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 .
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, 2, 10-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lund et al. US PG-PUB 2007/0256862 A1 (hereafter Lund).
As to claim 1: Lund discloses a method comprising:
acoustically exciting (see ¶ 40 regarding the ultrasonic waves 59 emitted) a rotating component (10; see ¶ 40);
measuring a signal response of the rotating component in response to the acoustic excitation (see ¶ 41);
processing the signal response to determine a difference in the signal response relative to a baseline signal response (see ¶ 40 and 41 with regard to the data received and analyzed by the computer device); and
determining an amount of wear and tear of the rotating component (10) based on the difference in the signal response relative to the baseline signal response (see ¶ 44).
As to claim 2: Lund discloses the method as described in claim 1, further comprising outputting a notification signal indicative of catastrophic damage to the rotating component (10) in response to the determined shift in the signal response (see ¶ 40 and 41) exceeding a threshold (see ¶ 44; the data signal associated with catastrophic failure of the drill bit is considered to be an output notification signal).
As to claim 10: Lund discloses the method as described in claim 1, further comprising determining a positioning of the wear and tear of the rotating component (10) based on the signal response (see ¶ 41 which notes that locations of defects are determined).
As to claim 11: Lund discloses the method as described in claim 1, wherein the baseline signal response is from the rotating component (10) after a certain period of time after wear and tear has occurred (see ¶ 28 regarding testing done “between successive drilling operations”).
As to claim 12: Lund discloses a system comprising:
an acoustic transmitter (56) configured to generate an acoustic signal (see ¶ 30);
a component configured to rotate (10; see ¶ 40), wherein the acoustic signal acoustically excites the component during a rotating state or a stationary state (see ¶ 40 and 43);
a sensor (56) configured to measure a signal response of the component (10) in response to the acoustic excitation (see ¶ 40; the sensor 56 also receives ultrasonic signals as disclosed); and
a processor (not labeled but see ¶ 40 regarding the disclosed computer device) configured to process the signal response of the component (see ¶ 40 and 41 with regard to the data received and analyzed by the computer device), and wherein the processor is further configured to determine a difference in the signal response relative to a baseline signal response (see ¶ 41 and 44), and wherein the processor is further configured to determine an amount of wear and tear of the rotating component (10) based on the difference in the signal response relative to the baseline signal response (see ¶ 44).
As to claim 16: Lund discloses the system as described in claim 12, wherein the processor (not labeled but see ¶ 40 regarding the disclosed computer device) is further configured to output a notification signal indicative of catastrophic damage level to the component (10) in response to the determined shift in the signal response (see ¶ 40 and 41) exceeding a threshold (see ¶ 44; the data signal associated with catastrophic failure of the drill bit is considered to be an output notification signal).
As to claim 18: Lund discloses the system as described in claim 16, further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit the notification to a computing device (see ¶ 53).
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.
Claims 3, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al. US PG-PUB 2007/0256862 A1 (hereafter Lund) in view of Ono US PG-PUB 2015/0260688 A1 (hereafter Ono).
As to claim 3: Lund teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 2, including a notification (see ¶ 44; the data signal associated with catastrophic failure of the drill bit is considered to be an output notification signal), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the notification is rendered on a display.
However, Ono teaches that notifications of failure may be rendered on a display (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 Lund’s method to include rendering the notification on a display because such a rendering of a failure notification 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.
As to claim 17: Lund teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 16, including a notification (see ¶ 44; the data signal associated with catastrophic failure of the drill bit is considered to be an output notification signal), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the notification is rendered on a display.
However, Ono teaches that notifications of failure may be rendered on a display (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 Lund’s system to include rendering the notification on a display because such a rendering of a failure notification 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.
As to claim 19: Lund teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a rotating component (10) for which amount of wear and tear is determined (see ¶ 44), 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 Lund’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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al. US PG-PUB 2007/0256862 A1 (hereafter Lund) in view of Newman US Pat 5,146,289 (hereafter Newman).
As to claim 4: Lund teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including acoustic excitation (see ¶ 40 regarding the ultrasonic waves 59 emitted), 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 Lund’s acoustic excitation to be for 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 Lund’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 Lund et al. US PG-PUB 2007/0256862 A1 (hereafter Lund) in view of Lee et al. US PG-PUB 2022/0187250 A1 (hereafter Lee).
As to claim 5: Lund 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 ¶ 44), 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 Lund’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 Lund et al. US PG-PUB 2007/0256862 A1 (hereafter Lund) in view of Miller et al. US Pat 5,159,563 (hereafter Miller).
As to claim 6: Lund 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 ¶ 44), 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 Lund’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: Lund as modified by Miller teaches the method as described in claim 6, wherein the baseline signal response (see ¶ 40 and 41 of Lund) is from the rotating component (10 of Lund) measured prior to any wear (see Lund ¶ 28, especially regarding the nondestructive testing which is disclosed as occurring “before its first use in drilling operations”).
As to claim 8: Lund as modified by Miller teaches the method as described in claim 6, wherein the baseline frequency response (see ¶ 40 and 41 of Lund) is acquired from a numerical simulation of the rotating component (10 of Lund) (see Lund ¶ 41 regarding the models disclosed therein).
As to claim 9: Lund as modified by Miller teaches the method as described in claim 6, wherein the baseline frequency response (see ¶ 40 and 41 of Lund) is from another rotating component (see Lund ¶ 41; the three-dimensional model of the rotating component 10 is considered to be another component).
As to claim 20: Lund teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a processor (not labeled but see ¶ 40 regarding the disclosed computer device) that is configured to determine the amount of wear and tear based on a signal response (see ¶ 44), 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 Lund’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: Lund teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a processor (not labeled but see ¶ 40 regarding the disclosed computer device) and determining amount of wear and tear of a rotating component (see ¶ 44), 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 Lund’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.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al. US PG-PUB 2007/0256862 A1 (hereafter Lund) in view of Komiya et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0202214 A1 (hereafter Komiya).
As to claim 13: Lund teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including an acoustic transmitter (56), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the acoustic transmitter is a piezoelectric transducer.
However, Komiya teaches that an acoustic transmitter may be a piezoelectric transducer (see ¶ 36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lund’s acoustic transmitter to be a piezoelectric transducer because such transducers are an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of emitting ultrasonic waves for measurement purposes in a controlled linear manner that is also angularly controllable, such as suggested in ¶ 36 of Komiya.
As to claim 15: Lund teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a sensor (56), 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 Lund’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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund et al. US PG-PUB 2007/0256862 A1 (hereafter Lund) in view of Doelle et al. US Pat 7,013,287 B1 (hereafter Doelle).
As to claim 14: Lund teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 12, including a rotating component (10), 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 Lund’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.
Conclusion
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