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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claims 9 is a system claim and claim 15 is an apparatus claim .
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms/concepts” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1, 9 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of detecting vibration signals from the acquired vibration data; performing a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on the detected vibration signals for conversion of the detected vibration signals from a time domain to a frequency domain; estimating an RPM of the rotating machinery from the frequency domain; calculating fault frequencies using the estimated RPM and a bearing configuration provided by a user; and diagnosing a health status of the rotating machinery based on the calculated fault frequencies and an analysis of the detected vibration signals. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are acquiring vibration data from an accelerometer sensor mounted on the rotating machinery; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and a processor, a non-transitory computer-usable medium, an accelerometer and a rotating machinery, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to diagnose a health status of the machinery. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “conducting an ERT test”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the generated report.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 2-19 and 21-31 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract and configuration steps of claims 1 and 20 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 8, 13, 14 and 20 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.
Claims 8, 13 and 20 recite the limitations ‘g’ single quotes which leads to uncertainty. Specifically, it is unclear why this is in single quotes and what that does to the term definitions, creating unknown metes and bounds on the claim. Appropriate corrections are required.
Further, claims 8, 14 and 20, recite the term "low cost" which is a relative term and render the claims indefinite. The term "low cost" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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(s) 1, 8-9, 13-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants Admitted Prior Art, Figure 1 of Applicants disclosure, (hereinafter AAPA), and further in view of Zha et al. (US 2019/0211665 A1, hereinafter Zha).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15, AAPA discloses a method/system/apparatus for estimating RPM of rotating machinery, comprising:
at least one processor (see fig.1, elements 92, 94 and 96 are modules (see Applicants paragraph [0004] and paragraph [0049]). Modules are controlled by a processor, and the system is very similar to Applicants system, see fig. 2);
acquiring vibration data from an accelerometer sensor mounted on the rotating
machinery (see fig. 1, element 96 labelled accelerometer sensor);
detecting vibration signals from the acquired vibration data (see fig. 1, element 94);
performing a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on the detected vibration signals for conversion of the detected vibration signals from a time domain to a frequency domain (see fig. 1, element 94);
calculating fault frequencies using the RPM and a bearing configuration provided by a user (see fig. 1, element 92); and
diagnosing a health status of the rotating machinery based on the calculated fault frequencies and an analysis of the detected vibration signals (see fig. 1, element 96 labelled diagnose health status of motor).
However, AAPA fails to disclose estimating an RPM of the rotating machinery from the frequency domain.
Zha discloses the importance or advantages of estimating the RPM of rotating machinery from the frequency domain (see para. 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AAPA’s invention to estimate the RPMs of a rotating machine from the frequency domain as taught by Zha for the purpose of having more accurate RPM readings.
Regarding claim 13, APPA in view of Zha discloses the system of claim 9 wherein the RPM estimation and fault diagnosis are performed using an adaptive configurable 'g' setting (see Zha para. 0069 and 0074-0075, adjustments can be made to the RPM’s and torque to ensure accurate RPM’s).
Regarding claims 8, 14 and 20, APPA in view of Zha discloses the method/system/apparatus of claims 1, 9 and 15 respectively wherein the RPM estimation and fault diagnosis are performed using an adaptive configurable 'g' setting (i.e. adjustments) to ensure accurate RPM determination under variable speeds and torque conditions using low cost sensing and processing system (see Zha para. 0069 and 0074-0075, adjustments can be made to the RPM’s and torque to ensure accurate RPM’s).
Regarding claim 16, APPA in view of Zha discloses the apparatus of claim 15 wherein the bearing configuration is provided by a user (see APPA fig.1 element 98).
Claim(s) 2-7, 10-12, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Zha and further in view of Batcheller et al. (US 2018/0047225 A1, hereinafter Bat).
Regarding claim 2, 10 and 17, APPA in view of Zha discloses the method/system/apparatus of claims 1, 9 and 15 respectively. However, APPA in view of Zha fails to disclose wherein the accelerometer sensor comprises a MEMS capacitive accelerometer sensor.
Bat discloses herein the accelerometer sensor comprises a MEMS capacitive accelerometer sensor (see para. 0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AAPA’s in view of Zha’s invention to incorporate MEMS capacitive accelerometer sensor as taught by Bat for the purpose of measuring linear accelerations of rotating components.
Regarding claim 3, APPA in view of Zha discloses the method of claim 1. However, APPA in view of Zha fails to disclose wherein the method further comprising standardizing the vibration data across three axes.
Bat discloses standardizing the vibration data across three axes (see para.0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AAPA’s in view of Zha’s invention to incorporate standardizing the vibration data across three axes as taught by Bat for the purpose of measuring linear accelerations of rotating components in all three directions.
Regarding claim 4 and 11, APPA in view of Zha discloses the method/system of claims 1 and 9 respectively. However, APPA in view of Zha fails to disclose further comprising standardizing the vibration data across three axes to improve transient and DC offset correction.
Bat discloses standardizing the vibration data across three axes to improve transient and DC offset correction (see para. 0093-0119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AAPA’s in view of Zha’s invention to incorporate standardizing the vibration data across three axes as taught by Bat for the purpose of more accurately monitoring the health of the system.
Regarding claim 5, 12 and 19, APPA in view of Zha and Bat discloses the method/system/apparatus of claims 4, 11 and 18 further comprising: filtering the standardized vibration data using a bandpass filter determined by a predefined range (see Bat para. 0093-0119); and detecting peaks (i.e. amplitude) within the filtered vibration data to refine the estimation of the RPM (i.e. rotational component) (see para. 0093-0119).
Regarding claim 6, APPA in view of Zha discloses the method of claim 4. However, APPA in view of Zha fails to discloses further comprising filtering the standardized vibration data using a bandpass filter determined by a predefined range.
Bat discloses filtering the standardized vibration data using a bandpass filter determined by a predefined range (see para. para. 0093-0119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AAPA’s in view of Zha’s invention to incorporate standardizing vibration data using a bandpass filter determined by a predefined range as taught by Bat for the purpose of more accurately monitoring the health of the system.
Regarding claim 7, APPA in view of Zha discloses the method of claim 4. However, APPA in view of Zha fails to discloses further comprising detecting peaks within filtered vibration data to refine the estimation of the RPM.
Bat discloses detecting peaks (i.e. amplitude) within filtered vibration data to refine the estimation of the RPM (i.e. rotational component) (see para. 0093-0119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AAPA’s in view of Zha’s invention to incorporate detecting peaks within filtered vibration data to refine the estimation of the RPM as taught by Bat for the purpose of more accurately monitoring the health of the system.
Regarding claim 18, APPA in view of Zha discloses the apparatus of claim 15. However, APPA in view of Zha fails to discloses further comprising a bandpass filter.
Bat discloses a bandpass filter (see para. para. 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify AAPA’s in view of Zha’s invention to incorporate a bandpass filter as taught by Bat for the purpose of more accurately monitoring the health of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights