DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 08/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0284955 A1) in view of HAFIZOVIC (US 2022/0060818 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, KIM teaches a method comprising using at least one hardware processor in a work machine to, in real time with operation of the work machine ([0009]: data processor configured to perform a sound quality evaluation by analyzing a sound quality of the digital signal):
receive audio data captured by one or more acoustic sensors ([0009]: apparatus may include a sound sensor configured to sense a sound; [0011]; [0067]: sound sensor may include a plurality of microphones);
each of the one or more portions of the audio data being captured from a different location on the work machine than any other one of the one or more portions of the audio data ([0012]; [0067]: plurality of microphones may be installed outside the compressor casing 1150 at positions adjacent to the vanes 140 of the IGV assembly 100);
for each of the one or more portions of the audio data, apply acoustic filtering to the portion of the audio data ([0017]; [0070]: a band-pass filter 1193-1b configured to pass frequencies within a certain band from the amplified signal), determine whether or not an issue exists based on the acoustic filtering ([0021]: determining whether the target is normal or abnormal), and when determining that the issue exists, initiate a remedial action ([0073]: the operation of the gas turbine is interrupted, and an operation of repairing the IGV assembly 100 or the VGV assemblies 200a and 200b that is in an abnormal state may be performed).
KIM doesn’t explicitly teach apply spatial filtering to the audio data to identify one or more portions of the audio data; however, applying a beamformer is a well know technique for isolating sound sources and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Kim to be capable of applying a spatial filter to the audio data in order to identify one or more portions of the audio data.
HAFIZOVIC teaches apply spatial filtering to the audio data to identify one or more portions of the audio data ([0009]-[0009]; [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method disclosed in KIM with apply spatial filtering to the audio data to identify one or more portions of the audio data taught in HAFIZOVIC with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have potentially discriminated the noise; thereby, providing greater directivity as taught by HAFIZOVIC ([0018]).
Referring to Claim 2, KIM teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more acoustic sensors comprise a microphone array ([0011]; [0067}: plurality of microphones).
Referring to Claim 4, KIM teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more acoustic sensors are mounted on a cabin of the work machine ([0012]: he plurality of microphones may be installed outside the compressor casing).
Referring to Claim 5, KIM teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the acoustic filtering comprises a bandpass filter that isolates one or more frequency bands of the portion of the audio data ([0017]: a band-pass filter configured to pass frequencies within a certain band from the amplified signal).
Referring to Claim 6, KIM teaches the method of Claim 5, wherein determining whether or not the issue exists comprises determining whether or not an audio characteristic exists within the one or more frequency bands of the portion of the audio data ([0016]: evaluating at least one sound component among a loudness of the sound, a sharpness of the sound, a roughness of the sound, and an octave of the sound).
Referring to Claim 7, KIM teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein applying the acoustic filtering comprises comparing the portion of the audio data to a reference acoustical pattern ([0022]: measuring each of the four sound components in a normal state, creating data from the measurements, and respectively comparing the analyzed sound components of the target with the created data of the four sound components).
Referring to Claim 8, KIM teaches the method of Claim 7, wherein determining whether or not the issue exists comprises determining whether or not the portion of the audio data matches the reference acoustical pattern ([0022]: measuring each of the four sound components in a normal state, creating data from the measurements, and respectively comparing the analyzed sound components of the target with the created data of the four sound components).
Referring to Claim 10, KIM teaches the method of Claim 9, wherein the one or more operational parameters comprise one or more of engine speed, pump speed, pump displacement, transmission shifting, valve action, tilt actuation, lift actuation, third function valve actuation, fourth function valve actuation, steering actuation, braking, or ground speed ([0061]-[0063]).
Referring to Claim 11, KIM teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the remedial action comprises outputting a notification of the issue ([0010]; [0072]: display a result of the sound quality evaluation).
Referring to Claim 16, KIM teaches a method comprising using at least one hardware processor in a work machine to, in real time with operation of the work machine ([0009]: data processor configured to perform a sound quality evaluation by analyzing a sound quality of the digital signal):
receive audio data captured by a microphone array mounted on a cabin of the work machine ([0009]: apparatus may include a sound sensor configured to sense a sound; [0011]; [0067]: sound sensor may include a plurality of microphones);
each of the plurality of portions of the audio data being captured from a different location on the work machine than any other one of the plurality of portions of the audio data, and each location corresponding to a component of the work machine ([0012]; [0067]: plurality of microphones may be installed outside the compressor casing 1150 at positions adjacent to the vanes 140 of the IGV assembly 100);
for each of the plurality of portions of the audio data, apply acoustic filtering to the portion of the audio data ([0017]; [0070]: a band-pass filter 1193-1b configured to pass frequencies within a certain band from the amplified signal), determine whether or not an issue exists based on the acoustic filtering ([0021]: determining whether the target is normal or abnormal) ([0073]: the operation of the gas turbine is interrupted, and an operation of repairing the IGV assembly 100 or the VGV assemblies 200a and 200b that is in an abnormal state may be performed), and
when determining that the issue exists ([0073]: the operation of the gas turbine is interrupted, and an operation of repairing the IGV assembly 100 or the VGV assemblies 200a and 200b that is in an abnormal state may be performed), output a notification to an operator, the notification identifying the component corresponding to the location from which the portion of the audio data was captured ([0010]; [0072]: display a result of the sound quality evaluation).
KIM doesn’t explicitly teach apply spatial filtering to the audio data to identify a plurality of portions of the audio data.
HAFIZOVIC teaches apply spatial filtering to the audio data to identify a plurality of portions of the audio data ([0009]-[0009]; [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method disclosed in KIM with apply spatial filtering to the audio data to identify a plurality of portions of the audio data taught in HAFIZOVIC with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have potentially discriminated the noise; thereby, providing greater directivity as taught by HAFIZOVIC ([0018]).
Referring to Claim 17, KIM teaches the method of Claim 16, wherein the acoustic filtering comprises a bandpass filter that isolates one or more frequency bands of the portion of the audio data ([0017]: a band-pass filter configured to pass frequencies within a certain band from the amplified signal), and wherein determining whether or not the issue exists comprises determining whether or not an audio characteristic exists within the one or more frequency bands of the portion of the audio data ([0016]: evaluating at least one sound component among a loudness of the sound, a sharpness of the sound, a roughness of the sound, and an octave of the sound).
Referring to Claim 18, KIM teaches the method of Claim 16, wherein applying the acoustic filtering comprises comparing the portion of the audio data to a reference acoustical pattern ([0022]: measuring each of the four sound components in a normal state, creating data from the measurements, and respectively comparing the analyzed sound components of the target with the created data of the four sound components), and wherein determining whether or not the issue exists comprises determining whether or not the portion of the audio data matches the reference acoustical pattern ([0022]: measuring each of the four sound components in a normal state, creating data from the measurements, and respectively comparing the analyzed sound components of the target with the created data of the four sound components).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0284955 A1) in view of HAFIZOVIC (US 2022/0060818 A1) as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of DURAISWAMI (US 2012/0288114 A1).
Referring to Claim 3, KIM, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach the one or more acoustic sensors comprise an acoustic camera.
DURAISWAMI teaches the one or more acoustic sensors comprise an acoustic camera ([0149]: real time audio camera, that uses the output of a spherical microphone array beamformer steered in all directions to create central projection to create acoustic intensity images).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method disclosed in KIM with having the one or more acoustic sensors comprise an acoustic camera taught in DURAISWAMI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an audio and or sound camera using microphone array imaging.
Referring to Claim 12, KIM teaches the method of Claim 11, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein initiating the remedial action comprises determining a component of the work machine that corresponds to the location on the work machine from which the portion of the audio data was captured, and wherein the notification identifies the determined component.
DURAISWAMI teaches initiating the remedial action comprises determining a component of the work machine that corresponds to the location on the work machine from which the portion of the audio data was captured, and wherein the notification identifies the determined component ([0046]; [0062]).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0284955 A1) in view of HAFIZOVIC (US 2022/0060818 A1) as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of LIAO (US 2013/0060524 A1) in view of REMBOSKI (US 2003/0196492 A1).
Referring to Claim 9, KIM, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the acoustic filtering comprises: filtering out noise from the portion of the audio data based on the one or more operational parameters ([0019]-[0020]).
However, KIM doesn’t explicitly teach determining one or more operational parameters of the work machine that are coincident with a time at which the portion of the audio data was captured.
LIAO teaches determining one or more operational parameters of the work machine that are coincident with a time at which the portion of the audio data was captured ([0013]; [0046]: an operational state monitoring and determining unit for receiving the operational data from the control module and identifying an operational state of the machine under test based on the operational data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method disclosed in KIM with determining one or more operational parameters of the work machine that are coincident with a time at which the portion of the audio data was captured taught in LIAO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have established ranges of normal operation and identified outlying values that may be beyond expectations for normal operation.
Referring to Claim 19, KIM teaches the method of Claim 16, wherein the acoustic filtering comprises:
filtering out noise from the portion of the audio data based on the one or more operational parameters ([0019]-[0020]);
wherein the one or more operational parameters comprise one or more of engine speed, pump speed, pump displacement, transmission shifting, valve action, tilt actuation, lift actuation, third function valve actuation, fourth function valve actuation, steering actuation, braking, or ground speed ([0061]-[0063]).
However, KIM doesn’t explicitly teach determining one or more operational parameters of the work machine that are coincident with a time at which the portion of the audio data was captured.
LIAO teaches determining one or more operational parameters of the work machine that are coincident with a time at which the portion of the audio data was captured ([0013]; [0046]: an operational state monitoring and determining unit for receiving the operational data from the control module and identifying an operational state of the machine under test based on the operational data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method disclosed in KIM with determining one or more operational parameters of the work machine that are coincident with a time at which the portion of the audio data was captured taught in LIAO with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have established ranges of normal operation and identified outlying values that may be beyond expectations for normal operation.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0284955 A1) in view of HAFIZOVIC (US 2022/0060818 A1) view of DURAISWAMI (US 2012/0288114 A1) as applied to Claim(s) 12 above, and further in view of MOELLER (US 2022/0374011 A1).
Referring to Claim 13, KIM, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 12, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the component comprises a pin
MOELLER teaches the component comprises a pin ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method disclosed in KIM with a pin taught in MOELLER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have capably allowed pivoting assembly.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0284955 A1) in view of HAFIZOVIC (US 2022/0060818 A1) view of DURAISWAMI (US 2012/0288114 A1) as applied to Claim(s) 12 above, and further in view of REMBOSKI (US 2003/0196492 A1).
Referring to Claim 14, KIM, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein but doesn’t explicitly teach the notification comprises an indication in a cabin of the work machine.
REMBOSKI the notification comprises an indication in a cabin of the work machine ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method disclosed in KIM with the notification comprises an indication in a cabin of the work machine taught in REMBOSKI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided notification to a user of a fault or problem.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0284955 A1) in view of HAFIZOVIC (US 2022/0060818 A1) as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of REMBOSKI (US 2003/0196492 A1).
Referring to Claim 15, KIM teaches the method of Claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein determining whether or not the issue exists comprises: determining a component of the work machine that corresponds to the location on the work machine from which the portion of the audio data was captured; determining whether or not the component was moving at a time at which the portion of the audio data was captured based on sensor data from one or more sensors on the work machine; determining whether or not the issue exists based on the acoustic filtering and the determination of whether or not the component was moving at the time.
REMBOSKI teaches determining a component of the work machine that corresponds to the location on the work machine from which the portion of the audio data was captured ([0030]);
determining whether or not the component was moving at a time at which the portion of the audio data was captured based on sensor data from one or more sensors on the work machine ([0014]-[0015] ; [0046]);
determining whether or not the issue exists based on the acoustic filtering and the determination of whether or not the component was moving at the time (Abstract; [0014]-[0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method disclosed in KIM with determining a component of the work machine taught in REMBOSKI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided notification to a user of a fault or problem thereby providing location-based identification.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0284955 A1) in view of MOELLER (US 2022/0374011 A1) in view HAFIZOVIC (US 2022/0060818 A1).
Referring to Claim 20, KIM teaches a work machine comprising:
one or more acoustic sensors mounted on the work machine ([0009]: apparatus may include a sound sensor configured to sense a sound; [0011]; [0067]: sound sensor may include a plurality of microphones);
a controller ([0009]: data processor incorporated with the controller configured to perform a sound quality evaluation by analyzing a sound quality of the digital signal) configured to, in real time with operation of the work machine, receive audio data captured by the one or more acoustic sensors ([0009]: apparatus may include a sound sensor configured to sense a sound; [0011]; [0067]: sound sensor may include a plurality of microphones), each of the one or more portions of the audio data being captured from a different location on the work machine than any other one of the one or more portions of the audio data, and each location corresponding to a component of the work machine ([0012]; [0067]: plurality of microphones may be installed outside the compressor casing 1150 at positions adjacent to the vanes 140 of the IGV assembly 100), and for each of the one or more portions of the audio data, apply acoustic filtering to the portion of the audio data ([0017]; [0070]: a band-pass filter 1193-1b configured to pass frequencies within a certain band from the amplified signal), determine whether or not an issue exists based on the acoustic filtering, and when determining that the issue exists ([0021]: determining whether the target is normal or abnormal; [0073]: the operation of the gas turbine is interrupted, and an operation of repairing the IGV assembly 100 or the VGV assemblies 200a and 200b that is in an abnormal state may be performed), output a notification that identifies the component corresponding to the location from which the portion of the audio data was captured ([0010]; [0072]: display a result of the sound quality evaluation).
KIM doesn’t explicitly teach a machine body; a work implement; apply spatial filtering to the audio data to identify a plurality of portions of the audio data.
MOELLER a machine body ([0002]: excavators);
a work implement ([0003]: bucket);
HAFIZOVIC teaches apply spatial filtering to the audio data to identify a plurality of portions of the audio data ([0009]-[0009]; [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine method disclosed in KIM with machine body and a work implement taught in MOELLER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a work device with lift arm and bucked that can be manipulated to perform a work function; and further with applying spatial filtering to the audio data to identify a plurality of portions of the audio data taught in HAFIZOVIC with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have potentially discriminated the noise; thereby, providing greater directivity.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645