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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 1/08/2024 and 9/03/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
Claims 1- 6 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recite the limitations “first time-based electric distance signals” and “time-based first distance signals.” It’s not clear whether both limitations refers to the same signals or are different. The wording “first time” and “first distance” rendering claim 1 vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear.
The limitation “by means of trigonometry” recited in claims 1 and 5 renders the claims indefinite, because the claims includes elements and functions not actually disclosed (those encompassed by means of trigonometry), thereby rendering the claims confusing, vague, and indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an inclination or tilting of the rotor (5) is also taken into account by eliminating it an interference variable by offsetting the second distance signals and the third distance signals.” It’s not clear, from the structure of the sentence, what is been eliminated here; is it the “it” or the “interference variable”???
Claim 3 recite the limitation “wherein at least one additional, in particular fourth distance sensor is provided which is arranged at a basic distance from one of the reference surfaces (19, 20)…” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation refers to first, second and third distance sensor, and the claim also recites fourth distance sensor which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hartnagel et al. (DE 102013110632 A1).
RE. claims 1 and 5, Hartnagel figure 1 discloses method for measuring the expansion of a rotating rotor (5) on the basis of the rotor rotational speed (abstract) in which
a first distance sensor (element 14 in Fig. 1) is arranged at a basic distance from the rotor surface (rotor 5) and contactlessly (non-contact distance sensors 14) detects the distance between the rotor surface (5) and the first distance sensor (14) in a time-based manner, and generates first time-based electric distance signals (time-related electrical first and second distance signals, abstract),
a zero mark sensor is assigned to the rotor that scans zero marks applied onto the rotor (5) and generates time-based electrical zero mark signals (¶. [0005]), wherein
the time-based first distance signals and the time-based zero mark signals are fed to an electrical evaluation device (17) and processed thereby by calculating a rotational speed and a rotational angle assigned to each instant of a rotor rotation from the zero mark signals, and each rotational angle assigned to an instant is combined with the simultaneous distance signal into a rotational angle-related distance signal, and an expansion of the rotor (5) dependent on the rotational angle and the rotational speed is calculated therefrom (¶. [0005]), wherein
a second distance sensor (15) is arranged at a basic distance from the reference surface (19) on a first reference surface (19) which is remote from the first distance sensor (14) in the axial direction of the rotor (5) and of which the expansion and surface profile are known, said second distance sensor contactlessly detecting the distance of the reference surface (19) from the second distance sensor (15) in a time- based manner and generating time-based electrical second distance signals which are supplied to the electrical evaluation device (17) (¶. [0008]- [0010]), and wherein
Hartnagel does not disclose a third distance sensor (21) is arranged at a basic distance from the second reference surface (20) on another second reference surface (20) which is remote from the first and second distance sensors (14, 15) in the axial direction of the rotor (5) and of which the expansion and surface profile are known, which third distance sensor detects the distance between the reference surface (20) and the third distance sensor (21) in a time-based manner without contact and generates time-based electrical third distance signals that are supplied to the electrical evaluation device (17) which processes the second and third distance signals to correct the first distance signals detected by the first distance sensor (14) in that wherein, after subtracting the known expansion and profile of the surface from the second (15) and third distance signals (21), the interference oscillations remaining therein are geometrically removed proportionally from the first distance signal of the first distance sensor (14) by means of trigonometry and a known pivot point of the rotor.
Hartnagel teaches “The obtained signal correction value corresponds to the displacement of the rotor's axis of rotation at the measured speed and can be subtracted from the rotation angle-related distance signals of a distance sensor determined during the same measurement. First-order interference oscillations contained in the distance signals are eliminated by subsequent filtering” (¶. [0012]- [0013] with reference to first and second distance sensors. Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Hartnagel to add a third sensor operating the same way as the first and second in order to improve reliability of the correction values; therefore, improving the accuracy of the system.
Re. claims 3 and 4, Hartnagel does not disclose a fourth distance sensor (21) is arranged at a basic distance from the second reference surface (20) on another second reference surface (20) which is remote from the first and second distance sensors (14, 15) in the axial direction of the rotor (5) and of which the expansion and surface profile are known, which third distance sensor detects the distance between the reference surface (20) and the third distance sensor (21) in a time-based manner without contact and generates time-based electrical third distance signals that are supplied to the electrical evaluation device (17) which processes the second and third distance signals to correct the first distance signals detected by the first distance sensor (14) in that wherein, after subtracting the known expansion and profile of the surface from the second (15) and third distance signals (21), the interference oscillations remaining therein are geometrically removed proportionally from the first distance signal of the first distance sensor (14) by means of trigonometry and a known pivot point of the rotor.
Hartnagel teaches “The obtained signal correction value corresponds to the displacement of the rotor's axis of rotation at the measured speed and can be subtracted from the rotation angle-related distance signals of a distance sensor determined during the same measurement. First-order interference oscillations contained in the distance signals are eliminated by subsequent filtering” (¶. [0012]- [0013]) with reference to first and second distance sensors. Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Hartnagel to add an extra sensor operating the same way as the first and second in order to improve reliability of the correction values; therefore, improving the accuracy of the system.
Re. claim 6, Hartnagel disclose an average value is formed from a plurality of reference runs at low rotational speed (¶. [0012]- [0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846