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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marshall et al. (CA 2959904 hereafter referred to as Marshall).
Regarding claim 1, Marshall teaches a method for fault prevention in electric drives in industrial automation, comprising the steps of: recording sound level signals on the inside of the electric drive (see figure 1) during operation with known sound propagation geometry and known distance to the source of sounds (step 602), continuously comparing the sound power with a reference sound power and monitoring of the exceeding of the maximum value of the sound energy (step 608), continuously adding up of the sound power over time when the sound power exceeds the reference sound power (see figures 8 and 9: 813 represents several data points wherein the measurement exceeds the threshold 812), continuously subtracting the sound power over time when the sound power falls below the reference sound power, with a minimum value of zero (see figure 9: data points which are not labeled but are illustrated relatively opposite to points 813, which are below the threshold 812 while having a minimum value of at least 0), generating a warning or alarm when the maximum value of the sound energy is exceeded (see step 609).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Marshall teaches a method for acoustic wear measurement of electrically driven linear or rotary drives for recording wear-related damage to bearing elements, comprising: in a first method step, recording the sound power with at least one acoustic sound receiver 402, in a second method step, the recorded sound power 811 is continuously compared with a maximum permissible reference sound power 812, in a third method step, recording a temporary exceeding of the reference sound power 813, and in a fourth method step, continuously integrating by addition of the sound power recorded in the third method step over time, as long as the sound power exceeds the reference sound power, in a fifth method step, continuously integrating by subtraction of the sound power recorded in the third method step over time when the sound power falls below the reference sound power, in a sixth method step, summing the additive and subtractive integral surfaces determined in the fourth and fifth method steps to form a summation curve 817, and in a seventh method step, issuing a warning message and/or a triggering of an alarm if the summation curve determined in the sixth method step is greater than zero over a specified period of time (see para. 0072, here the slop of the curve 817 is taken into account; specifically, ‘If the slope of best-fit line 817 exceeds a threshold steepness, the bearing may be wearing at a rate sufficient to warrant inspection and/or maintenance. If the slope of best-fit line 817 is consistently positive over a period of time, the bearing may be wearing at a rate sufficient to warrant inspection and/or maintenance. As shown in FIG. 10, neither of these conditions have been met, as the slope of best-fit line 817 is not steep and the slope is not positive for an extended period of time’). Additionally, paragraph 0072 teaches wherein the triggering of the alarm in the seventh method step is used to indicate the need for maintenance of the bearing elements (see underlined above; see figure 6: 609).
Regarding claim 7, Marshall teaches wherein a reference sound power level 812 is defined that corresponds to normal operation and that a maximum sound energy value 813 is defined, above which a warning or alarm is triggered.
Claim(s) 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muehlfeld (DE 102018207638, hereafter referred to as Muehlfeld).
Muehlfeld teaches a device for acoustic wear measurement of the bearing elements of linear electric drives, wherein an electrically energized linear motor carriage 4 is displaceably driven in guide tracks of a stationary guide rail 2, wherein the linear motor carriage is configured as a U-profile (see figure 9) with its side walls at least partially overlapping the guide rail from the outside (see figure 1a), and at least one acoustic sound receiver 58 is arranged concealed on the inner side of the side wall of the linear motor carriage (see figure 7B).
Claim(s) 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaeppinen et al. (CN 111,448,447, hereafter referred to as Jaeppinen).
Jaeppinen teaches a device for acoustic wear measurement 152 of the bearing elements 184 of rotary electric drives, wherein a rotor 180 with bearing elements is driven in rotation on a shaft of a stator 186 (see para. 0061), wherein at least one acoustic sound receiver 118 is arranged on the rotor in the vicinity of the bearing elements (see figure 2B; see para. 0027).
Regarding claim 12, Jaeppinen further teaches wherein a microprocessor 160 (see para. 0037) recording and evaluating sound power is arranged in the immediate vicinity of the sound receiver (see figure 4A).
Regarding claim 13, Jaeppinen further teaches wherein the microprocessor 160 only generates an output signal if the evaluated sound power leads to the result that lubrication or replacement of the bearing elements is necessary (see para. 0024, 0025).
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) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlfeld in view of Jaeppinen.
Muehlfeld teaches the claimed device for acoustic wear measurement of the bearing elements of linear electric drives; however, Muehlfeld does not explicitly teach wherein a microprocessor recording and evaluating sound power is arranged in the immediate vicinity of the sound receiver.
It is known from the prior art of Jaeppinen which teaches wherein a microprocessor 160 (see para. 0037) recording and evaluating sound power is arranged in the immediate vicinity of the sound receiver (see figure 4A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Muehlfeld with the teaching of Jaeppinen in order to provide an alternative to the cable 62.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlfeld in view of Jaeppinen, and further in view of Marshall.
Muehlfeld as modified by Jaeppinen does not explicitly teach wherein a microprocessor wherein the microprocessor only generates an output signal if the evaluated sound power leads to the result that lubrication or replacement of the bearing elements is necessary.
Marshall teaches wherein a microprocessor wherein the microprocessor only generates an output signal if the evaluated sound power leads to the result that lubrication or replacement of the bearing elements is necessary (step 609).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Muehlfeld and Jaeppinen with the teaching of Marshall in order to eliminate unnecessary alerts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855