CTNF 18/593,922 CTNF 82020 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 7 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 7 and 18 recite the limitation "the time frequency analysis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that antecedent basis for this is only present in dependent claims 3 and 14, which 7 and 18 do not depend on. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 9-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackie et al. (2017/0234709) in view of Sexton et al. (2020/0033167) . Regarding claim 1, Mackie et al. disclose a method for non-intrusive sensing and diagnostics (see paragraph 21) of a turbine flowmeter (48; see paragraph 42) , comprising: monitoring (see paragraphs 70-75) a turbine flowmeter (48, see paragraph 42) with a plurality of non-invasive sensors (61, 62, and 64; see paragraphs 70-75) , the turbine flowmeter including turbine blades (see paragraph 42; inherent in definition of “turbine”) ; extracting blade frequencies (determining rotation speed by counting revs/second; see paragraph 85) associated with the turbine blades based on a flow rate (current rate of throughput; see paragraphs 42 and 85) ; detecting pressure wave frequencies (sonic signatures; see paragraph 75) associated with the turbine flowmeter; and employing multi-sensor fusion (processing signals from a vibration sensor and 2 magnetic sensors; see paragraph 113) with respect to sensor data generated from the plurality of non-invasive sensors including the extracted blade frequencies and the pressure wave frequencies to identify a health condition (no-errors state; see paragraph 113; or a diagnostic result; see paragraphs 121-124) of the turbine flowmeter and to predict failure for the turbine flowmeter (see paragraph 66) . Mackie et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations: employing multi-sensor fusion with respect to sensor data generated from the plurality of non-invasive sensors including the extracted blade frequencies and the pressure wave frequencies to identify a health condition of the turbine flowmeter and to predict maintenance for the turbine flowmeter. Sexton et al. disclose predicting maintenance for a detector (see paragraph 34) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Mackie et al. such that the prediction is of maintenance, similarly to the invention of Sexton et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. Regarding claim 2, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein monitoring the turbine flowmeter with the plurality of non-invasive sensors, further comprises: capturing acoustic and acceleration signals through a wall and a housing of a device-under-test (DUT) (see figure 2 and paragraph 42 of Mackie et al.) using the plurality of non-invasive sensors, wherein the DUT comprises the turbine flowmeter ( supra ) . Regarding claim 9, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising issuing an alert and/or an alarm to a local or remote location to provide an early warning (see paragraph 93 of Mackie et al.) for scheduling maintenance and repair of the turbine flowmeter (see paragraph 34 of Sexton et al.; and the modification in the rejection of claim 1) , in response to identifying the health condition predicting maintenance for the turbine flowmeter (see paragraph 66 of Mackie et al.) . Regarding claim 10, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of non-intrusive sensors are installed in proximity to positions of moving parts of the turbine flowmeter (see figure 2; and paragraphs 42 and 70-75 of Mackie et al.) . Regarding claim 11, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 12, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 13, see the foregoing rejection of claim 2. Regarding claim 20, see the foregoing rejection of claim 9 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-6, 8, 14-17, and 19 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. See the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter, below, after the remarks on claims 7 and 18. 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 7 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "determining from signal signatures extracted from acoustic and acceleration signals ..., the blade frequencies generated by the turbine blades based on a correlation between the flow rate of the turbine flowmeter and a rotational speed of the turbine blades", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 3. The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "detecting the pressure wave frequencies generated by blade rotation of the turbine blades in the turbine meter using the ... non-invasive sensors within a defined two-dimensional moving capture window, wherein the ... non-invasive sensors includes ... one acoustic sensor and ... one accelerometer", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 4, and claims 5-6 depending therefrom. The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "wherein the time-frequency analysis further comprises a high-order moment analysis and bi-spectrum with respect to sensor data generated from the ... non-invasive sensors to detect or eliminate harmonics", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 7. The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "using the multi-sensor fusion to analyze cross-correlated results, extract the sensor signatures, and correlate the sensor signatures to a normal situation and an abnormal situation, including damaged components of the turbine flowmeter", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 8. The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "the blade frequencies generated by the turbine blades based on a correlation between the flow rate of the turbine flowmeter and a rotational speed of the turbine blades are determined from signal signatures extracted from acoustic and acceleration signals generated from the ... non-invasive sensors", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 14. The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "the pressure wave frequencies generated by blade rotation of the turbine blades in the turbine meter are detected using the plurality of non-invasive sensors within a defined two-dimensional moving capture window; and the ... non-invasive sensors includes ... one acoustic sensor and ... one accelerometer", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 15, and claims 16-17 depending therefrom. The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "wherein the time-frequency analysis further comprises a high-order moment analysis and bi-spectrum with respect to sensor data generated from the ... non-invasive sensors to detect and eliminate harmonics", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 18. The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "wherein the multi-sensor fusion is used to analyze cross-correlated results, extract the sensor signatures, and correlate the sensor signatures to a normal situation and an abnormal situation, including damaged components of the turbine flowmeter", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 19 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deane et al. (2003/0233860) is cited for disclosing validation of a flowmeter. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM. 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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. /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/593,922 Page 2 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/593,922 Page 3 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/593,922 Page 4 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/593,922 Page 5 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/593,922 Page 6 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 18/593,922 Page 7 Art Unit: 2852
Prosecution Insights