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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on 07/07/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “none of this is recited in the claims that the USPTO guidance explicitly identifies as proper”, the examiner respectfully submits that the claim drafting guidance is just a guide. The actual interpretation and examination of each claim set varies on a case-by-case basis. While a process claim can be a process for using the particular article, the structural details of the article would need to be recited in the claims in order to relate the process of using the article to the physical structure of a particular article. In this case, the example provided by the applicant is related to a manufacturing process of a ball, which does not require the particular structure of the ball, which is different from the process of using the ball, which requires the particular structure of the ball in order to use the ball, for instance. The claimed invention does not appear to relate to a manufacturing process of an article. Furthermore, the MPEP 806.05(h) is a section related to restriction practice. There is no restriction requirement in this application.
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “while a process claim can be for a process of using a particular article, it does not need to be”, the examiner respectfully submits that the MPEP defines “(b) The term "process" means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.” (see 35 U.S.C. 100) and that “a "process" is "a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result” (see MPEP 2106.03). In this case, the claimed “method for resonance analysis of a vibration machine” does not appear to disclose “a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material” or “a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result”. For example, the claimed invention does not disclose a new use of the vibration machine or treatment of materials. On the other hand, the claimed “method for resonance analysis of a vibration machine” does not define any articles for performing the “resonance analysis”. In fact, the method as claimed does not disclose any devices, other than the vibration machine, which is not disclosed in the specification as being configured to perform resonance analysis on itself. In response to the applicant’s argument, that “the burden is specifically on the examiner to show that an applicant actually has described as “essential” matter as being essential as a necessary part of making the rejection, the examiner respectfully submits that the Non-final office action (dated 04/07/2026) specifically pointed out that the device(s) for performing the claimed method steps is/are missing.
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “MPEP 2172.01, instead requires “unclaimed essential matter” to be material described as essential in the specification”, the examiner respectfully submits that the specification dated 02/06/2024 discloses at least “a measuring system for measuring natural vibrations on a vibration machine, which is designed to carry out one of the methods described above, comprises at least one vibration detection device and an evaluation device” (see at least pages 10-13). As disclosed, the specification does not appear to disclose an embodiment where the resonance analysis does not require a particular device for measuring vibrations and for evaluating.
In response to the applicant’s argument, that “nothing in Wiese appears to provide for a similar configuration for excitation of the vibration machine with an excitation signal during operation”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the asserted “configuration for excitation of the vibration machine” is not explicitly disclosed in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, Wiese teaches “modal analysis following an excitation force application when the rotor is not rotating and the values representative of a run-up of the rotor or when the rotor rotates during an unbalance measurement.” (see at least Column 8, line 1, to Column 10, line 33) and that “the force application for exciting the rotor can be made either while the rotor is at a standstill or while the rotor rotates” (see Column 5, lines 5-20). Furthermore, the claimed limitation of “the vibration machine is not shut down” does not appear to require said machine to rotate and/or not be at standstill. In any case, Scheibner teaches the vibration machine is not shut down between determination of the operating vibration signal and obtaining of the frequency analysis of the subtraction signal (i.e., transmitter structure S is excited directly by a mechanical excitation signal, which originates from the electrical drive and oscillates at the frequency, and that the electrical drive is not shut down) (see Column 1, lines 5-45 and Column 5, lines 49-59). Furthermore, the specification appears to only disclose “to know the natural frequencies in operation with a load and not those in operation without a load” (see at least page 20) and not the specifically claimed limitation of “the vibration machine is not shut down between determination of the operating vibration signal and obtaining of the frequency analysis of the subtraction signal” in the currently amended claim.
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.
Claims 16-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the method steps of determination of an operation signal, excitation of the vibration machine, measuring a response, determining a correction signal, determining a subtraction signal, frequency analysis of the subtraction signal, and, obtaining frequency analysis without disclosing any devices or component for performing the claimed method steps. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are:
a device for performing the method step of “determination of an operating vibration signal”
a device for determining the vibrations of the vibration machine
a device for performing the method step of “excitation of the vibration machine”
a device for performing the method step of “measuring a response vibration signal”
a device for performing the method step of “determining a correction signal”
a device for performing the method step of “determining a subtraction signal”
a device for performing the method step of “frequency analysis”. Further clarification is respectfully requested; and
a device for performing the method step of “obtaining frequency analysis”
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 17-34 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (Pat. No. US 6,415,661) (hereafter Wiese) in view of Verger (Pat. No. US 8,397,591) (hereafter Verger) and in further view of Scheibner et al. (Pat. No. US 7,878,066) (hereafter Scheibner).
Regarding claim 16, Wiese teaches a method for resonance analysis of a vibration machine (i.e., any conventional drive can be used for rotating rotor 10) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67), comprising performing, during continuous operation of the vibration machine (i.e., different natural frequencies and respective modal damping grades are measured when the rotor is at a standstill and when it is rotating) (see Column 8, lines 43-52), the following steps:
- determination of an operating vibration signal comprising the vibrations of the vibration machine in regular operation (i.e., different natural frequencies and respective modal damping grades are measured when the rotor is at a standstill and when it is rotating) (see Column 8, lines 43-52),
- excitation of the vibration machine during operation with an excitation signal for exciting additional vibrations at the vibration machine (i.e., the signal from the hammer 11 provides a curve or spectrum representing the excitation force as a function of time) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67),
- measuring a response vibration signal of the vibration machine to the excitation during operation (i.e., for each bearing plane and for each hammer blow one force spectrum can be measured) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67),
- determining a correction signal by using the operating vibration signal (i.e., only the wave elastic characteristic of the first modal shape (eigenform) of the rotor shall be taken into account and compensated) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67),
- determining a subtraction signal by subtracting the correction signal from the response vibration signal (i.e., by comparing the curves of FIG. 2 with the curves of FIG. 3 it is seen that the modal contributions have shifted in frequency and that different modal damping degrees are present. The peaks in FIG. 2 are higher than the peaks in FIG. 3, indicating different modal damping degrees) (see Column 8, line 43, to Column 9, line 52), and
- frequency analysis of the subtraction signal (i.e., the sensors 7 and 8 provide for the respective bearing plane 1 or 2 the curves of the forces that are effective in the bearings as a function of time, and more specifically as a function of frequency by using Fourier Analysis Method. For each bearing plane and for each hammer blow one force spectrum can be measured) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67) for determining the natural frequencies of the vibration machine (i.e., the values derived from a force excitation when the rotor is not rotating, can be replaced by the natural or resonance frequencies and modal decay constants when the rotor is rotating and runs up to the rated r.p.m. or when the rotor is rotating at a measuring r.p.m. for measuring an unbalance. These values for a rotating rotor are derived by modal analysis) (see Column 8, line 43, to Column 9, line 52), wherein the dominant frequencies of the subtraction signal correspond to the natural frequencies of the system in the frequency range of the excitation signal (i.e., the first summand in the parenthesis is derived from the curve resulting from an excitation force application by the hammer 11 when the rotor does not rotate. The last term in the second summand within the parenthesis is obtained by modal analysis following an excitation force application when the rotor is not rotating and the values are representative of a run-up of the rotor or when the rotor rotates during an unbalance measurement) (see Column 9, line 20, to Column 10, line 37); but does not explicitly teach that the excitation signal is a Dirac pulse and that the vibration machine is not shut down between determination of the operating vibration signal and obtaining of the frequency analysis of the subtraction signal.
Regarding the excitation signal, Verger teaches that the excitation signal is a Dirac pulse (i.e., impacts, also known as "instrumental hammer" or "impulse test" is based on use of a very short impact, similar to a Dirac impulse, intended to excite a structure, and on the Fourier transformation of the response of this structure over an entire frequency range) (see Colum 3, lines 12-55; Colum 11, line 47, to Column 12, line 50). In view of the teaching of Verger, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a Dirac pulse to excite a structure over an entire frequency range in order to improve the characterization of the device’s signature frequency.
Regarding the operation of the vibration machine, Scheibner teaches
determining a correction signal by using the operating vibration signal (i.e., an amplitude-modulated carrier signal S1 whose spectrum is influenced not only by the excitation signal to be determined but also by the disturbance signal S2, wherein disturbance signal S2 is detected in parallel in time with the detection of the amplitude-modulated carrier signal S1 with the disturbance signal on it) (see Column 6, lines 43-64)
determining a subtraction signal by subtracting the correction signal from the response vibration signal (i.e., subtraction means SM are used to form the difference between the amplitude-modulated carrier signal S1 and the disturbance signal S2, thus resulting in an output signal AS from which the disturbance signal S2 has essentially been eliminated) (see Column 6, lines 43-64), and
- frequency analysis of the subtraction signal for determining the natural frequencies of the vibration machine (i.e., oscillation amplitudes of the output signal AS from which the disturbance signal has been removed, plotted against the appropriate frequency components f) (see Column 7, lines 27-53), wherein the dominant frequencies of the subtraction signal correspond to the natural frequencies of the system in the frequency range of the excitation signal (i.e., resonant frequency f.sub.RE of the receiver structure E1 therefore corresponds to the left sideband of the illustrated frequency spectrum) (see Column 7, lines 27-53); and wherein
the vibration machine is not shut down (i.e., transmitter structure S is excited directly by a mechanical excitation signal, which originates from the electrical drive and oscillates at the frequency fA) (see Column 1, lines 5-45 and Column 5, lines 49-59) between determination of the operating vibration signal and obtaining of the frequency analysis of the subtraction signal (i.e., the vibration measurement system is intended to monitor a vibration-sensitive production process and system is intended for determination of vibration on electrical drive systems, with the relevant oscillations being in the range from a few Hertz to 1 kHz) (see Column 3, lines 1-48). In view of the teaching of Scheibner, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed frequency analysis during the operation of the vibration machine in order to determine bearing damage, cavitation effects, leakage effects, or electrical discharges during manufacturing processes.
Regarding claim 17, Wiese teaches that the operating vibration signal is modified before it is used as a correction signal (i.e., the curves of the forces that are effective in the bearings as a function of time, and more specifically as a function of frequency by using Fourier Analysis Method) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67).
Regarding claim 18, Wiese teaches generating the correction signal:- the frequency with the highest amplitude is determined from the operating vibration signal, hereinafter referred to as the operating frequency,- the amplitude and phase of the operating frequency are determined in the operating vibration signal,- the amplitude and phase of the harmonics of the operating frequency in the operating vibration signal is determined,- the correction signal is generated from the amplitude and phase of the operating frequency and from the amplitude and phase of the harmonics of the operating frequency (i.e., the curves of the forces that are effective in the bearings as a function of time, and more specifically as a function of frequency by using Fourier Analysis Method) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67).
Regarding claim 19, Wiese teaches that the harmonics are one or more of the multiples of the operating frequency (i.e., different natural frequencies and respective modal damping grades are measured when the rotor is at a standstill and when it is rotating) (see Column 8, lines 43-52)
Regarding claim 20, Wiese teaches that the operating vibration signal is estimated by automatic parameter estimation and modified using the resulting parameters (i.e., different natural frequencies and respective modal damping grades are measured when the rotor is at a standstill and when it is rotating) (see Column 8, lines 43-52).
Regarding claim 21, Wiese teaches that the correction signal is modeled on the operating vibration signal by taking up the operating vibration signal over a predetermined duration and using it as the correction signal (i.e., the curves of the forces that are effective in the bearings as a function of time, and more specifically as a function of frequency by using Fourier Analysis Method) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67).
Regarding claim 22, Wiese teaches that the operating vibration signal is used as a correction signal (i.e., the curves of the forces that are effective in the bearings as a function of time, and more specifically as a function of frequency by using Fourier Analysis Method) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67).
Regarding claim 23, Wiese as modified by Verger and Scheibner as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the natural frequencies are determined in a frequency range of greater than 0.01 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a predetermined frequency range. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
Regarding claim 24, Wiese as modified by Verger and Scheibner as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the natural frequencies are determined in a frequency range of up to less than 1 kHz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a predetermined frequency range. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
Regarding claim 25, Wiese teaches that after the step of frequency analysis, the operating frequency is changed and all steps are repeated (i.e., The sensors 7 and 8 provide for the respective bearing plane 1 or 2 the curves of the forces that are effective in the bearings as a function of time, and more specifically as a function of frequency by using Fourier Analysis Method. For each bearing plane and for each hammer blow one force spectrum can be measured) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67).
Regarding claim 26, Wiese teaches that an excitation vibration signal is transmitted to the vibration machine at several points (i.e., a hammer 11 for applying in each compensation plane an excitation force in the form of a hammer blow to the rotor 10 when it is not rotating or when it is rotating) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67).
Regarding claim 27, Wiese teaches that a response vibration signal is measured at several of points (i.e., the sensors 7 and 8 provide for the respective bearing plane 1 or 2 the curves of the forces that are effective in the bearings as a function of time) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67).
Regarding claim 28, Wiese teaches that the determination of an operating vibration signal, the excitation of the vibration machine and the measurement of a response vibration signal are superimposed in time and/or take place simultaneously (i.e., the hammer 11 is provided with an acceleration sensor S which generates signals of the forces applied by the hammer 11 to the rotor 10 and these signals are supplied through a cable 11A to a signal processing unit PU. The processing unit PU also receives signals from the sensors 7 and 8 and from the r.p.m. sensor 12. The signal from the hammer 11 provides a curve or spectrum representing the excitation force as a function of time so that one excitation spectrum for each compensation or unbalance plane is formed) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67).
Regarding claim 29, Wiese teaches that the vibration machine is one of a vibrating screen or a vibrating conveyor (i.e., any conventional drive can be used for rotating rotor 10) (see Column 5, line 38, to Column 6, line 67).
Regarding claim 30, Wiese as modified by Verger and Scheibner as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the harmonics are one of 1/2, 3/2, 1/3,2/3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16, and 32 times the operating frequency. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected multiple different harmonics. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
Regarding claim 31, Wiese as modified by Verger and Scheibner as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the natural frequencies are determined in a frequency range of greater than 0.1 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a predetermined frequency range. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding claim 32, Wiese as modified by Verger and Scheibner as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the natural frequencies are determined in a frequency range of greater than 1 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a predetermined frequency range. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
Regarding claim 33, Wiese as modified by Verger and Scheibner as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the natural frequencies are determined in the frequency range of up to less than 500 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a predetermined frequency range. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)
Regarding claim 34, Wiese as modified by Verger and Scheibner as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the natural frequencies are determined in the frequency range of up to less than 50 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a predetermined frequency range. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights