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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 – 13, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeroug et al. (Patent No.: US 6,941,231 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Zeroug discloses an apparatus and method for monitoring a mechanical system (estimating time varying mechanical properties, See Abstract), wherein the mechanical system comprises a moving surface arranged to undertake periodic motion (“… sample of material 3, some cement for example (or any material the mechanical properties of which vary with time), is placed between these two transducers.” Col. 6, lines 26-29), the periodic motion having a time period (See Time periods, FIG. 6), the apparatus comprising a controller configured to:
control a first transducer to emit acoustic waves onto the moving surface during first and second time periods of the periodic motion (Transducer includes ultrasonic transmitter 1 that propagates acoustic waves, FIG. 1 and col. 6, lines 19-26);
receive signals generated by the first transducer or a second transducer, wherein the
received signals represent one or both of i) reflections of the acoustic waves from the moving
surface and ii) acoustic waves having travelled through the mechanical system (ultrasonic receiver 2 to receive propagated acoustic waves from the moving sample material 3, FIG. 1 and col. 6, lines 19-26);
process the received signals to obtain at least one first measurement indicative of a signal received during the first time period, and to obtain at least one second measurement indicative of a signal received during the second time period (Multiple samples at different angles and sampled at different time periods in increments of 5 microseconds FIG. 6); and
compare the at least one first measurement with the at least one second measurement to determine a change of a property of the mechanical system (“After being detected by the receiver, the signals are compared to calculated signals provided by the calculating method. At the end of the iteration process, the method will extract the velocities and attenuations of the compressional and shear waves from ultrasonic signals acquired in a cement sample and finally provide the mechanical characteristics of said sample…The calculating method is based on the use of a theoretical model that simulates the measurement technique implemented in the apparatus in order to provide signals corresponding to the measured signals and to compare these two sets of signals.” Col. 8, lines 35-46).
Regarding claim 2, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein the acoustic waves are ultrasound waves (ultrasonic transmitter and receiver, col. 6, lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 3, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein: the at least one first measurement comprises a first plurality of measurements, and the at
least one second measurement comprises a second plurality of measurements (at 35 degrees and at 30 degrees, FIG. 6); and the controller is configured to compare the first plurality of measurements with the second plurality of measurements to determine the change of the property of the mechanical system (Multiple samples at different angles and sampled at different time periods in increments of 5 microseconds FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein: the first plurality of measurements comprises a first plurality of samples taken at predefined time intervals during the first time period; and the second plurality of measurements comprises a second plurality of samples taken at time intervals during the second time period that correspond to the predefined time intervals of the first time period (Multiple samples at different angles and sampled at different time periods in increments of 5 microseconds FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Zeroug discloses the apparatus wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a reference model based on the first plurality of measurements;
determine a test model based on the second plurality of measurements; and
compare the test model with the reference model to determine the change of the property (“The inputs to the model consist of several parameters that describe the components of this measurement apparatus such as transducers, cement sample, medium fluid that separates transducers from the sample, as well as the system electronics. Each of these parameters is estimated. The velocities and the attenuation properties of the sample of tested material also constitute inputs parameters. These are estimated and initialised in the calculating method. This theoretical model is implemented in a computer 20 code using known programming languages. Additionally, an interface is developed, said interface permitting to drive the calculating code automatically and with minimal operator intervention.” Col. 8, lines 47-59).
Regarding claim 6, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein each of
the reference and test models comprises a curve fit to a plurality of data points corresponding to the first and second plurality of measurements, and wherein the comparison comprises
determining a similarity between the curves of the reference and test models (Lab and calculated curved lines, FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein the moving surface of the mechanical system comprises an element protruding from a base area, the acoustic waves are emitted onto a measurement area of the moving surface, and wherein-the controller is further configured to obtain the at least one first measurement and/or the at least one second measurement when at least a portion of the element and the base area are within the measurement area (“The cement sample is positioned preferably on a rotation stage such that its surfaces make an incidence angle theta (.theta.) with respect to the transducers sensitivity lines as shown in FIG. 1. For given incidence angles, of the cement sample, ultrasonic data is acquired. FIG. 6 shows typical signals acquired from a sample of class H.” col. 6, lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 8, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain the at least one first and/or the at least one second measurement when an entire width of the element taken along an axis of the element corresponding to a direction of movement of the element is within the measurement area (3, FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Zeroug discloses the apparatus wherein the received signals represent reflections of the acoustic waves from the moving surface, and, wherein the controller is configured to determine, for each measurement, a value of peak-to-
peak amplitude of a reflected acoustic wave (FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein the received signals represent reflections of the acoustic waves from the moving surface and, wherein the controller is configured to determine, for each measurement, a time of flight measurement between the time of emission of the respective acoustic wave and the time of receiving the reflection of the emitted acoustic wave (Measured and lab determined samples at each time period, FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein the property comprises wear of the moving surface (determines stress to failure to further determine the material compressive or shear strength, relating to durability; col. 1, lines 24-45).
Regarding claim 12, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein the property comprises an amount of lubricant between the moving surface and the transducer (oil well and fluid between cement; col. 6, lines 37-43).
Regarding claim 13, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, wherein the property comprises aeration, cavitation and/or contamination of a fluid adjacent the moving surface and/or between the moving surface and the transducer (determine fluid density and speed in the cement layer thickness; col. 11, lines 54-59).
Regarding claim 15, Zeroug discloses the apparatus, the apparatus further comprising the transducer, wherein the transducer is configured to be attached on an external side of an external casing of the mechanical system, the transducer further being configured to emit the acoustic waves through the external casing (1, 2; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Zeroug discloses the apparatus wherein the controller is located remotely to the transducer, and wherein the controller is configured to communicate with the transducer via a communication network (1, 20; FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Zeroug discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor of a controller, cause the controller to carry out the method of claim 18 (Computer 20, FIG. 1).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeroug et al. (Patent No.: US 6,941,231 B2) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Waschkies et al. (Patent No.: US 11,085,903 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Zeroug is silent to the apparatus wherein the fluid is a molten polymer or a molten metal. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Waschkies teaches a method and device for quantitative determination of a number of particulate components in a medium flowing along a flow channel. Ultrasonic waves are coupled into the flowing medium and portions of the ultrasonic wave portion are detected in ultrasonic time signals where the quantitative determination is made (See Abstract). More specifically, a number and size of a particulate component contained in a molten metal flowing are reflected in ultrasonic waves via a ultrasound transducer (See claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid taught by Zeroug to be a molten polymer or a molten metal as taught by Waschkies to allow for more precise quantitative statements about a material mixture in order to effectively control, adjust or monitor production processes (col. 1, lines 40-45)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeroug et al. (Patent No.: US 6,941,231 B2) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Murphy (Pub. No.: US 2014/0196536 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Murphy teaches the apparatus, wherein the transducer and the controller are integrated within a single unit (Similarly, the controller and transducer are part of a single unit (¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to modify the transducer and the controller taught by Zeroug to be integrated into a single unit as taught by Murphy to simplify system design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights