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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 5-6, the limitation of “during predetermined durations to get at a plurality of recordings and measuring the number of revolutions of the bearing” should read “during predetermined durations to get
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for calibrating a spall propagation model of a bearing, the bearing
comprising a stationary ring and a rotating ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to the stationary ring, and rolling elements interposed between the stationary and rotating rings, the method comprises:
determining measurements of the bearing during predetermined durations to get at a plurality of recordings and measuring the number of revolutions of the bearing,
processing the measurements to determine a condition indicator,
determining a first calibrating value representative of the appearance of a spall in the stationary ring or rotating ring after N1 number of revolutions of the bearing and a second calibrating value representative of the evolution of the spall in the stationary ring or rotating ring after N2 number of revolutions of the bearing from the condition indicator, N2 being greater than N1,
identifying at least one stage of propagation of the spall from the two calibrating values,
and
calibrating the spall propagation model from the two calibrating values.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the limitation of “determining a first calibrating value representative of the appearance of a spall in the stationary ring or rotating ring after N1 number of revolutions of the bearing and a second calibrating value representative of the evolution of the spall in the stationary ring or rotating ring after N2 number of revolutions of the bearing from the condition indicator, N2 being greater than N1 (see paras. [0027], [0057], [0088] of instant application)” is mental process (evaluation/judgement) or mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C states that There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation).
Further, the limitation “identifying at least one stage of propagation of the spall from the two calibrating values (see paras. [0069], [0071], [0074] of instant application),” is mental process (observation/evaluation) or mathematical calculations. Identifying a first positive gradient is an indicative of mathematical calculations. Further, the limitation of “calibrating the spall propagation model from the two calibrating values (see paras. [0083]-[0086])” is mathematical calculations. The limitation of calibrating the spall propagation model is an indicative of mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers human mind and mathematical calculations, then it falls within “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 11 and 12.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a method for calibrating a spall propagation model of a bearing, the bearing comprising a stationary ring and a rotating ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to the stationary ring, and rolling elements interposed between the stationary and rotating rings (preamble); determining measurements of the bearing during predetermined durations to get at a plurality of recordings and measuring the number of revolutions of the bearing; processing the measurements to determine a condition indicator,
In Claim 11: a device for calibrating a spall propagation model of a bearing, the bearing comprising a stationary ring and a rotating ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to the stationary ring, and rolling elements interposed between the stationary and rotating rings (preamble); determining measurements of the bearing during predetermined durations to get at a plurality of recordings and measuring the number of revolutions of the bearing; processing the measurements to determine a condition indicator; and
In Claim 12: a system comprising the device according to claim 11 and a spall propagation model of a bearing (preamble); determining measurements of the bearing during predetermined durations to get at a plurality of recordings and measuring the number of revolutions of the bearing; processing the measurements to determine a condition indicator.
The additional elements such as a device, bearing comprising a stationary ring and a rotating ring, a system are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of their specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the metal processes and mathematical calculations addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional element of “method for calibrating a spall propagation model of a bearing, the bearing comprising a stationary ring and a rotating ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to the stationary ring, and rolling elements interposed between the stationary and rotating rings,” “a device for calibrating a spall propagation model of a bearing, the bearing comprising a stationary ring and a rotating ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to the stationary ring, and rolling elements interposed between the stationary and rotating rings,” and “a system comprising the device according to claim 11 and a spall propagation model of a bearing” are preamble statements reciting purpose or intended use (See MPEP 2111.02)(II)). Further, the additional elements of “determining measurements of the bearing during predetermined durations to get at a plurality of recordings and measuring the number of revolutions of the bearing” and “processing the measurements to determine a condition indicator” are insignificant (gathering data) extra-solution activity to perform abstract idea that is mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to calibrate the spall propagation model from the two calibrating values. This is just a processor running algorithm related to mental processes and mathematical calculations. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 11 and 12. Therefore, the independent claims 1, 11, and 12 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-10,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards metal processes and/or mathematical calculations steps. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 2-10 1therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claim 1. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. “A benchmark of measurement approaches to track the natural evolution of spall severity in rolling element bearings, Mech. Syst. Signal Process, Mar. 2022” hereinafter referred to as “Zhang,” cited in IDS dated June 6, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for calibrating (page 17, lines 24-25: it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size) a spall propagation model (Figs. 8-10) of a bearing (Fig. 5), the bearing (Fig. 5) comprising a stationary ring and a rotating ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to the stationary ring, and rolling elements interposed between the stationary and rotating rings (Fig. 5), the method comprises:
determining measurements of the bearing during predetermined durations to get a plurality of recordings and measuring the number of revolutions of the bearing (Figs. 8, indicators to trend growth of spall size: RMS value vs. million cycles; Fig. 9. Spall size vs. million cycles),
processing the measurements (Fig. 8: RMS; Fig. 9: spall size) to determine a condition indicator (Figs. 8, indicators to trend growth of spall size: RMS value vs. million cycles; Fig. 9. Spall size vs. million cycles),
determining a first calibrating value representative of the appearance of a spall in the stationary ring or rotating ring (Fig. 5) after N1 number of revolutions of the bearing (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size, note that the above feature of “it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size” in page 17, lines 24-25” reads on “a first calibrating value” because the value of spall duration estimation includes calibration) and a second calibrating value representative of the evolution of the spall in the stationary ring or rotating ring after N2 number of revolutions of the bearing from the condition indicator, N2 being greater than N1 (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size, note that the above feature of “it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size” in page 17, lines 24-25” reads on “a second calibrating value” because the value of spall duration estimation includes calibration),
identifying at least one stage of propagation of the spall from the two calibrating values (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see above, note that two values in spall duration estimation values including calibration in Fig. 10 reads on “identifying at least one stage of propagation of the spall”), and
calibrating (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see above) the spall propagation model (Figs. 8-10: estimation size) from the two calibrating values (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see above).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Zhang teaches processing the measurements (Figs. 8, indicators to trend growth of spall size: RMS value vs. million cycles; Fig. 9. Spall size vs. million cycles) and
determining the first calibrating value (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size, note that the above feature of “it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size” in page 17, lines 24-25” reads on “a first calibrating value” because the value of spall duration estimation includes calibration) comprise for each recording:
performing a spectral analysis of the measurements to determine the frequency spectrum of the measurements (Fig. 12. Comparison of the load trend indicators for different tests: BPFO/BPFI amplitude),
determining a condition indicator value, the condition indicator value being the sum of the amplitudes of the identified frequency bins having a frequency equal to a multiple integer of a predetermined frequency depending on the number of revolutions of the bearing and representative of the defect of the bearing (Fig. 12. Comparison of the load trend indicators for different tests: BPFO/BPFI amplitude),
when the condition indicator value is determined for each recording:
performing a trend analysis of the condition indicator values to identify a first positive gradient of the condition indicator values associated to the smallest number of revolutions (Fig. 12. Comparison of the load trend indicators for different tests: BPFO/BPFI amplitude, note that the above feature of “RMS” and “BPFO/BPFI amplitude” in Fig. 12 reads on “condition indicator”),
identifying a first reference value associated to the condition indicator value of the first positive gradient and the number of revolutions associated to the first reference value (Fig. 12. Comparison of the load trend indicators for different tests: BPFO/BPFI amplitude, note that the above feature of “estimated size” in Fig. 12 reads on “reference value”),
the first calibrating value being equal to the number of revolutions (page 17, lines 24-25: see above; Fig. 12, estimated spall size, note that estimated spalls in Fig. 12 and page 17, lines 24-25 reads on “first calibrating value”) associated to the first reference value (Fig. 12. Comparison of the load trend indicators for different tests: BPFO/BPFI amplitude, note that the above feature of “estimated size” in Fig. 12 reads on “reference value”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches all the limitation of claim 2, in addition, Zhang teaches determining the second calibrating value (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size, note that the above feature of “it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size” in page 17, lines 24-25” reads on “a second calibrating value” because the value of spall duration estimation includes calibration) comprises for each recording identifying a local extremum of at least one frequency bin and the associated number of revolutions being equal to a predetermined spall size according to the parity of the frequency bin (BPFO/BPFI amplitude in Fig. 12 exhibits that each recording identifying a local extremum of at least one frequency bin and the associated number of revolutions being equal to a predetermined spall size according to the parity of the frequency bin).
Claim 5, Zhang teaches all the limitation of claim 2, in addition, Zhang teaches processing the measurements and determining the first calibrating value (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size, note that the above feature of “it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size” in page 17, lines 24-25” reads on “a first calibrating value” because the value of spall duration estimation includes calibration) comprise for each recording:
performing a repetitive Fourier transform of the measurements to obtain an excitation-frequency spectrum (Fig. 12 (b): BPFO/BPFI amplitude),
determining a condition indicator value, the condition indicator being the sum of the amplitudes of excited frequency bins having an excitation frequency equal to a multiple integer of the predetermined frequency depending on the number of revolutions of the bearing and representative of the defect of the bearing (Fig. 12 (b): BPFO/BPFI amplitude),
when the condition indicator value (Fig. 12. Comparison of the local trend indicators for different test) is determined for each recording:
performing a trend analysis of the condition indicator values to identify a first positive gradient of the condition indicator values associated to the smallest number of revolutions (Fig. 12 exhibits performing a trend analysis of the condition indicator values to identify a first positive gradient of the condition indicator values associated to the smallest number of revolutions),
identifying a first reference value associated to the condition indicator value of the first positive gradient and the number of revolutions associated to the first reference value (estimation size in Fig. 12) (Fig. 12 exhibits identifying a first reference value associated to the condition indicator value of the first positive gradient and the number of revolutions associated to the first reference value),
the first calibrating value (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see above) being equal to the number of revolutions associated to the first reference value (Fig. 12. exhibits the first calibrating value being equal to the number of revolutions associated to the first reference value).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Zhang teaches the predetermined frequency (Fig. 7) is equal to the Ball Pass Frequency Outer of the bearing, the Ball Pass Frequency Inner of the bearing, or the Ball Spin Frequency of the bearing (page 10, lines 15-16: the ball pass frequency outer (BPFO) and its harmonics can be identified from both spectrum and SES since the beginning because of the high signal-to-noise ratio of the acceleration signal).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Zhang teaches calibrating the spall propagation model (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size, note that the above feature of “it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size” in page 17, lines 24-25” reads on “a calibrating value” because the value of spall duration estimation includes calibration) comprises inputting the first and second calibrating values (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see above) and varying at least one input parameter of the spall propagation model (Test 1-4 of Fig. 10) so that the predicted spall size outputted by the model is equal to the spall size associated to the calibrating values (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see above).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches all the limitation of claim 4, in addition, Zhang teaches that the predetermined frequency is equal to the Ball Pass Frequency Outer of the bearing, the Ball Pass Frequency Inner of the bearing, or the Ball Spin Frequency of the bearing. (Table 1; Fig. 5; page 10, lines 15-16: the ball pass frequency outer (BPFO) and its harmonics can be identified from both spectrum and SES since the beginning because of the high signal-to-noise ratio of the acceleration signal).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches all the limitation of claim 4, in addition, Zhang teaches that calibrating (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size, note that the above feature of “it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size” in page 17, lines 24-25” reads on “a calibrating value” because the value of spall duration estimation includes calibration) the spall propagation model (Fig. 10) comprises inputting the first and second calibrating values (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see above) and varying at least one input parameter (Table 1: parameters) of the spall propagation model (Fig. 10) so that the predicted spall size outputted by the model is equal to the spall size (Figs. 8, indicators to trend growth of spall size: RMS value vs. million cycles; Fig. 9. Spall size vs. million cycles) associated to the calibrating values (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see above).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches a device for calibrating (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see claim 1 above) a spall propagation model of a bearing (Figs. 8: indicators to trend growth of spall size: RMS value vs. million cycles; Fig. 9: Spall size vs. million cycles; Fig. 10: Comparison of acceleration indicators for different tests; Fig. 12: Comparison of the load trend indicators for different tests), the bearing comprising a stationary ring and a rotating ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to the stationary ring, and rolling elements interposed between the stationary and rotating rings (Fig. 5), the device comprising:
processing means configured to determine a condition indicator from measurements of the bearing (Figs. 8, indicators to trend growth of spall size: RMS value vs. million cycles; Fig. 9. Spall size vs. million cycles),
determining means configured to determine a first calibrating value (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation: see claim 1 above) representative of the appearance of a spall in the stationary ring or rotating ring of the bearing (Fig .5) after N1 number of revolutions of the bearing and a second calibrating value representative of the evolution of the spall in the stationary ring or rotating ring after N2 number of revolutions of the bearing from the condition indicator, N2 being greater than N1 (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see claim 1 above),
identifying means configured to identify at least one stage of propagation (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation) of the spall from the two calibrating values (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see above), and
calibrating means configured to calibrate the spall propagation model (Figs. 8-9) from the two calibrating values (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see claim 1 above).
Claim 12, it is a system type cl aim and having a similar limitation as of claim 11 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. The additional element of a spall propagation model of a bearing (Figs. 8-10), taught by Zhang.
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding claim 4, The method according to claim 3, wherein when at least the first frequency bin has a local maximum amplitude associated with the smallest number of revolutions, the second calibrating value (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size, note that the above feature of “it is also important to remember that RMS values, spectral and SES amplitudes are strongly affected by operating conditions and thus would require a machine-specific calibration to provide a scaled quantitative estimate of spall size” in page 17, lines 24-25” reads on “a second calibrating value” because the value of spall duration estimation includes calibration) is equal to the number of revolutions.
Zhang does not specifically teach that the said local maximum amplitude and being representative of the size of the spall equal to half the circumferential distance between two contact points of two neighbouring rolling elements on a raceway of the bearing.
However, Zhang teaches bearing with spall on the outer race with spall zone (see Fig. 5). Therefore, the said local maximum amplitude and being representative of the size of the spall equal to half the circumferential distance between two contact points of two neighbouring rolling elements on a raceway of the bearing would be an obvious variation of such method (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Regarding claim 6, The method according to claim 5, wherein determining the second calibrating value (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see claim 5 above) comprises for each recording:
performing a trend analysis of the condition indicator values to identify a gradient equal to zero associated to the smallest number of revolutions, the smallest number of revolutions associated to the gradient equal to zero being larger than the smallest number of revolutions associated to the first positive gradient of the condition indicator values (Fig. 10: Comparison of acceleration indicators for different tests),
identifying a second reference value associated to the gradient equal to zero and the number of revolutions associated to the second reference value (Fig. 10, test 1-4),
the second calibrating value (Fig. 10: spall duration estimation; page 17, lines 24-25: see claim 5 above) being equal to the number of revolutions (Fig. 10, test 1-4).
Zhang does not specifically teach that the second reference condition indicator value and being representative of the size of the spall equal to the size of the Hertzian contact between a rolling element and the stationary ring or the rotating ring.
However, Zhang teaches bearing with spall on the outer race with spall zone (see Fig. 5). Therefore, the second reference condition indicator value and being representative of the size of the spall equal to the size of the Hertzian contact between a rolling element and the stationary ring or the rotating ring would be an obvious variation of such method (see MPEP 2143: “Obvious To Try”-choosing from a finite number of predictable solution).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bambara (US 5,150,618) teaches that the present invention relates to bearing defect detectors and in particular to an acoustic system for detecting defects in the bearings of moving railroad cars and identifying the location of these defects.
Husain et al. (US 2015/0262060 A1) teaches that an aspect of the present invention is to provide a system and method for predicting the remaining useful time of mechanical components such as bearings. Another aspect of the present invention is to provide a system and method for predicting the remaining useful time of bearings based on available condition monitoring data.
Larssonet al. (US 2018/0158314 A1) teaches that A method of trend analysis and automatic tuning of alarm parameters for a machine is provided. The method includes obtaining condition related measurements of the machine, checking a Condition Indicator (CI) value with respect to a set threshold, calculating the number of times the value is above the threshold during the N last measurements, displaying the number of times the value is above the threshold during the N last measurements in a diagram.
Bechhoefer et al. (US 8,380, 447 B2) teaches that determining health of a component includes using at least one processor to perform processes including acquiring a plurality of measured values corresponding to the condition indicators. Synchronous noise components are removed from the measured values to provide revised measured values, and the revised measured values are used to determine noise-filtered condition indicator values.
Bechhoefer et al. (US 20030074159 A1) teaches that disclosed techniques are used in connection with determining a health indicator (HI) of a component, such as that of an aircraft component. The HI is determined using condition indicators (CIs) which parameterize characteristics about a component minimizing possibility of a false alarm.
Thomson et al. (US 2022/0057296 A1) teaches that a bearing defect auto-detection system includes a processor to receive condition monitoring data that includes vibration harmonics corresponding to a bearing coupled to a rotatable shaft. The processor performs a pattern sweeping process that sweeps a pattern through both a speed range and a class defect frequency range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights