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 .
Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5: In line 3, change “Loentz” to --Lorentz--.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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 claims 1, 11, and 18: The language “that falls within a typical range of the rotating machinery” is indefinite. No speed limitation has been placed on the machinery nor any structural limitations that would indicate a “typical range.” The different types of machinery that exist can have differing rotational speeds covering several orders of magnitude. The claims have been examined as if this language were not present. This language is recited in all three independent claims.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12-17, 19, and 20: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9, 11-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CANADA (US 6087796) in view of KLIMAN (US 6208132).
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, CANADA discloses: A device to detect a rotational run speed of a piece of rotating machinery (abstract), the device comprising: a magnetic flux sensor (40 in FIG. 1); a vibration sensor (30); a processor (70 in FIG. 2); and a memory (80), wherein the memory includes instructions; wherein the processor is in communication with the magnetic flux sensor (40 in FIG. 1; communication to processor through line 42), the vibration sensor (30 with communication through line 32), and the memory (FIG. 2), and the processor is configured to: receive magnetic flux data from the magnetic flux sensor (data is represented by the arrow above step 134 in FIG. 3C); execute the instructions in the memory to apply a fast Fourier transform to the magnetic flux data to generate transformed magnetic flux data (step 134 in FIG. 3C; done by Fast Fourier Transform [FFT] in col. 4 lines 38-59); execute the instructions in the memory to determine a prominent fundamental frequency in the transformed magnetic flux data that falls within a typical range of the rotating machinery (peaks of the flux spectrum in col. 7 lines 32-49); receive vibration data (arrow going into step 104 in FIG. 3A) from the vibration sensor (30 in FIG. 1); execute the instructions in the memory to apply a fast Fourier transform to the vibration data to generate transformed vibration data (acquire spectrum in step 104; col. 4 lines 38-59); and execute the instructions in the memory to determine the rotational run speed of the piece of rotating machinery based on the transformed magnetic flux data and the transformed vibration data (The algorithm is detailed in col. 7 line 32-col. 9 line 4.).
CANADA discloses using the data from both sensors (col. 2 line 22-col. 3 line 27), and also narrowing the search to a probable band of frequencies (col. 5 lines 11-29). However CANADA does not disclose that this probable band of frequencies is determined from the prominent fundamental frequency of the flux data.
KLIMAN however does teach using flux data (10 in FIG. 1) and then determining a spectrum using a Fourier transform (col. 2 lines 52-67), then using the peaks in the flux spectrum to determine a range in which to search for potential rotor frequencies (equivalent to rotational run speed; “Derived rotor frequency candidates are derived from analysis of the vicinity of the specified frequency of the stator” in col. 3 lines 7-20). KLIMAN then goes on to add additional steps to the algorithm when there is more than one candidate for rotor frequency/rotational run speed.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the more adaptive way of finding a probable band of frequencies to search in (based on the flux spectrum as opposed to the predetermined band taught by CANADA) so that the technique can be used on variable speed motors (col. 3 line 65-col. 4 line 3 of KLIMAN) as opposed the motors of CANADA which have a fixed speed with rated slip as predetermined by its operational specifications and printed on its nameplate (col. 5 lines 11-29 of CANADA).
Regarding claim 2: CANADA discloses: the device is not wired to the piece of rotating machinery (sensors are in “sensory contact” but no wired connection is disclosed. Col. 4 lines 5-11; Unit can be completely self-contained including sensors, data acquisition, and power, so as not to interfere with the operation of the motor. Col. 9 lines 5-17).
Regarding claims 6 and 12: As best understood, CANADA discloses: the prominent fundamental frequency is determined from a peak in the transformed magnetic flux data that falls within the typical range of the rotating machinery (peaks of the flux spectrum in col. 7 lines 32-49).
Regarding claims 7, 9, 13, and 15: As best understood, CANADA discloses: the processor is further configured to execute instructions in the memory to perform a peak detection algorithm on the transformed magnetic flux data to determine the prominent fundamental frequency that falls within the typical range of the rotating machinery (It is inherent that when a processor such as 220 in FIG. 5 detects peaks in a data set as described in col. 7 lines 32-49 that it is executing a “peak detection algorithm.” Also, a peak determination threshold is explicitly disclosed in col. 5 lines 50-64.).
Regarding claims 8 and 14: As best understood, CANADA discloses: the rotational run speed of the piece of rotating machinery is determined from a peak in the transformed vibration data (Using the peaks in the transformed vibration as discussed in col. 5 lines 50-67.).
Regarding claim 11: As best understood, CANADA discloses: A method for wirelessly (“self-contained” unit in col. 9 lines 5-17; rf data transmission in col. 9 lines 50-55) detecting a rotational run speed of a piece of rotating machinery (abstract), the method comprising a processor (70 in FIG. 2): receiving magnetic flux data (data is represented by the arrow above step 134 in FIG. 3C) from a magnetic flux sensor (40 in FIG. 1); executing instructions in a memory (80 in FIG. 2) to apply a fast Fourier transform to the magnetic flux data (step 134 in FIG. 3C; done by Fast Fourier Transform [FFT] in col. 4 lines 38-59) to generate transformed magnetic flux data (spectrum in step 134); executing instructions in the memory to determine a prominent fundamental frequency in the transformed magnetic flux data that falls within a typical range of the rotating machinery (peaks of the flux spectrum in col. 7 lines 32-49); receiving vibration data (arrow going down into step 104 in FIG. 3A) from a vibration sensor (30 in FIG. 1); executing instructions in the memory to apply a fast Fourier transform to the vibration data to generate transformed vibration data (acquire spectrum in step 104; col. 4 lines 38-59); and executing the instructions in the memory to determine the rotational run speed of the piece of rotating machinery based on the transformed magnetic flux data and the transformed vibration data (The algorithm is detailed in col. 7 line 32-col. 9 line 4.).
CANADA discloses using the data from both sensors (col. 2 line 22-col. 3 line 27), and also narrowing the search to a probable band of frequencies (col. 5 lines 11-29). However CANADA does not disclose that this band of frequencies is determined from the prominent fundamental frequency of the flux data.
KLIMAN however does teach using flux data (10 in FIG. 1) and then determining a spectrum using a Fourier transform (col. 2 lines 52-67), then using the peaks in the flux spectrum to determine a range in which to search for potential rotor frequencies (equivalent to rotational run speed; “Derived rotor frequency candidates are derived from analysis of the vicinity of the specified frequency of the stator” in col. 3 lines 7-20). KLIMAN then goes on to add additional steps to the algorithm when there is more than one candidate for rotor frequency/rotational run speed.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the more adaptive way of finding a band of frequencies to search in (based on the flux spectrum as opposed to the predetermined band taught by CANADA) so that the technique can be used on variable speed motors (col. 3 line 65-col. 4 line 3 of KLIMAN) as opposed the motor of CANADA which has a fixed speed with rated slip that is predetermined by its operational specifications and printed on its nameplate (col. 5 lines 11-29 of CANADA).
Regarding claim 17: As best understood, CANADA discloses: the processor sending the rotational run speed of the piece of rotating machinery to another device for analytics and machine monitoring (data link in col. 9 lines 50-55).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CANADA and KLIMAN in view of JONES (US 6876167).
Regarding claim 3: As best understood, CANADA does not specify that the vibration sensor is an accelerometer.
JONES however does teach an accelerometer (col. 5 lines 22-47) in their invention for determining rotational run speed (abstract), which collects vibrational data (col. 2 lines 35-40), and combines it with other data (col. 3 lines 7-18).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the accelerometer of JONES as the vibration sensor of CANADA because it can be mounted unobtrusively outside the motor housing (col. 5 lines 22-47 of JONES).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CANADA, KLIMAN, and JONES in view of CARTER et al. (US 20170066464).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood, CANADA as modified by KLIMAN and JONES does not specify the underlying technology that the acceleration sensor is based on. It is just taken as a given that accelerometers exist.
CARTER however does teach different types of accelerometers such as MEMS (para. 67) and piezoelectric (para. 67), on their device to detect rotational run speed (para. 69), using signals from a vibration sensor (para. 69) and an accelerometer (para. 67).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use an accelerometer based on MEMS or piezoelectric technology because they are the most common and readily available accelerometers on the market today.
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, CANADA discloses: the device further comprises a transmitter (RF data link in col. 9 lines 50-55), and the processor is further configured to send the rotational run speed of the piece of rotating machinery to another device by the transmitter for analytics and machine monitoring (col. 9 lines 50-55).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CANADA and KLIMAN in view of NIE et al. (CN 111579812). Please note that a machine translation of NIE has been included with this office action. All references to text in NIE are to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 5: As best understood, CANADA does not disclose the underlying technology in their magnetic flux sensor. It is just taken as a given that magnetic flux sensors exist.
NIE however does teach a magnetic flux sensor based on the magnetoresistance effect (page 1 lines 55-60). NIE also teaches that their sensor is used to determine rotational speed (page 1 lines 10-15).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the magnetoresistance sensor of NIE as the magnetic flux sensor of CANADA as modified by KLIMAN because it “is insensitive to oil mist, vibration, environmental airflow, etc.” (page 1 lines 55-60 of NIE).
Claim(s) 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CANADA and KLIMAN in view of JONES and NIE.
Regarding claim 16: As best understood, CANADA discloses: the processor (70 in FIG. 2) is part of a hybrid rotational detector device (10 in FIG. 1).
CANADA does not disclose non-contact sensors.
However it is known in the art to have both non-contact vibrometers (col. 5 lines 33-42 of JONES) and non-contact magnetic flux sensors (page 3 lines 16-17 of NIE).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use non-contact sensors so that they do not interfere with the operation of the motor (page 6 lines 38-41 of NIE).
Regarding claim 18: As best understood, CANADA discloses: A method for wirelessly (rf data link in col. 9 lines 50-55) detecting a rotational run speed of a piece of rotating machinery (abstract), the method comprising: positioning a hybrid rotational detector device (self-contained unit shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 and discussed in col. 9 lines 5-17) proximate to the piece of rotating machinery (col. 9 lines 5-17); the method further comprising, by a processor (220 in FIG. 5) of the hybrid rotational detector device (200): receiving magnetic flux data from a magnetic flux sensor (data is represented by the arrow above step 134 in FIG. 3C) of the hybrid rotational detector device; executing instructions in a memory (80 in FIG. 5) of the hybrid rotational detector device to apply a fast Fourier transform to the magnetic flux data to generate transformed magnetic flux data (step 134 in FIG. 3C; done by Fast Fourier Transform [FFT] in col. 4 lines 38-59); executing instructions in the memory to determine a prominent fundamental frequency in the transformed magnetic flux data from a peak in the transformed magnetic flux data that falls within a typical range of the rotating machinery (peaks of the flux spectrum in col. 7 lines 32-49); receiving vibration data from a vibration sensor (arrow going into step 104 in FIG. 3A) of the hybrid rotational detector device; executing instructions in the memory to apply a fast Fourier transform to the vibration data to generate transformed vibration data (acquire spectrum in step 104; col. 4 lines 38-59); and executing the instructions in the memory to determine the rotational run speed of the piece of rotating machinery based on the transformed magnetic flux data and the transformed vibration data (The algorithm is detailed in col. 7 line 32-col. 9 line 4.).
CANADA discloses using the data from both sensors (col. 2 line 22-col. 3 line 27), and also narrowing the search to a probable band of frequencies (col. 5 lines 11-29). However CANADA does not disclose that this band of frequencies is determined from the prominent fundamental frequency of the flux data.
KLIMAN however does teach using flux data (10 in FIG. 1) and then determining a spectrum using a Fourier transform (col. 2 lines 52-67), then using the peaks in the flux spectrum to determine a range in which to search for potential rotor frequencies (equivalent to rotational run speed; “Derived rotor frequency candidates are derived from analysis of the vicinity of the specified frequency of the stator” in col. 3 lines 7-20). KLIMAN then goes on to add additional steps to the algorithm when there is more than one candidate for rotor frequency/rotational run speed.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the more adaptive way of finding a band of frequencies to search in (based on the flux spectrum as opposed to the predetermined band taught by CANADA) so that the technique can be used on variable speed motors (col. 3 line 65-col. 4 line 3 of KLIMAN) as opposed the motor of CANADA which has a fixed speed with rated slip determined by its operational specifications and printed on its nameplate (col. 5 lines 11-29 of CANADA).
CANADA does not disclose non-contact sensors.
However it is known in the art to have both non-contact vibrometers (col. 5 lines 33-42 of JONES) and non-contact magnetic flux sensors (page 3 lines 16-17 of NIE).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use non-contact sensors so that they do not interfere with the operation of the motor (page 6 lines 38-41 of NIE).
Regarding claims 19 and 20: As best understood, CANADA discloses: executing instructions in the memory to perform a peak detection algorithm on the transformed magnetic flux data to determine the prominent fundamental frequency that falls within the typical range of the rotating machinery (It is inherent that when a processor such as 220 in FIG. 5 detects peaks in a data set as described in col. 7 lines 32-49 that it is executing a “peak detection algorithm.” Also, a peak determination threshold is explicitly disclosed in col. 5 lines 50-64.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 M Sweeney can be reached at 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights