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 .
Detailed Action
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, & 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaemers et al (PGPub 2019/0162711) (Gaemers) in view of Eli et al (PGPub 2023/0194558) (Eli).
Regarding Claim 1, Gaemers discloses a method for determining a status of grease containing particles by image recognition, the method comprising:
sampling the grease and spreading the grease on a filter membrane (Paragraph 29);
image recording of the sampled grease by a microscope (Paragraph 47), comprising:
setting a magnification of the microscope (Paragraph 48);
setting a distance of a lens of the microscope to the filter membrane (Paragraph 56). Inherently the sample holder keeps the sample at a set distance from the lens of the microscope; and
recording an image of the sampled grease by the microscope (Paragraph 57);
performing image recognition in the image and determining a particle content in the grease (Paragraphs 58 & 59); and
determining a status of the grease based on the particle content (Paragraph 62);
Gaemers fails to explicitly disclose that the image recognition is being performed by artificial intelligence (AI);
However, Eli teaches that AI can be trained to perform image analysis to identify a number of particles (Paragraphs 37 & 39);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify Gaemers with that the image recognition is being performed by artificial intelligence (AI) because once trained AI is fast and requires less resources than traditional processing for image analysis.
Regarding Claim 6, Gaemers as modified by Eli discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein image recording of the sampled grease by a microscope further comprises: making particles in the grease appear black with polarized light;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify Gaemers as modified by Eli with wherein image recording of the sampled grease by a microscope further comprises: making particles in the grease appear black with polarized light because it is well-known that polarization angle changes upon reflection from a surface and that amount of change depends on the surface reflected from thus providing a polarization filter that would only allow light through that was polarized at a predictable angle (say from reflection off the oil versus the particles) would be known and further it would provide such advantages as providing better contrast between the particles and the background.
Regarding Claim 7, Gaemers as modified by Eli discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gaemers discloses wherein image recording of the sampled grease by a microscope further comprises fixing a position of the microscope relative to the sampled grease with a fixing mount (Paragraph 49).
Regarding Claim 8, Gaemers as modified by Eli discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gaemers discloses wherein the microscope magnification is between 100 and 500 times (Paragraph 48).
Regarding Claim 9, Gaemers as modified by Eli discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the filter membrane remains flat and is placed horizontally;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify Gaemers as modified by Eli with wherein the filter membrane remains flat and is placed horizontally because this is common sense and would be ideal for both holding the sample in place and providing a evenly distributed sample which wouldn’t be moved by gravity.
Regarding Claim 10, Gaemers as modified by Eli discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein image recording of the sampled grease by a microscope, further comprises: judging whether the image quality of the image can be used for the image recognition, wherein only in the case that the image quality complies with a requirement, image recognition is performed in the image by artificial intelligence and particle content in the grease is determined; and the status of the grease is determined based on the particle content;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify Gaemers as modified by Eli with wherein image recording of the sampled grease by a microscope, further comprises: judging whether the image quality of the image can be used for the image recognition, wherein only in the case that the image quality complies with a requirement, image recognition is performed in the image by artificial intelligence and particle content in the grease is determined; and the status of the grease is determined based on the particle content because judging image quality and then only using images of or above a threshold of quality for image analysis is common place and used to prevent inaccurate analysis of the sample and improve the overall assessment of the sample.
Regarding Claim 11, Gaemers as modified by Eli discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gaemers discloses wherein performing image recognition in the image by artificial intelligence and determining a particle content in the grease comprises: determining a particle-related characteristic value in the image by artificial intelligence, and determining the particle content according to the particle-related characteristic value, wherein the particle-related characteristic value comprises a statistical characteristic value of the values of pixels in the image, the number, density and total area of the particles (Paragraph 60). The statistical characteristic value is the most prevalent shade representing the filter paper. Then judging the number of particles based on shades lighter or darker than that shade meets the limitation. Likewise deciding the boundaries of the wear particles based upon this judgement also meets this limitation since it is deciding the total area of the particles.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaemers in view of Eli and further in view of Herguth (Grease Analysis: Monitoring Grease Serviceability and Bearing Condition, Practicing Oil Analysis, March 2002, https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/296/grease-analysis)
Regarding Claim 2, Gaemers as modified by Eli discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein determining a status of the grease based on the particle content comprises: setting a plurality of particle content intervals in succession, wherein the particle content intervals classify the particle content and a larger number of particle content intervals corresponds to a larger range of grease contamination; and determining a grease contamination level according to the particle content interval in which the particle content is located;
However, Herguth teaches wherein determining a status of the grease based on the particle content comprises: setting a plurality of particle content intervals in succession (see Table 2), wherein the particle content intervals classify the particle content and a larger number of particle content intervals corresponds to a larger range of grease contamination; and determining a grease contamination level according to the particle content interval in which the particle content is located (Setting Limits, Page 24);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify Gaemers as modified by Eli with wherein determining a status of the grease based on the particle content comprises: setting a plurality of particle content intervals in succession, wherein the particle content intervals classify the particle content and a larger number of particle content intervals corresponds to a larger range of grease contamination; and determining a grease contamination level according to the particle content interval in which the particle content is located because this is a common sense way of sorting the quality of the oil based upon particle content.
Regarding Claim 3, Gaemers as modified by Eli and Herguth discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein in a case where the sampled grease is subjected to a plurality of image recordings by a microscope, if two of the respective particle contents determined based on the plurality of image recordings are located in non-adjacent particle content intervals, the determination of the particle contents is assumed to be invalid, if the respective particle contents determined based on the plurality of image recordings are located in adjacent particle content intervals, the grease contamination level is determined based on the particle content interval in which the majority of the particle contents are located.
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify Gaemers as modified by Eli and Herguth because this is a common sense way of judging whether the particle counts between sample of the same oil are valid that would allow for the elimination of outlier data that might result from a miscount of the particles and thus improve the overall accuracy of the judgement.
Regarding Claims 4 & 5, Gaemers as modified by Eli and Herguth discloses the aforementioned. Further, Gaemers discloses wherein a grease contamination indication is provided according to the grease contamination level, wherein the grease contamination indication comprises: grease normal, contamination warning and severe contamination (Paragraph 62). The green light, amber light, and red light indicators and their meaning meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 4, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877