of wear and tear is based on determining peaks associated with the signal response.
However, Lee teaches that determining wear and tear may be based on determining peaks associated with a signal response (see ¶ 72).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tovar’s wear and tear determination to be based on determining peaks associated with a signal response because such a signal processing and interpretation is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of determining whether a device being inspected by an acoustic signal presents damage that can then be relayed to a user via a notification from a controller, such as suggested in ¶ 72 of Lee.
Claims 6-9 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar US PG-PUB 2022/0299013 A1 (hereafter Tovar) in view of Miller et al. US Pat 5,159,563 (hereafter Miller), prior art of record.
As to claim 6: Tovar teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including determining amount of wear and tear of a rotating component (see ¶ 85-87), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein frequencies associated with peaks of the signal response is compared to frequencies associated with peaks of the baseline signal response to determine the amount of wear and tear of the rotating component.
However, Miller teaches that frequencies associated with peaks of a signal response may be compared to frequencies associated with peaks of a baseline signal response in order to determine amount of wear and tear (see col. 6, lines 4-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tovar’s method such that frequencies associated with peaks of the signal response are compared to frequencies associated with peaks of the baseline signal response to determine the amount of wear and tear of the rotating component because such steps are useful in testing for defects in a rotating component that cannot be accessed directly with a nondestructive technique and thus allows for remote testing without requiring accessing the component or removing it from use in order to carry out such tests, such as suggested in col. 8, lines 19-37 of Miller.
As to claim 7: Tovar as modified by Miller teaches the method as described in claim 6, wherein the baseline signal response (see Tovar ¶ 85 and 86) is from the rotating component (30 of Tovar) measured prior to any wear (see Tovar ¶ 86).
As to claim 8: Tovar as modified by Miller teaches the method as described in claim 6, wherein the baseline frequency response (see ¶ 86 of Tovar) is acquired from a numerical simulation of the rotating component (30 of Tovar) (see Tovar ¶ 24).
As to claim 9: Tovar as modified by Miller teaches the method as described in claim 6, wherein the baseline frequency response (see ¶ 86 of Tovar) is from another rotating component (see Tovar ¶ 24 in view of further details in ¶ 35 and 36).
As to claim 20: Tovar teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a processor (116; see ¶ 93) that is configured to determine the amount of wear and tear based on a signal response (see ¶ 85 and 86), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the amount of wear and tear based on shift and distortion of resonance peaks associated with the signal response.
However, Miller teaches a processor configured to determine an amount of wear and tear based on shift and distortion of resonance peaks associated with a signal response (see col. 6, lines 4-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tovar’s system such that the processor is configured to determine the amount of wear and tear based on shift and distortion of resonance peaks associated with the signal response because such a construction is useful in testing for defects in a rotating component that cannot be accessed directly with a nondestructive technique and thus allows for remote testing without requiring accessing the component or removing it from use in order to carry out such tests, such as suggested in col. 8, lines 19-37 of Miller.
As to claim 21: Tovar teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a processor (116; see ¶ 93) and determining amount of wear and tear of a rotating component (see ¶ 85 and 86), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is configured to compare frequencies associated with peaks of the signal response is compared to frequencies associated with peaks of the baseline signal response to determine the amount of wear and tear of the rotating component.
However, Miller teaches a processor configured to compare frequencies associated with peaks of a signal response may be compared to frequencies associated with peaks of a baseline signal response in order to determine amount of wear and tear (see col. 6, lines 4-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tovar’s system to include a processor configured to compare frequencies associated with peaks of the signal response are compared to frequencies associated with peaks of the baseline signal response to determine the amount of wear and tear of the rotating component because such steps are useful in testing for defects in a rotating component that cannot be accessed directly with a nondestructive technique and thus allows for remote testing without requiring accessing the component or removing it from use in order to carry out such tests, such as suggested in col. 8, lines 19-37 of Miller.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar US PG-PUB 2022/0299013 A1 (hereafter Tovar) in view of Lowenhar et al. US PG-PUB 2020/0400127 A1 (hereafter Lowenhar).
As to claim 13: Tovar teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including an acoustic transmitter (100; see ¶ 80 and 81), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the acoustic transmitter is a piezoelectric transducer.
However, Lowenhar teaches that acoustic transmitters on rotating components may be piezoelectric transducers (see ¶ 21 regarding acoustic sensors 128).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tovar’s acoustic transmitter to be a piezoelectric transducer because such a piezoelectric transducer is an art recognized equivalent that may be utilized to detect damage of a rotating component such as suggested in Lowenhar ¶ 20 and 21 and can be powered in multiple ways, such as by battery, wireless power generation units, or optical fibers, and thus improves flexibility of the design of the acoustic transmitter by allowing for several power providing means to be utilized while also allowing the sensors to be smaller in design by sending data to an external device such as also suggested in Lowenhar ¶ 21.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar US PG-PUB 2022/0299013 A1 (hereafter Tovar) in view of Doelle et al. US Pat 7,013,287 B1 (hereafter Doelle), prior art of record.
As to claim 14: Tovar teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a rotating component (30), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the component is an auger.
However, Doelle teaches that a rotating component under acoustic testing may be an auger (see col. 3, lines 13-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tovar’s component to be an auger because augers are an art recognized structure that is a rotating component that is subject to wear, such as suggested in Doelle col. 3, lines 15-18. Accordingly, testing of augers for durability is an art recognized means of allowing a user to know when this component is in need of repair or replacement, such as also noted in col. 1, lines 16-22 of Doelle.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar US PG-PUB 2022/0299013 A1 (hereafter Tovar) in view of Komiya et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0202214 A1 (hereafter Komiya), prior art of record.
As to claim 15: Tovar teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a sensor (112; see ¶ 91), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the sensor is a laser Doppler vibrometer.
However, Komiya teaches an acoustic sensor that is a laser Doppler vibrometer (see ¶ 35 and 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Tovar’s sensor with a laser Doppler vibrometer because such a sensor is an art recognized means of non-destructively testing for defects in materials in a remote manner, such as suggested in Komiya ¶ 5 and 6.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovar US PG-PUB 2022/0299013 A1 (hereafter Tovar) in view of Ono US PG-PUB 2015/0260688 A1 (hereafter Ono), prior art of record.
As to claim 19: Tovar teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a rotating component (30) for which amount of wear and tear is determined (see ¶ 85-87), but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a display configured to render the amount of wear and tear of the rotating component.
However, Ono teaches a display configured to render outputs (see ¶ 85).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tovar’s system to include a display configured to render the amount of wear and tear of the rotating component because such rendering on a display provides a user with a visual notification of a state of operation of a device and would be able to notify a user of a potentially dangerous situation, for example in the event of imminent failure which could cause damage to property or the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 16-18 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:
As to claim 2: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method comprising outputting a notification signal indicative of catastrophic damage to the rotating component in response to the determined shift in the signal response exceeding a threshold, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, while it is known from the prior art per se to output a signal in response to a threshold regarding a failure condition (see, for example, Bizub US PG-PUB 2016/0238478 A1 ¶ 38), there does not appear to be an obvious modification of Tovar in light of the teaching in Bizub nor any of the other cited prior art to arrive at the features of the claimed invention as set forth by the limitations of claim 2 when considered with those of parent claim 1 because there does not appear to be a reason, suggestion, or teaching regarding the signal specifically being indicative of a catastrophic damage to the rotating component, when interpreted in the manner suggested by Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 38 (i.e. a mass loss may represent such catastrophic damage).
As to claim 3: The claim depends directly from claim 2 and accordingly is also 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 at least by virtue of its dependency upon an already objected to claim.
As to claim 16: The claim recites limitations similar to claim 2 and therefore is also indicated 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 for reasons similar thereto but not repeated herein for brevity.
As to claim 17: The claim depends directly from claim 2 and accordingly is also 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 at least by virtue of its dependency upon an already objected to claim.
As to claim 18: The claim depends directly from claim 2 and accordingly is also 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 at least by virtue of its dependency upon an already objected to claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights