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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection of record is based on a combination of the teachings from Hay et al, Hirano et al, and Schreier. As described in the Final Office Action, the use of encoders to measure a mechanical position of an oscillation component is well known. Applicant has described how the systems in each of the applied prior art references work separately, the examiner has provided a clear manner in which the combination of elements would work together. It seems applicant is given different meaning to the language currently in the claims. A 35 USC 112b rejection would be included in this Non-Final Office Action so that broad or unclear terms used in the pending claims can be corrected.
Additionally, applicant argues (page 11 of the remarks filed on 2/13/26) that the encoder measures the actual mechanical position of the oscillating component itself and the image capture rate is adjusted solely based on the signal from the encoder, these limitations are not part of any of the rejected independent claims. The original specification does not describe the image capture rate being adjusted solely based on the signal from the encoder. New claim 45 will be rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) for containing new matter.
Also, the preamble of claim 20 is broadly directed to a “method” and independent claim 30 is directed to “a system”. It seems a more complete preamble providing context or detail to fully understand and define the scope of the claims is required. As written, the claims do not provide the clear purpose of the recited limitations and it seems applicant believes the claims include a complete and well defined invention different from the interpretation of the examiner. A 35 USC 101 rejection will also be added since it seems applicant believes the processes and data manipulation steps recited in the pending claims are well integrated into a practical application and describe a clear inventive concept different from the interpretation of the examiner.
The examiner requested a change of the title of the invention because the one currently used is too long and not descriptive of applicant’s invention. Correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected to for being too long. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original specification does not specify the output of the encoder is the only signal used to adjust the image capturing rate.
Claims 20-22, 24-32, and 34-45 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 20 and 41, a complete preamble is essential to clarify the purpose of the recited limitations. Since the claim does not have an introductory statement, there is no context for “an oscillating component in operation”. The claim includes inconsistent components: “image controller” vs. “image collector”. It is unclear whether they are the same device or two different component and which device is performing the adjustment and capture. “Adjusting an image capture rate… relative to the position of the oscillating component”, what does “relative to” mean? Are we talking about the capturing is triggered by the position or is synchronized with the position or is proportional to the position? The claim does not define how the position affects the capture rate. In reference to the amplifying step, does “amplifying” mean increasing pixel intensity or a signal being enhanced? Without context , the scope of what amplification entails is unclear. Plus, isn’t a “selected one of the images” the same things as at least one of the collected images? In reference to the synchronizing step, “the selected one of the images”, how is the image selected? Are talking about the images collected with “image collector” or “image controller”? It is unclear what the purpose of determining a position of an element, collecting images of the component, synchronizing the determined position to an image, and amplifying collected image is? It seems the preamble of claim 20 should be amended to recite a method for detecting and analyzing abnormal conditions in a machine and the body of the claim should add how the amplified collected images are used to determine the abnormal condition (this suggestion is based on the invention as described in the original specification).
Claims 21 and 31, where do you provide the amplified collected images or what do you do with the images are amplified.
Claims 22 and 32, what does the conditioning monitoring system do with the amplified collected images?
Claims 24 and 35, what does it mean for a number of images to correspond to a repeating cycle of the oscillating component?
Claims 25 and 36, what does it mean to amplify a “display of motion”? Are we talking about the motion of the oscillating component within a specific area?
Claim 27, 28, 38, and 39, what structural condition are you referring to? Is the structural condition a faulty condition of the oscillating components or a system which the oscillating component is a part of?
Claim 30, similar issues as pointed above in the rejection of claim 20. Also, the preamble of claim 30 should be amended to include the purpose of the recited “system” as well as what would happen to the amplified collected images in reference to the “system”.
Claims 42-44, what does it means for images of the oscillating component to include asynchronous frames corresponding to “position offset” from the position of the component?
Claim 45, what does it means to synchronize a position of an element to a “selected” one of the images based solely on the output of the encoder?
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 20-22, 24-32, and 34-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of data collection and data processing without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) collecting, synchronizing, and processing image data based on position information which only involves manipulation of data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claims recite physical components such as an encoder, an oscillating component, and an image collector; these components appear to be generic and the claims mainly describe information processing steps done by a conventional computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no specific technical mechanism is described for how the capture rate is adjusted, how synchronization occurs, or how amplification is implemented. The claims merely apply an abstract idea using generic hardware performing routine functions. No inventive concept beyond conventional image acquisition and processing has been provided to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 20-22, 24-32, and 34-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay et al (US Publication 2016/0300341), Hirano et al (US Publication 2018/0344573), and Schreier (US Publication 2013/0329953).
Claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101 as well as 35 USC 112 (a) and (b). As described in the “Response to Arguments” section above, applicant is arguing information which is not in the claims or the information is considered unclear/indefinite.
Claim 20, 30, 41, and 45, Hay et al teaches a method comprising: determining the motion (displacement) of motor/driven shaft by a sensor (see for example paragraph 0226 where Hay et al describes having to determine the misalignment of the shaft and then in paragraph 0254 Hay et al describes a secondary camera being used as a position/displacement sensor); collecting images of the coupling with a camera (see paragraph 0226); synchronizing the determined position with at least one predetermined position (see for example paragraph 0054); applying motion amplification to at least one image captured by the camera (see for example paragraph 0213). In reference to apparatus claim 30 and the non-transitory computer readable medium claim 41, Hay et al describes the use of a processor and a memory means, for storing a program including the method of operation listed above (see the abstract of Hay et al).
Although Hay et al teaches the use of a second camera as a position sensor, they do not describe other commonly known position sensors such as encoders to determine the position of the oscillating component.
However, Hirano et al teaches a control system for a printing apparatus comprising a conveyor belt 21, a motor 24, a position detector 24a such as an encoder (see for example paragraph 0018), an image device 40, a collecting device 80, a processor 90, a control device 100, and a display device 110, wherein the detected position is sent to the control device 100 in order for the controller to output a signal that would operate the motor 24 connected to the conveyor. Hay et al/Hirano et al do not clearly point out that the capturing rate of the camera is adjustable based on a detected position.
However, Schreier teaches an image analysis system and method of operation comprising a high speed camera 3 for capturing a plurality of images of an oscillating unit, wherein the capturing rate of the camera depends on the specific position of an object/machine that is being analyzed; a synchronization unit 12 for aligning captured images with movement of the analyzed object; and an analyzing component 24 for analyzing the received images (see the description given for example in paragraphs 0070, 0077, and 0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a high-speed camera with an adjustable capturing rate, since as described by Schreier in paragraph 0070, cameras such as camera 3 provide a great level of accuracy, this accuracy is needed to detect deformation (abnormalities) of vibrating objects. Additionally, as pointed out by Hirano et al, using encoders to determine the position of an oscillating components is well known.
Claims 21-22 and 31-32, Hay et al teaches providing the amplified images to a condition monitoring system (processor) as described in the abstract of Hay et al.
Claims 24 and 35, Hay et al describes for example in paragraphs 0231-0232 that the image capturing speed can be selected by a graphical user interface to obtain periodical images of a desired location.
Claims 25 and 36, Hay et al describes in paragraph 0233 that an amplifying factor can be selected via slider 215. The preferred amplifying factors is not given any patentable weight, this is considered a design choice.
Claims 26 and 37, Hay et al describe for example in paragraph 0246 that collected images can be manipulated into a video by the use of a graphical user interface, The captured images could not be put into a video without storing individual images of a load or oscillating member.
Claims 27 and 38, as described above in the rejection of claim 26, Hay et al describes outputting a video including amplified collected images. Additionally, Hay et al describes using this video to a structural condition of an oscillating member (see for example paragraphs 0249-0250).
Claims 28-29 and 39-40, Hay et al describes in paragraphs 0223-0229 how their invention can be used in the alignment of an oscillating member (shaft) in order to compensate for micro-vibration detected in a system. Misalignment is detected based on the comparison between captured data and predetermined reference position.
Claim 34, Hay et al describes their invention being used with a variety of machines such as a motor rotating a shaft and an image collector (camera, as described above in the rejection of claims 20/30/41).
Claims 42-44, Hay et al describes, paragraphs 0225-0228, that the images captured by the camera are compared to specific position information in order to obtain a synchronous or align system. The claims were rejected for being unclear (35 USC 112(b), however the examiner believes applicant is trying to claim that the image collector captures information which is asynchronous with the detected position of the oscillating component. If this is the case, the examiner has pointed out in the rejection of the independent claims above how the detected information and the captured images are synchronized.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20-22, 24-32, and 34-41 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,977,096. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application only includes a broader version of the already patented invention. There is no difference between the method of operation/system of patent No. 11,977,066 and the invention recited in the pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 describe other positioning systems using position sensors for obtaining position or displacement information of oscillating components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846