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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 5/19/26, has been entered. Claims 1-11 are pending upon entry of this Amendment. The previous objections and 112 rejections are withdrawn due to amendments. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered :
On pages 8-9 of Remarks, Applicant is arguing that Braun does not teach the limitation “determining a waiting interval between a next detection and a current detection according to the detection state; wherein the waiting interval is a first waiting interval if the detection state is determined to be the abnormal detection state, and the waiting interval is a second waiting interval if the detection state is determined to be the normal detection state, and wherein the first waiting interval is smaller than the second waiting interval.” because the only detection events in Braun are the measurements of the oil that result in a determination that the oil change interval has been reached. The interval at which these detection events occur is not mentioned; it could, for example, be once per second or once per minute. However there is also no indication that the measurement interval is ever changed as required by claim 1. If the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, it is requested that the examiner identify which interval in Braun is believed to correspond to the "waiting interval" of claim 1.
Response:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP 2111.
In this case, first of all based on MPEP Examiner is required/has to rely on broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), otherwise it would be an error on examination side, secondly the limitation “a waiting interval between a next detection and a current detection” is much broader than Applicant desires:
What Braun clearly supports:
Braun describes a system where the calculated "change interval" (time until the operating fluid needs attention) varies based on the fluid's qualitative condition:
Poor oil condition → Shorter change interval – Braun states the system "continuously calculates the change interval" from "operating variables which represent the qualitative condition of the operating fluid." Degraded oil would warrant a sooner change.
Good oil condition → Longer change interval – Conversely, if the oil condition remains acceptable, the calculated interval extends.
Braun performs ongoing evaluation. What does vary based on oil condition is the change interval itself (how long before action is needed).
The core concept is that Braun’s system adaptively adjusts how long you can wait before regeneration/service based on detected oil condition—shorter waits for degraded/abnormal oil, longer waits for acceptable/normal oil. Braun supports this conditional timing principle, even if it doesn't explicitly frame it as "waiting intervals between measurements."
Broadest reasonable interpretation:
A "waiting interval" between detections could be interpreted as the adaptive temporal spacing between successive condition assessments, where poorer oil condition/abnormality logically necessitates shorter intervals between measurements to catch further degradation, while good condition/normal conditions permits longer intervals—mirroring the underlying change interval logic Braun explicitly describes.
Therefore, the combination teaches the limitation as broadly as can reasonable be interpreted and the argument is not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of Remarks, Applicant is arguing that record is not identifying the modification of Hu and not a reason for the modification.
Response:
the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Based on GUIDELINES in MPEP 2141.II and III: the focus when making a determination of obviousness should be on what a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have known at the relevant time, and on what such a person would have reasonably expected to have been able to do in view of that knowledge. This is so regardless of whether the source of that knowledge and ability was documentary prior art, general knowledge in the art, or common sense. What follows is a discussion of the Graham factual inquiries.
In this case, firstly: following MPEP 2142 Examiner identified (A) the relevant teachings of the prior art (Hu) is relied upon (B) the difference or differences in the claim over Hu (C) the proposed modification of Hu necessary to arrive at the claimed subject matter is determining a waiting interval between a next detection and a current detection according to the modified Hu’s detection state; wherein the modified Hu’s waiting interval is a first waiting interval if the detection state is determined to be the abnormal detection state, and the modified Hu’s waiting interval is a second waiting interval if the modified Hu’s detection state is determined to be the modified Hu’s normal detection state, and wherein the first waiting interval is smaller than the second waiting interval. (Examiner holds that this part is thought by Braun that the modification of Hu is teaching based on obviousness). (D) an explanation as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time was provided from Braun, although based on Examiner’s ordinary skill in the art this limitation is not an unexpected limitation, in other words, based on Examiner’s search many industrial maintenance literature recommend adapting oil sampling frequency based on trending condition data, even if not explicit in a patent. Essentially an adaptive interval based on condition trends are well-known and Braun is one of few patents that explicitly recalculates oil change interval based on measured condition, which conceptually what the limitation is for.
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, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, US 20040239344 A1 in view of Braun, US5592395A.
Claim 1
Hu in figs.1-9 teaches:
An automatic detection method for detecting a content of a substance composition in a viscous material, comprising:
performing a detecting process (using 16 and 17 in fig.1) for the viscous material (e.g., ¶0001 fluids such as oil) in a preset detection period (any measurement period is read on a preset period) in order to obtain a signal detection value (electrical impedance values from 16, e.g., ¶0086) corresponding to the viscous material (oil), and generating a signal detection waveform (e.g., figs.3-4);
determining a detection state (fig.9) corresponding to the signal detection waveform according to the signal detection waveform (steps 42-43), the detection state comprising a normal detection state (44: NO to 45) and an abnormal detection state (44: YES to 48; and
determining the content of the substance composition (Contamination in 55,51) in the viscous material (oil) based on the signal detection waveform (44) in response to the detection state being the normal detection state (one peak),
wherein the substance composition (soot contamination 53 or sulfur 51 ) in the viscous material (oil) is a composition of at least one impurity substance in the viscous material (oil).
Hu teaches the automatic method and determining a waiting interval between a next detection and a current detection according (e.g., ¶0123 and broadly there is a waiting interval between different detections, i.e., current and next detection inherently according to the detection state); but Hu does not specifically teach but does not specifically teach wherein the automatic detection method further comprises: determining a waiting interval between a next detection and a current detection according to the detection state; wherein the waiting interval is a first waiting interval if the detection state is determined to be the abnormal detection state, and the waiting interval is a second waiting interval if the detection state is determined to be the normal detection state, and wherein the first waiting interval is smaller than the second waiting interval.
In the similar field of endeavor, Braun teaches wherein the automatic detection method (e.g., col.3 L.19 using control unit 5) further comprises: determining a waiting interval (condition-based lifespan of an operating fluid before replacement or partial replacement: col.2 L.55-60) between a next detection and a current detection according to the detection state (e.g., Col.2 L.48-53, COL.3 l.3-10); wherein the waiting interval is a first waiting interval (condition-based lifespan of an operating fluid) in response to the detection state being an abnormal detection state (col.2 L.61-67:unit specific interval after monitoring abnormality by 7), and the waiting interval is a second waiting interval in response to the detection state being a normal detection state (condition-based lifespan of an operating fluid before detection of abnormality by 7), and wherein the first waiting interval is smaller than the second waiting interval (e.g., col. 3 L.15-17: maximum possible condition-based lifespan of an operating fluid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Braun‘s waiting interval for Hu‘s automatic detection method wherein the modified Hu’s waiting interval is a first waiting interval in response to the detection state being the modified Hu’s abnormal detection state, and the modified Hu’s waiting interval is a second waiting interval in response to the modified Hu’s detection state is determined to be the modified Hu’s normal detection state, and wherein the modified Hu’s first waiting interval is smaller than the modified Hu’s second waiting interval. One of ordinary skill in the art knows dynamically calculating change intervals acts as a fluid-specific alternative or complement to fixed manufacturer-mandated service intervals and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to automating effective oil change (Braun col.1 L.45-54).
Claim 3
Hu in view of Braun teaches the automatic detection method according to claim 1,
Hu in fig.9 teaches wherein the determining a detection state corresponding to the signal detection waveform according to the signal detection waveform comprises: determining a number of valleys (step 44) in the signal detection; and determining the detection state based on the number of valleys (if two peak controller determines the water content and if one peak it determines the contamination).
Claim 10
Hu in view of Braun teaches the method of claim 1, Hu teaches an automatic detection (e.g., ¶0123) device for detecting a content of a substance composition (e.g., soot and sulfur 51,53 of fig.9) in a viscous material (oil), wherein the automatic detection device (fig.1: 16,17) realizes a detection of the content of the viscous material (soot and sulfur) according to the automatic detection method for detecting a content of a substance composition in the viscous material according to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, US 20040239344 A1in view of Braun, US5592395A and Cella, US 20190041843 A1.
Claim 2
Hu in view of Braun teaches the automatic detection method according to claim 1, but the combination does not necessarily teach wherein the performing a detecting process for the viscous material in a preset detection period in order to obtain a signal detection value corresponding to the viscous material and generating a signal detection waveform comprises:
performing a detection at a preset detection interval in the preset detection period by using a sensor detection circuit to obtain a plurality of signal detection values corresponding to the viscous material, wherein the plurality of signal detection values are values of the same type recorded at different points in time; and performing a fitting process based on the plurality of signal detection values to obtain the signal detection waveform. However, performing a fitting process that is comprising to obtain a plurality of signal detection values corresponding to a material, wherein the plurality of signal detection values are values of the same type recorded at different points in time; and performing a fitting process based on the plurality of signal detection values to obtain the signal detection is a routine and well known signal processing, and for example In the similar field of endeavor, Cella teaches obtain a plurality of signal detection values corresponding to a material, wherein the plurality of signal detection values are values of the same type recorded at different points in time (sensor measurements over time: e.g., figs.25-30); and performing a fitting process based on the plurality of signal detection values to obtain the signal detection (¶0259) and therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cella‘s signal processing for the modified Hu‘s method wherein the performing a detecting process for the viscous material in a preset detection period in order to obtain a signal detection value corresponding to the viscous material and generating a signal detection waveform comprises: performing a detection at a preset detection interval in the preset detection period by using a sensor detection circuit to obtain a plurality of signal detection values corresponding to the viscous material, wherein the plurality of signal detection values are values of the same type recorded at different points in time; and performing a fitting process based on the plurality of signal detection values to obtain the signal detection waveform . One of ordinary skill in the art knows using machine learning and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use this method to make a learning model to auto analyses of materials with the same pattern (see Zhu’s method), and based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, US 20040239344 A1 in view of Braun, US5592395A and Cella-2, US 11092955 B2.
Claim 7
Hu in view of Braun teaches the automatic detection method according to claim 1, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the viscous material is a viscous material arranged on a target component of a fan, and a sensor detection circuit receives the viscous material on the target component of the fan, and wherein, in the first waiting interval, continuing to receive the viscous material by the sensor detection circuit; and in the second waiting interval, blowing the viscous material received by the sensor detection circuit away from the sensor detection circuit and then continuing to receive the viscous material. However, first of all as cited above, the method can be used for lubrication oil of any type of device such as a target component of a fan. For example, In the similar field of endeavor, Cella-2 teaches an analysis method for fan (e.eg, col.79 L.48 and col.82 L.18), secondly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified Rocco‘s method for a target component of a fan and wherein, blowing the viscous material received by the sensor detection circuit away from the sensor detection circuit and then continuing to receive the viscous material for better determination and validation of the abnormal state. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cella‘s fan for the modified Hu‘s automatic detection method wherein the viscous material is a viscous material arranged on a target component of a fan, and a sensor detection circuit receives the viscous material on the target component of the fan, and wherein, in the first waiting interval, continuing to receive the viscous material by the sensor detection circuit; and in the second waiting interval, blowing the viscous material received by the sensor detection circuit away from the sensor detection circuit and then continuing to receive the viscous material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use the method for applications including fans, based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, US 20040239344 A1 in view of Braun, US5592395A and Young, US 20180299375 A1.
Claim 8
Hu in view of Braun teaches the automatic detection method according to claim 1, the combination does not specifically teach wherein the determining a content of the substance composition in the viscous material based on the signal detection waveform in response to the detection state is the normal detection state comprises: selecting a valley with a smallest valley value in the signal detection waveform as a target valley, and determining a detection valley value based on the valley value of the target valley, wherein the valley value is a signal value corresponding to the valley; determining a detection environment parameter of the viscous material, the detection environment parameter comprising at least one of a detection temperature and a detection humidity; and inputting the detection environment parameter and the detection valley value into a machine learning model, and processing the detection environment parameter and the detection valley value by the machine learning model to obtain the content of the substance composition in the viscous material. However, this is obvious over method steps of using a machine learning modeling, for example In the similar field of endeavor, Young teaches selecting a target valley (e.g., figs.38-39), and determining a detection valley value based on the valley value of the target valley, wherein the valley value is a signal value corresponding to the valley; determining a detection environment parameter of the viscous material (temperature e.g., ¶0161), the detection environment parameter comprising at least one of a detection temperature (¶0161); and inputting the detection environment parameter and the detection valley value into a machine learning model (e.g., ¶0401), and processing the detection environment parameter and the detection valley value by the machine learning model to obtain the viscous material conditions(e.g., Abstract: Fluid conditions may be determined using machine learning models that are generated from well-characterized known training data. Predicted fluid conditions may then be used to automatically implement control processes for an operating machine containing the fluid.). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Young‘s machine learning models for the modified Hu‘s method wherein the determining a content of the substance composition in the viscous material based on the signal detection waveform in response to the detection state is the normal detection state comprises: selecting a valley with a smallest valley value in the signal detection waveform as a target valley, and determining a detection valley value based on the valley value of the target valley, wherein the valley value is a signal value corresponding to the valley; determining a detection environment parameter of the viscous material, the detection environment parameter comprising at least one of a detection temperature and a detection humidity; and inputting the detection environment parameter and the detection valley value into a machine learning model, and processing the detection environment parameter and the detection valley value by the machine learning model to obtain the content of the substance composition in the viscous material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to analyze the fluid conditions ( Young, Abstract), based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 9
Hu in view of Braun and Young teach the automatic detection method according to claim 8, Young teaches wherein the determining a detection valley value based on a valley value of the target valley comprises :acquiring a preset number of additional signal detection waveforms with the normal detection state(different samples for any ML such as samples figs.38-39); determining a valley with the smallest valley value in each of the preset number of signal detection waveforms as the target valley; and weighting and averaging the valley values of the target valleys of the preset number of additional signal detection waveforms to obtain the detection valley value (e.g., ¶0466), for the same reason and motivation as cited above for claim 8.
Claims 1 and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocco1, US20200264135A1 in view of Braun, US5592395A.
Claim 1
Rocco teaches:
An automatic detection method for detecting a content of a substance composition in a viscous material, comprising:
performing a detecting process (300 using 124 in fig.5) for the viscous material (oil debris, metals in oil e.g., ¶0001) in a preset detection period (detection duration reads on this) in order to obtain a signal detection value (signals from monitor sensor e.g., ¶0005) corresponding to the viscous material (oil debris), and generating a signal detection waveform (e.g., collecting I and Q channel data from an oil debris monitor sensor, step 308-314: fig.8);
determining a detection state (symmetric or not symmetric: e.g., ¶0006 and step 704 in fig.22) corresponding to the signal detection waveform (I,Q fig.6) according to the signal detection waveform (I and Q fig.6), the detection state comprising a normal detection state (704,218 symmetric I,Q) and an abnormal detection state (704,706); and
determining the content of the substance (218 in fig.22) composition in the viscous material (oil debris) based on the signal detection waveform (704) in response to the detection state is the normal detection state (704 Yes for symmetric 1,Q),
wherein the substance composition (particles debris 218, e.g., ¶0084-¶0086) in the viscous material (oil debris) is a composition of at least one impurity substance in the viscous material (e.g., ¶0084-¶0086); and
wherein the automatic detection method (e.g., ¶087,500,600,700).
Rocco does not specifically teach wherein the automatic detection method further comprises:
determining a waiting interval between a next detection and a current detection according to the detection state; wherein the waiting interval is a first waiting interval in response to the detection state is determined to be the abnormal detection state, and the waiting interval is a second waiting interval in response to the detection state is determined to be the normal detection state, and wherein the first waiting interval is smaller than the second waiting interval.
In the similar field of endeavor, Braun teaches wherein the automatic detection method (e.g., col.3 L.19 using control unit 5) further comprises: determining a waiting interval (service time interval: col.2 L.55-60) between a next detection and a current detection according to the detection state (e.g., Col.2 L.48-53, COL.3 l.3-10); wherein the waiting interval is a first waiting interval (unit specific interval) in response to the detection state is determined to be the abnormal detection state (col.2 L.61-67:unit specific interval after monitoring abnormality by 7), and the waiting interval is a second waiting interval in response to the detection state is determined to be the normal detection state (service time interval before detection of abnormality by 7), and wherein the first waiting interval is smaller than the second waiting interval (e.g., col. 3 L.15-17: maximum possible service life of the operating fluid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Braun‘s waiting interval for Rocco‘s automatic detection method to come to determining a waiting interval between a next detection and a current detection according to the detection state; wherein the waiting interval is a first waiting interval in response to the detection state is determined to be the abnormal detection state, and the waiting interval is a second waiting interval in response to the detection state is determined to be the normal detection state, and wherein the first waiting interval is smaller than the second waiting interval . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to automating effective oil change (Braun col.1 L.45-54).
Claim 10
Rocco in view of Braun teaches the method of claim 1, Rocco teaches an automatic detection (e.g., ¶087,500,600,700) device for detecting a content of a substance composition (e.g., Fe particles in fig.22 704) in a viscous material (oil debris ¶0005), wherein the automatic detection device 110 realizes a detection of the content of the viscous material (Fe) according to the automatic detection method for detecting a content of a substance composition in the viscous material according to claim 1.
Allowable subject matter
Claim 4 comprises allowable subject matter, however depends on a rejected claim, but would be allowable in response to rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and also amended to overcome 112 b rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious an assembly comprising an automatic detection method for detecting a content of a substance composition in a viscous material in the case where three or more valleys exist in the signal detection waveform, sorting the valley values of the valleys from smallest to largest to obtain a valley sequence, calculating an absolute value of a difference between a first valley and a second valley in the valley sequence, comparing the absolute value of the difference with a preset additional threshold, determining the detection state as the normal detection state in response to the absolute value of the difference is greater than or equal to the preset additional threshold; and determining the detection state as the abnormal detection state in response to the absolute value of the difference is less than the preset additional threshold, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Claim 11 is allowed.
Regarding claim 11: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious an assembly comprising an automatic detection method for detecting a content of a substance composition in a viscous material in the case where three or more valleys exist in the signal detection waveform, sorting the valley values of the valleys from smallest to largest to obtain a valley sequence, calculating an absolute value of a difference between a first valley and a second valley in the valley sequence, comparing the absolute value of the difference with a preset additional threshold, determining the detection state as the normal detection state in response to the absolute value of the difference is greater than or equal to the preset additional threshold; and determining the detection state as the abnormal detection state in response to the absolute value of the difference is less than the preset additional threshold, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Prior art of record
Prosecution Insights