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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 64, “a memory 10” should read as “a memory 19”.
In paragraph 66, “comparing means 19” should read as “comparing means 18”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the frequency bin having its frequency equal to a predetermined frequency” in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as line 7 of claim 1 recites “a frequency bin having its frequency equal to at least one positive predetermined frequency”. For examination purposes “the frequency bin having its frequency equal to a predetermined frequency” limitation in line 8 will be interpreted as “the frequency bin having its frequency equal to the at least one positive predetermined frequency”.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-6 inherit the same issues as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 7 is analogous to claim 1 and is therefore indefinite for the same reasons.
Claims 8-16 depend on claim 7, therefore claims 8-16 inherit the same issues as claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a device according to claim 1" in line 5 of the claim. Claim 1 recites “a device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 3. For examination purposes claim 3 will be read as “the device according to claim 1”.
Claims 4-6 depend on claim 3, therefore claims 4-6 inherit the same issues as claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "a system", "a bearing device", "a bearing", "an inner ring", "an outer ring", "a vibration sensor", and "a defect". Claim 3 recites the limitations "a system", "a bearing device", "a bearing", "an inner ring", "an outer ring", "a vibration sensor", and "a defect". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in claim 4. For examination purposes the aforementioned limitations of claim 4 will be read as “the” instead of “a”. Also, claim 4 recites “a device according to claim 3”, but claim 3 is a system not a device.
Claim 6 depends on claim 4, therefore claim 6 inherits the same issues as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a bearing device" in line 1 of the claim. Claim 3 recites “a bearing device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 5. For examination purposes claim 5 will be read as “the bearing device”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a bearin" in line 1 of . Claim 4 recites “a bearing device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 6. For examination purposes claim 6 will be read as “the bearing device”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "an inverse spectral analysis" in line 3 of the claim. Claim 7 recites “an inverse spectral analysis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 11. For examination purposes claim 11 will be read as “the inverse spectral analysis”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "an envelope of a signal" in line 5 of the claim. Claim 7 recites “an envelope of a signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 12. For examination purposes claim 12 will be read as “the envelope of the signal”.
Claim 15 is analogous to claim 11 and is therefore indefinite for analogous reasons.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15, therefore claim 16 inherits the same issues as claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 is analogous to claim 12 and is therefore indefinite for analogous reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "a system for monitoring", "a device", "third spectral analysis means", and "comparing means". Claim 3 recites the same limitations. Claim 4 does not recite any further limitations which are not found in claim 3. As such claim 4 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 3. Also, claim 4 recites “a device according to claim 3”, but claim 3 is a system not a device. Claim 4 appears to be an inadvertent near duplication of claim 3. (To the extent that claim 4 duplicates claim 3, claim 6 would duplicate claim 5. Distinguishing claims 3 and 4 might be sufficient to distinguish claim 6 from claim 5.)
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a product or process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A device for determining an envelope of a signal, the device comprising:
conditioning means configured to generate a vector of samples from samples of the signal at a first predetermined sampling rate,
first spectral analysis means configured to perform a spectral analysis of the vector of samples to obtain a set of frequency bins, each frequency bin representing a magnitude and phase against a frequency value,
filtering means configured to filter the frequency bins to select a frequency bin having its frequency equal to at least one positive predetermined frequency, the frequency bin having its frequency equal to a predetermined frequency being a selected frequency bin,
second spectral analysis means configured to perform an inverse spectral analysis of the selected frequency bin to obtain an intermediary signal, the selected frequency bin being converted from the frequency domain to the time domain, and
determining means configured to determine the magnitude of the intermediary signal, the magnitude of the intermediary signal being equal to the envelope of the signal.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations to find the envelope of a signal. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations (or calculations) for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems.
The additional limitation of “conditioning means” is insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and generic computer processing components, e.g. memory for storing data samples.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 is analogous to claim 1. Claim 7 is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5, 8-9, and 11 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “conditioning means … extend the vector with a number of zeros” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Dependent Claim 3 adds the recited “third spectral analysis” and “comparing means” to the abstract limitations. Claim 3 additionally recites “a system for monitoring a bearing device” which only limits the abstract idea to a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Dependent Claim 5 additionally recites “a bearing provided with an inner ring and with an outer ring capable of rotating concentrically” and “a vibration sensor”. An inner ring and outer ring capable of rotating concentrically are generic components of a typical bearing. The “bearing” is a generic machine that is not used to perform any specific task and only broadly limits the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). The “vibration sensor” is a general, broadly recited machine that does not perform any of steps of determining an envelope of a signal and only performs insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data gathering. Dependent Claim 8 adds the recited “filtering frequency bins further comprises weighting” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 9 adds the recited “sampling the selected frequency bin” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 11 adds the recited “fast Fourier transform” and “inverse fast Fourier transform” to the abstract idea limitations. None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2, 3, 5, 8-9, and 11 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 4, 6, 10, and 12-16 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claims 4, 12, and 16 are analogous to claim 3. Dependent Claims 10 and 14 are analogous to claim 2. Dependent Claim 13 is analogous to claim 9. Dependent claim 15 is analogous to claim 11. Therefore claims 4, 6, 10, and 12-16 are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons.
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, 3-8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maness (US 20020038187 A1) in view of Sepe (US 20190145856 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Maness teaches A device for determining an envelope of a signal, the device comprising:
conditioning means configured to generate a vector of samples from samples of the signal at a first predetermined sampling rate (Frame Buffer 76 Fig. 5A and 76 Fig 7; Para 45: “At an initial nominal sampling rate of 25.6 kHz, the input frame buffer 76 receives 768 new samples every 30 msec”),
first spectral analysis means configured to perform a spectral analysis of the vector of samples (60 Fig. 4; Para 33: “overlapping frames of time domain data are sequentially Fourier transformed into sets of frequency domain data”) to obtain a set of frequency bins, each frequency bin representing a magnitude and phase against a frequency value (Para 47: “This produces a 2048 bin frequency domain data set”),
filtering means configured to filter the frequency bins to select a frequency bin having its frequency equal to at least one positive predetermined frequency (Para 70: “This calculation generates mask values for positive frequencies”), the frequency bin having its frequency equal to a predetermined frequency being a selected frequency bin (62 Fig.4; Para 33: “each frequency domain data set is multiplied by a filter mask function to attenuate the undesired frequency bands”),
second spectral analysis means configured to perform an inverse spectral analysis of the selected frequency bin to obtain an intermediary signal, the selected frequency bin being converted from the frequency domain to the time domain (64 Fig. 4; Para 33: “the sets of filtered frequency domain data are sequentially inverse Fourier transformed into frames of filtered time domain data”), and
determining means configured to determine the magnitude of the intermediary signal (68 Fig. 4; Para 33: “vibrational features are extracted from the filtered time domain digital data. These extracted feature may include peak or RMS acceleration or velocity, two channel calculations such as orbit monitoring, or any type of vibration parameter of interest in a given application”),
Maness does not explicitly teach the magnitude of the intermediary signal being equal to the envelope of the signal.
Sepe teaches determining means configured to determine the magnitude of the intermediary signal, the magnitude of the intermediary signal being equal to the envelope of the signal (first envelope spectral analysis F Fig. 3; Para 61: “rectify the signal to get the envelope”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Maness with the method of Sepe by including the envelope determination step of Sepe before the feature extraction step of Maness. Doing so would allow for better analysis of the signal by having knowledge of the envelope of the signal.
Regarding Claim 3, Maness in view of Sepe teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Maness in view of Sepe further teaches a device according to claim 1 (Para 9: “The present invention includes a vibration monitoring system comprising a digital filter having a time domain input coupled to an output of an analog to digital converter and a time domain output coupled to an input of event detection circuitry”)
Maness does not explicitly teach: a device according to claim 1 coupled to the vibration sensor, third spectral analysis means configured to perform a spectral analysis of the envelope of the signal delivered by the vibration sensor, and comparing means configured to compare the frequencies of the spectral analysis performed by the third spectral analysis means with fault signatures frequencies to identify a defect of the bearing.
Sepe teaches:
a device according to claim 1 coupled to the vibration sensor (Para 37: “The vibration sensor 11 may transmit a signal S1 to a machinery control unit 40 coupled to it”),
third spectral analysis means configured to perform a spectral analysis of the envelope of the signal delivered by the vibration sensor (Para 61: “The first processing step P may also comprise a first envelope spectral analysis F”), and
comparing means configured to compare the frequencies of the spectral analysis performed by the third spectral analysis means with fault signatures frequencies to identify a defect of the bearing (Para 63: “a second processing step G may be performed, in order to detect the presence of defect pattern in the signal related to a bearing malfunction” and Para 68: “For each peak closer to the theoretical frequency of the outer race defect”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the invention of Maness in view of Sepe with the envelope analysis of Sepe by performing the envelope spectral analysis and bearing defect detection of Sepe on the envelope of Maness in view of Sepe. Doing so would allow for accurate identification of defects in bearings.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations of claim 4 are analogous to claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, Maness in view of Sepe teaches the limitations of claim 3, and Maness additionally teaches rotating machinery and vibration data (Para 3: “The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for the collection, processing, and analysis of vibration data from rotating machinery”).
However Maness does not explicitly teach a bearing device comprising: a bearing provided with an inner ring and with an outer ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to one another, a vibration sensor configured to measure the vibrations of the said inner or outer ring, and a system according to claim 3 coupled to the vibration sensor.
Sepe teaches a bearing device comprising:
a bearing provided with an inner ring and with an outer ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to one another (160 & 161 Fig. 2; Para 31: “The bearing may also comprise an outer race 160, which may be coupled to a stator, and an inner race 161”),
a vibration sensor configured to measure the vibrations of the said inner or outer ring (Para 32: “The vibration sensor 11 may monitor the health status of the rolling bearing 16”), and
a system according to claim 3 coupled to the vibration sensor (Para 37: “The vibration sensor 11 may transmit a signal S1 to a machinery control unit 40 coupled to it”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the invention of Maness in view of Sepe with the bearing of Sepe by substituting the rotating machinery of Maness with the bearing and vibration sensor of Sepe. Doing so would allow for detecting defects in a bearing by using the vibration signal analysis of Maness in view of Sepe.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations of claim 6 are analogous to claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations of claim 7 are analogous to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Maness in view of Sepe teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Maness further teaches wherein filtering the frequency bins further comprises weighting at least one selected frequency bin by a predetermined coefficient (Para 33: “At block 62, each frequency domain data set is multiplied by a filter mask function to attenuate the undesired frequency bands” and Para 60: “Thus, a frequency domain mask filter which comprises a rectangle having a value of zero outside the desired passband and one inside the desired passband does not produce acceptable results. Generation of an appropriate mask is thus critical to an accurate reconstruction of the time domain signal”).
Regarding Claim 11, Maness in view of Sepe teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Maness further teaches wherein performing the first spectral analysis of the vector of samples comprises performing a fast Fourier transform of the vector of samples (60 Fig. 4; Para 33: “overlapping frames of time domain data are sequentially Fourier transformed into sets of frequency domain data”), and performing an inverse spectral analysis comprises performing an inverse fast Fourier transform of the selected frequency bins (64 Fig. 4; Para 33: “the sets of filtered frequency domain data are sequentially inverse Fourier transformed into frames of filtered time domain data”).
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are analogous to claim 3.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maness in view of Sepe as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Fifield (US 20110261913 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Maness in view of Sepe teach the limitations of claim 8, but Maness and Sepe do not explicitly teach further comprising sampling the selected frequency bin at a second predetermined sample rate to generate modified selected frequency bin, the inverse spectral analysis being performed on the modified selected frequency bin.
Fifield teaches further comprising sampling the selected frequency bin at a second predetermined sample rate to generate modified selected frequency bin, the inverse spectral analysis being performed on the modified selected frequency bin (Para 36: “An approach for straight-forward (i.e. integer) down-sampling would be to calculate the IDFT output samples for only every nth sample of the original set, where n is an integer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the invention of Maness in view of Sepe with the method of Fifield by sampling the frequency bins of Maness in view of Sepe with the method of Fifield before performing the inverse spectral analysis of Maness in view of Sepe. Doing so would improve the efficiency of computing the inverse spectral analysis.
Regarding Claim 13, Maness in view of Sepe teach the limitations of claim 8, but Maness and Sepe do not explicitly teach further comprising sampling the selected frequency bin at a second predetermined sample rate to generate modified selected frequency bin, the inverse spectral analysis being performed on the modified selected frequency bin.
Fifield teaches further comprising sampling the selected frequency bin at a second predetermined sample rate to generate modified selected frequency bin, the inverse spectral analysis being performed on the modified selected frequency bin (Para 36: “An approach for straight-forward (i.e. integer) down-sampling would be to calculate the IDFT output samples for only every nth sample of the original set, where n is an integer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the invention of Maness in view of Sepe with the method of Fifield by sampling the frequency bins of Maness in view of Sepe with the method of Fifield before performing the inverse spectral analysis of Maness in view of Sepe. Doing so would improve the efficiency of computing the inverse spectral analysis.
Claims 2, 10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maness in view of Sepe as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of Yang ("A Noniterative Frequency Estimator With Rational Combination of Three Spectrum Lines," in IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 5065-5070, Oct. 2011).
Regarding Claim 2, Maness in view of Sepe teach the limitations of claim 1, but Maness and Sepe do not explicitly teach wherein the conditioning means are configured to store the samples of the signal in the vector and extend the vector with a number of zeros at most equal to the number of samples after the sample.
Yang teaches wherein the conditioning means are configured to store the samples of the signal in the vector and extend the vector with a number of zeros at most equal to the number of samples after the sample (Section II: “Sample data of length N is extended to 2N by padding zeroes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the invention of Maness in view of Sepe with the math of Yang by applying the zero-padding method of Yang to the vibration data of Maness in view of Sepe. Zero padding is a well-known technique to improve the efficiency of fast Fourier transforms.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are analogous to claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14, Manees in view of Sepe and further in view of Fifield teach the limitations of claim 13, but Maness, Sepe, and Fifield do not explicitly teach wherein the conditioning means are configured to store the samples of the signal in the vector and extend the vector with a number of zeros at most equal to the number of samples after the sample.
Yang teaches wherein the conditioning means are configured to store the samples of the signal in the vector and extend the vector with a number of zeros at most equal to the number of samples after the sample (Section II: “Sample data of length N is extended to 2N by padding zeroes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the invention of Maness in view of Sepe and Fifield with the math of Yang by applying the zero-padding method of Yang to the vibration data of Maness in view of Sepe and Fifield. Zero padding is a well-known technique to improve the efficiency of fast Fourier transforms.
Regarding Claim 15, Maness in view of Sepe, Fifield, and Yang teach the limitations of claim 14, and Maness in view of Sepe, Fifield, and Yang further teaches wherein performing the first spectral analysis of the vector of samples comprises performing a fast Fourier transform of the vector of samples (60 Fig. 4; Para 33: “overlapping frames of time domain data are sequentially Fourier transformed into sets of frequency domain data”), and performing an inverse spectral analysis comprises performing an inverse fast Fourier transform of the selected frequency bins (64 Fig. 4; Para 33: “the sets of filtered frequency domain data are sequentially inverse Fourier transformed into frames of filtered time domain data”).
Regarding Claim 16, Maness in view of Sepe, Fifield, and Yang teach the limitations of claim 15, Maness in view of Sepe, Fifield and Yang further teaches a device according to claim 15 (Para 9: “The present invention includes a vibration monitoring system comprising a digital filter having a time domain input coupled to an output of an analog to digital converter and a time domain output coupled to an input of event detection circuitry”)
Maness does not explicitly teach: determining an envelope of a signal delivered by the vibration sensor according to a method according claim 15, performing a second spectral analysis of the envelope of the signal delivered by the sensor, and comparing the frequencies obtained from the second spectral analysis with fault signatures frequencies to identify a defect of the bearing.
Sepe teaches:
determining an envelope of a signal delivered by the vibration sensor according to a method according claim 15 (Para 37: “The vibration sensor 11 may transmit a signal S1 to a machinery control unit 40 coupled to it” and first envelope spectral analysis F Fig. 3; Para 61: “rectify the signal to get the envelope”),
performing a second spectral analysis of the envelope of the signal delivered by the sensor (Para 61: “The first processing step P may also comprise a first envelope spectral analysis F”), and
comparing the frequencies obtained from the second spectral analysis with fault signatures frequencies to identify a defect of the bearing (Para 63: “a second processing step G may be performed, in order to detect the presence of defect pattern in the signal related to a bearing malfunction” and Para 68: “For each peak closer to the theoretical frequency of the outer race defect”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the invention of Maness in view of Sepe, Fifield, and Yang with the envelope analysis of Sepe by performing the envelope spectral analysis and bearing defect detection of Sepe on the envelope of Maness in view of Sepe, Fifield, and Yang. Doing so would allow for accurate identification of defects in bearings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hebrard (US 20140169715 A1) teaches a bearing with a vibration sensor (Fig. 2; Abstract). Hebrard additionally teaches sampling the vibration signal, performing a Fourier transform, and identifying malfunctions in the bearing (Fig. 4; Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights