DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-19 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-19 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding Claims 1-10
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of analyzing a signal.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A system for detecting object resonance caused by vortex shedding, the system comprising:
(a) a housing comprising an inside surface and an outside surface, and configured to encapsulate components of the system; and
(b) a sensor attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing, the sensor comprising an accelerometer..
The italicized limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “detecting object resonance caused by vortex shedding” are a combination of mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), and/or mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, only additional element is “(a) a housing comprising an inside surface and an outside surface, and configured to encapsulate components of the system; and (b) a sensor attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing, the sensor comprising an accelerometer” This element amounts to mere use of a generic sensor structure and field of use, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d)..
The 2nd additional element is “A system,”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components of a system, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer components with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic system with computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea..
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-10
Dependent claims 2-10 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-8 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations Claim 2, 4-5, 6-9 are mere use of a generic structure and field of use, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claims 3 (e.g. (ii) perform an analysis of the signals to determine one of the presence and absence of object resonance caused by vortex shedding; (iii) generate at least one result based on the analysis of the signals) and 10 are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment).
For example, the limitations of Claims 3 (e.g. (i) receive signals from the sensor and external source; (iv) transmit and log the result to a user interface device.), are to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and /or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 11-19
Claims 11-19 contains language similar to claims 1-10 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4,6-7 and 10is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harbison et al. (US 20230067262).
Regarding Claim 1. Harbison teaches a system for detecting object resonance caused by vortex shedding, the system comprising([0003]):
(a) a housing comprising an inside surface and an outside surface, and configured to encapsulate components of the system(32a: fig.2; 32g: fig. 9; [0019], [0026]); and
(b) a sensor attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing, the sensor comprising an accelerometer (30: figs. 2, 8; [0020]; accelerometer: [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 2. Harbison further teaches a control module attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing, the control module comprising a processor being operatively connected to the plurality of sensors([0034]-[0039], [0042]).
Regarding Claim 4. Harbison further teaches a power supply attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing, the power supply electronically connected to and configured to provide electrical power to the sensor and the processor(self-contained and self-powered unit able to log sensor data and to output it through a suitable interface:[0034], claim 14).
Regarding Claim 6. Harbison further teaches a second sensor attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface the housing, the second sensor comprising at least one of a gyroscope, a pressure sensor, an anemometer, and an electrostatic sensor([0034]-[0039]).
Regarding Claim 7. Harbison further teaches a second sensor and a third sensor, each attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing(30, 32a, 32g: fig.2 & 9), the second sensor and third sensor each comprising one of a gyroscope, a pressure sensor, an anemometer, and an electrostatic sensor([0034]-[0039]).
Regarding Claim 10. Harbison further teaches an attachment mechanism configured to attach the system to an object so that the system will detect object resonance of the object caused by vortex shedding([0003]).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbison in view of Disimile ( US 20150047921).
Regarding Claim 3. Harbison further teaches the control module is configurable to: (i) receive signals from the sensor and external source(data from the sensor module 30:[0042]);
(iii) generate at least one result based on the analysis of the signals(processing system: [0042], [0003]); and
(iv) transmit and log the result to a user interface device(computer network: [0042]).
Harbison silent about perform an analysis of the signals to determine one of the presence and absence of object resonance caused by vortex shedding;
However, Disimile teaches perform an analysis of the signals to determine one of the presence and absence of object resonance caused by vortex shedding (acoustic resonance to a fluid-acoustic state as L is increased. The state of acoustic resonance was only observed for the smallest configuration, L/D=1.47. However, as L/D was increased between 1.47 and 8.73, a switch to a fluid acoustic resonance was observed. Under these conditions energy within selected cavity modes were observed to increase by approximately 60% between L/D=2.92 and 7.28. Due to the limited number of model lengths examined, the maximum RSPL was determined to be located at L/D=7.28. It is also suggested that the observed increase in the total energy is a result of vortex shedding, growth, and saturation. If additional L/Ds were examined between 5.83 and 7.28 further increases in the RSPL would be expected, with a maximum occurring at L/D of approximately 6.7, which is the location of vortical structure saturation.: [0057];accelerometer [0037]; fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Harbison, an analysis of the signals to determine one of the presence and absence of object resonance caused by vortex shedding, as taught by Disimile, so as to observe increase in the total energy is a result of vortex shedding, growth, and saturation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbison in view of Berlocher et al.(US 2023/0036230).
Regarding Claim 5. Harbison further teaches wherein the power supply comprises a rechargeable battery(battery: claim14), and
Harbison further teaches self-powered unit:[0034]
Harbison silent about the system self powered unit further comprises a wireless induction charger configured to recharge the rechargeable battery of the power supply.
Berlocher teaches a wireless induction charger configured to recharge the rechargeable battery of the power supply(battery 32 may be a battery that is rechargeable via a wireless induction style charger:[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Harbison, the system self powered unit further comprises a wireless induction charger configured to recharge the rechargeable battery of the power supply, as taught by Berlocher, so as to maintain continuous power to the system.
Claim(s)8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbison in views of Hoffberg (US 11712637) and Kantor (US 4546649)
Regarding Claim 8. Harbison further teaches a gyroscope sensor, a pressure sensor ([0034]-[0039]).
Harbison silent about an anemometer sensor, and an electrostatic sensor.
However, Hoffberg teaches an anemometer sensor(col. 59, l.25-37).
and Kantor teaches electrostatic sensor (col. 11, l.112-15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Harbison, an anemometer sensor, and an electrostatic sensor, as taught by Hoffberg and Kantor, so as to monitor vortex shedding.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbison in views of Hoffberg (US 11712637)
Regarding Claim 9. Harbison further teaches at least one of:
a wireless radio connection device attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to send electronic communication to a user interface([0042]); and
Harbison silent about a global positioning system attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to communicate positional information to a user interface.
However, Hoffberg teaches global positioning system attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to communicate positional information to a user interface(col. 59, l. 25-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Harbison, a global positioning system attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to communicate positional information to a user interface, as taught by Hoffberg, so as to identify exact position of vortex shedding.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangalam et al. (US 20090018703) in view of Hoffberg and Kantor.
Regarding Claim 11. Mangalam teaches a system for detecting object resonance caused by vortex shedding, the system comprising(fig. 4; ):
(a) a housing comprising an inside surface and an outside surface, and configured to encapsulate components of the system(110: fig. 4;[0023], [0025]); and
(b) a plurality of sensors attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing (the sensor array 120 may also include a set of structural sensors 124, which may include accelerometers and/or strain gages. The various flow sensors and structural sensors are disposed on and within the structure 110 to as to provide information sufficient to establish the flow and structural state of the structure 110: [0035]), the plurality of sensors comprising an accelerometer([0035]), a pressure sensor([0033], [0035]), an anemometer(hot-film sensor: [0025]).
Mangalam silent about the plurality of sensors comprising a gyroscope, and an electrostatic sensor.
However, Hoffberg teaches a gyroscope(col. 88, l.22-26 and also anemometer: col. 59, l.25-37 ).
and and Kantor teaches electrostatic sensor (col. 11, l.112-15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Mangalam, an anemometer sensor, gyroscope and an electrostatic sensor, as taught by Hoffberg and Kantor, so as to monitor vortex shedding.
Regarding Claim 12. Mangalam further teaches a control module attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing, the control module comprising a processor being operatively connected to the plurality of sensors(130: fig. 4; [0035]).
Regarding Claim 13. Mangalam further teaches the control module is configurable to(130: fig. 4):
(i) receive signals from the plurality of sensors and external sources(122, 124: fig. 4).
(ii) perform an analysis of the signals to determine one of the presence and absence of object resonance caused by vortex shedding([0025], [0034]);
(iii) generate at least one result based on the analysis of the signals(140, 150, 160: fig. 4); and
(iv) transmit and log the result to a user interface device(a graphical depiction: fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14. Mangalam silent about a power supply attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing, the power supply electronically connected to and configured to provide electrical power to each of the plurality of sensors and the processor.
However, Hoffberg teaches a power supply attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing, the power supply electronically connected to and configured to provide electrical power to each of the plurality of sensors and the processor(battery: fig.10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Mangalam, a power supply attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing, the power supply electronically connected to and configured to provide electrical power to each of the plurality of sensors and the processor, as taught by Hoffberg, so as to monitor vortex shedding.
Regarding Claim 16. The Mangalam silent about a wireless radio connection device attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to send electronic communication to a user interface.
However, Hoffberg teaches a wireless radio connection device attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to send electronic communication to a user interface(col. 46, l. 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Mangalam, a wireless radio connection device attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to send electronic communication to a user interface, as taught by Hoffberg, so as to monitor vortex shedding.
Regarding Claim 17. The Mangalam silent about a global positioning system attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to communicate positional information to a user interface.
However, Hoffberg teaches a global positioning system attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to communicate positional information to a user interface(col. 75, l. 56-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the modified invention of Mangalam, a a global positioning system attached to one of the inside surface and the outside surface of the housing and configured to communicate positional information to a user interface, as taught by Hoffberg, so as to monitor vortex shedding.
Regarding Claim 18. Mangalam further teaches an attachment mechanism configured to attach the system to an object(110: fig.4).
Regarding Claim 19. Mangalam further teaches the system is configured to detect object resonance of the object caused by vortex shedding([0023], [0025], [0034]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangalam et al. (US 20090018703) in view of Hoffberg and Kantor, further in view of Berlocher
Regarding Claim 15. Hoffberg teaches wherein the power supply comprises a rechargeable battery(battery:fig.10), and
The modified Mangalam silent about the system self powered unit further comprises a wireless induction charger configured to recharge the rechargeable battery of the power supply.
Berlocher teaches a wireless induction charger configured to recharge the rechargeable battery of the power supply(battery 32 may be a battery that is rechargeable via a wireless induction style charger:[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of the modified Mangalam, the system self powered unit further comprises a wireless induction charger configured to recharge the rechargeable battery of the power supply, as taught by Berlocher, so as to maintain continuous power to the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 20160033346: Weather sensors and particularly collect weather data by measuring bending and compression stresses in a weather sensor device. The sensors are based upon the principle of bending stresses and the linear variation of stress between the maximum and minimum point. The sensors model deformation of a hollow shaft or rod. The sensors encompass measuring compression, bending, and/or torsional stresses on other cross-sectional shapes using the appropriate relationship for the particular cross-section that finds use in the technology.
b) US 2023/0035429: disclose : vortex shedding may be caused by an unstable flow of air around the rotor blade, particularly the leading edge, when the blade is fixed and pitched at a substantially transverse angle to the wind. The air flows around the blade, but it cannot stay attached to the blade surface. The reason may be that the blade is not pitched correctly to support lift. As a result, an attached air flow may briefly occur, to then be lost. This may result in the formation of a vortex in the flow on the leeward side of the blade. This phenomenon may be referred to as a vortex shedding flow. It has the characteristic that the separations in the air tend to shift from one side of the blade to the other in a rhythmic manner.
c) 2022/0009623: disclose For the purpose of airfoil noise analysis, aerodynamic noise produced near trailing ends of airfoils is strongly dependent on the flow, vortex shedding, lift-to-drag ratio, and laminar separation, transition, and reattachment of the shear layer. The shedding from the separated shear layer has been attributed to Kelvin-Helmholtz instability that can cause characteristic acoustic frequencies. Vortex frequency peak is consistent with the fluctuations of the lift-and-drag coefficients, and the shedding of the trailing edge vortex. This frequency is also close to the results of trailing end vortex shedding by tonal noise frequency.
d) US 2020/0166429: disclose The cylinder 410 is in an operative connection with an accelerometer 430 representing a flexible element according to the proposed solution and being part of the sensor 450. The accelerometer 430 is capturing the movement of the cylinder 410 being excited with a certain vortex shedding frequency by an impinging air flow 440 characterized by an air flow profile 445. Due to the perpendicular orientation of the cylinder 410 the movements captured by the accelerometer 430 are mainly representing an integrated value of the air flow velocity which is similar to an average value of the air flow velocity. Based on the determined air flow velocity further characteristics of the boundary layer may be determined.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights