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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The control unit of Claim 15. Corresponding structure at least disclosed in the form of a computer in light of Paragraph [0015] of the instant Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 14 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.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “the at least one deviation.” This phrase lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected based on their dependency from Claim 4.
Claim 10 refers back to Claim 1 twice, which leaves the scope of the claim unclear in that it is not clear as to if the limitation “performing the method of claim 1” is with regards to Claim 1 after it has been amended by the earlier limitations of Claim 10 (possibly reciting an infinite iterative loop) or as to how Claim 1 has been modified in that Claim 1 recites steps that do not use the “at least one other measurement signal.” The Examiner suggests amending Claim 10 to read:
10. The method according to claim 1, further comprising repeating the method using an obtained at least one other measurement signal of a vibration of the rotating machine.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected based on their dependency from Claim 10.
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 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical (See the averaging and cross-correlation of Claim 1) and/or mental activity (See the division of the signal into subsignals and snippets of Claim 1) algorithm.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying rotating machine is realized through the performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because obtaining the data necessary to implement the algorithm amounts to the recitation of necessary and routine data gathering as extra-solution activity. The triggering of an alarm (i.e., “outputting a warning message”) has been identified by courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional practice and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). From Page 595 – “Here it is absolutely clear that respondent's application contains no claim of patentable invention. The chemical processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons are well known, as are the practice of monitoring the chemical process variables, the use of alarm limits to trigger alarms, the notion that alarm limit values must be recomputed and readjusted, and the use of computers for "automatic monitoring alarming."”); alternatively, displaying a result of the abstract idea amounts to mere extra-solution activity when implementing the abstract idea through use of a general-purpose computer. The recited control unit amounts to the recitation of a general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea and does not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
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) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210381458 A1)[hereinafter “Lee”] and Klauber et al. (US 5313826 A)[hereinafter “Klauber”].
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a method of monitoring a rotating machine configured for energy transfer and having a plurality of subsystems, each subsystem comprising one cylinder [Abstract – “An injector failure cylinder diagnosis method;”Fig. 3, see the engine and corresponding plurality of cylinders], the method comprising the steps:
obtaining a measurement signal of a vibration of the rotating machine [Paragraph [0015] – “the noise/vibration signals are measured during one-time combustion cycle of the engine, and are measured by an accelerometer;”Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] – “Specifically, the sensors 6, 7-1, 7-2, 8 are composed of an accelerometer 6, a crank position sensor 7-1, a cam position sensor 7-2, and an engine-mounted sensor 8. As an example, one accelerometer 6 is configured, and measures noise/vibration together with a microphone (not illustrated) which measures the overall noise generated by the engine.”];
sampling the vibration measurement signal into a plurality of vibration subsignals, each vibration subsignal corresponding to one full revolution of the rotating machine [See Fig. 5, as annotated by examiner with the data indicated corresponding to one of the plurality of vibration subsignals and one full revolution of the rotating machine:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
];
determining a reference vibration subsignal based on an average of the plurality of vibration subsignals [Paragraph [0093] – “Subsequently, the controller 10 performs the feature vector extraction control (S170 to S190). Particularly, the feature vector extraction control (S170 to S190) confirms basic data for distinguishing the normality/abnormality of the injector from the feature vectors obtained from the noise/vibration signals for each segment sorted by the time series data.”Paragraph [0094] – “As an example, the feature vector extraction may apply … a root mean square (RMS)”Paragraph 0095 – “In this case, the RMS refers to the output which may be consecutively generated by the amplifier as the square root of a value obtained by averaging the square of the instantaneous value of the waveform signal during one cycle”]; and
sampling the reference vibration subsignal into a plurality of signal snippets, each signal snippet being assigned to one subsystem of the rotating machine [Paragraph [0097] – “Referring to FIG. 7, the controller 10 divides the segments into segment units in which one or more feature vectors are used to increase diagnosis accuracy with respect to the injector causing vibration time series data illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6, and confirms the abnormal characteristics from the feature vector extracted from the segment unit in the feature vector extraction unit 14.”See Figs. 5-7, the regions corresponding to each of cylinders 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 6. See the feature data corresponding to each segment on the right side of Fig. 7.].
Lee fails to disclose performing a cross-correlation analysis of the plurality of signal snippets for identifying a potential fault state of the rotating machine.
However, Klauber teaches performing a cross-correlation analysis of a plurality of signal snippets for identifying a potential fault state of the rotating machine [Col. 35 lines 33-49 – “This approach was suggested by the inventors' test experience with prior embodiments where it was noted that the non-steady-state conditions systematically produced expected signals which were over or under the subsequent signal level depending on whether the engine was experiencing acceleration or deceleration. This pattern of over or under prediction for expected signals existed for all cylinders at the same time, and indicated a correlation between errors of prediction in all cylinders. There was therefore, not only correlated errors of prediction in the same cylinder (autocorrelation), but also correlation between errors of prediction in different cylinders (cross-correlation). By incorporating these cross-correlation factors into the estimation process two benefits may be realized: i) reduced false misfire indications, and 2) greater misfire predictive accuracy due to increased signal-to-noise ratio.”].
It would have been obvious to use the cross-correlation technique of Klauber in combination with the vibration data of Lee in order to identify cylinder issues.
Regarding Claim 2, Klauber discloses that the cross-correlation analysis comprises: performing a comparison of the plurality of signal snippets among each other [Col. 35 lines 33-49 – “This approach was suggested by the inventors' test experience with prior embodiments where it was noted that the non-steady-state conditions systematically produced expected signals which were over or under the subsequent signal level depending on whether the engine was experiencing acceleration or deceleration. This pattern of over or under prediction for expected signals existed for all cylinders at the same time, and indicated a correlation between errors of prediction in all cylinders. There was therefore, not only correlated errors of prediction in the same cylinder (autocorrelation), but also correlation between errors of prediction in different cylinders (cross-correlation). By incorporating these cross-correlation factors into the estimation process two benefits may be realized: i) reduced false misfire indications, and 2) greater misfire predictive accuracy due to increased signal-to-noise ratio.”]; and/or
determining deviations between the plurality of signal snippets among each other [Abstract – “Statistical processing steps may be used to detect an abnormal combustion event including: calculating a mean and standard deviation for a set of signals related to the torsional stress induced in the power transmitting member, calculating a difference between a later signal and the mean, calculating a ratio of the difference to the standard deviation, and comparing the ratio to a threshold. The ratio so obtained from a given cylinder may further be compared with one or more other such ratios from other cylinders”].
Regarding Claim 3, Lee fails to disclose the cross-correlation analysis comprising: determining a reference signal snippet based on an average of the plurality of signal snippets; and performing a comparison of the reference signal snippet with at least one signal snippet; and/or determining at least one deviation between the reference signal snippet and at least one of the plurality of signal snippets.
However, Klauber discloses the cross-correlation analysis comprising: determining a reference signal snippet based on an average of the plurality of signal snippets and performing a comparison of the reference signal snippet with at least one signal snippet; and determining at least one deviation between the reference signal snippet and at least one of the plurality of signal snippets [Abstract – “ Statistical processing steps may be used to detect an abnormal combustion event including: calculating a mean and standard deviation for a set of signals related to the torsional stress induced in the power transmitting member, calculating a difference between a later signal and the mean, calculating a ratio of the difference to the standard deviation, and comparing the ratio to a threshold. The ratio so obtained from a given cylinder may further be compared with one or more other such ratios from other cylinders”].
It would have been obvious to use the averaging and deviation analysis technique of Klauber on the vibration data of Lee as the averaging of signals would produce a more typical representation of ordinary cylinder behavior which would help to better diagnose cylinder issues based on deviations.
Regarding Claim 4, Klauber discloses that the method further comprises: performing a comparison of the at least one deviation with a first threshold value [Abstract - “Statistical processing steps may be used to detect an abnormal combustion event including: calculating a mean and standard deviation for a set of signals related to the torsional stress induced in the power transmitting member, calculating a difference between a later signal and the mean, calculating a ratio of the difference to the standard deviation, and comparing the ratio to a threshold”].
Regarding Claim 5, Klauber discloses that the method further comprises: determining the potential fault of the rotating machine when the at least one deviation exceeds the first threshold value [Abstract – “Statistical processing steps may be used to detect an abnormal combustion event including: calculating a mean and standard deviation for a set of signals related to the torsional stress induced in the power transmitting member, calculating a difference between a later signal and the mean, calculating a ratio of the difference to the standard deviation, and comparing the ratio to a threshold”See Fig 7, steps 40, 42, 44 and 46.].
Regarding Claim 6, Lee further teaches outputting a warning message [See Fig. 3 element 9 - “diagnosis result injector # abnormal or normal signal”Paragraph 0028 – “In an exemplary embodiment, the controller outputs an abnormal injector confirmation result as a signal to alert it to a diagnosis lamp.”] and/or stopping the rotating the machine when the potential fault of the rotating machine is identified.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses that the method further comprises: determining a rotational frequency of the rotating machine, wherein the sampling of the vibrational measurement signal is based on the rotational frequency [See Fig. 5, the corresponding area representing one full rotational period of the driveshaft and is “determined” per the labelling of the cylinder numbers at the top of the snippets:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
].
Regarding Claim 9, Lee further teaches that the rotational frequency is determined based on a detected sensor value and/or the vibration measurement signal [See Fig. 5, the corresponding area representing one full rotational period of the driveshaft and is “determined” per the labelling of the cylinder numbers at the top of the snippets:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
].
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses that the method further comprises: obtaining at least one other measurement signal of a vibration of the rotating machine and performing the method of claim 1 for the at least one other measurement signal [See Fig. 1A, as annotated by examiner. The steps showing iterative measurements:
PNG
media_image2.png
801
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
].
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses that the method further comprises: determining deviations between the plurality of signal snippets obtained based on the measurement signal; determining deviations between the at least one other plurality of signal snippets obtained based on the at least one other measurement signal [Paragraph [0013] – “Accordingly, an object of the present disclosure considering the above point is to provide an injector abnormal cylinder diagnosis method and an injector abnormality diagnosis system based on signal deviation, which may independently diagnose whether an injector for each cylinder is normal or abnormal in consideration of noise/vibration signal deviation between the injectors for each cylinder from measured noise and vibration signals, and particularly, accurately diagnose the abnormality of each of the injectors independently, thereby selectively replacing an abnormal injector upon engine inspection to reduce an A/S cost together while satisfying a customer service.”]; and sorting the plurality of signal snippets and the at least one other plurality of signal snippets based on the respective deviations [Paragraph [0109] – “On the other hand, the threshold-based abnormal injector confirmation control (S200-1, S210-1, S220-1, S250, S260) sorts the feature vectors in the time series for each cylinder and then utilizes the determination algorithm in which the normal/abnormal determination threshold is assigned to each feature for each cylinder to confirm whether the injector is normal/abnormal.”Paragraph [0110] – “Specifically, the threshold-based abnormal injector confirmation control (S200-1, S210-1, S220-1, S250, S260) includes performing data mapping (S200-1), matching the feature vector with the cylinder (S210-1), constructing a threshold correspondence result table (S220-1), confirming the abnormal injector (S250), and generating the diagnosis result signal (S260).”].
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses that the method further comprises: determining an assignment of the subsystems to the assigned signal snippets based on a detected and/or obtained assignment signal [See Fig. 5 the region labels corresponding to each of cylinders 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 6.].
Regarding Claim 13, Lee further discloses that the assignment is determined based on correlating the detected and/or obtained assignment signal and the vibration measurement signal [See Fig. 5 the region labels corresponding to each of cylinders 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 6.].
Regarding Claim 14, Lee fails to disclose that the method further comprises the step of: performing an auto-correlation analysis of signal snippets based on different measurement signals and assigned to the same subsystem of the rotating machine configured for identifying a potential fault state of the rotating machine.
However, Klauber discloses that the method further comprises the step of: performing an auto-correlation analysis of signal snippets based on different measurement signals and assigned to the same subsystem of the rotating machine configured for identifying a potential fault state of the rotating machine [Abstract – “Statistical processing steps may be used to detect an abnormal combustion event including: calculating a mean and standard deviation for a set of signals related to the torsional stress induced in the power transmitting member, calculating a difference between a later signal and the mean, calculating a ratio of the difference to the standard deviation, and comparing the ratio to a threshold. The ratio so obtained from a given cylinder may further be compared with one or more other such ratios from other cylinders. In other words, the autocorrelation and/or cross-correlation techniques may be used”].
It would have been obvious to use the autocorrelation technique of Klauber on the vibration data of Lee in order to identify cylinder issues.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee discloses a rotating machine configured for energy transfer having a plurality of subsystems, each subsystem comprising one cylinder, comprising a control unit adapted to perform a method according to claim 1 [See Fig. 3 – engine (2), cylinders (3), controller (10)].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210381458 A1)[hereinafter “Lee”], Klauber et al. (US 5313826 A)[hereinafter “Klauber”], and Andou (US 20140331971 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee fails to disclose that the method further comprises: performing a comparison of the at least one deviation with the first threshold value and a second threshold value; outputting a warning message if at least one deviation exceeds the first threshold; and stopping the machine if at least one deviation exceeds the first threshold and the second threshold.
However, Andou discloses that the method further comprises performing a comparison of the at least one deviation with the first threshold value and a second threshold value; outputting a warning message if at least one deviation exceeds the first threshold; and stopping the machine if at least one deviation exceeds the first threshold and the second threshold [Paragraph [0025] – “Further, the combustion control device may further comprise: a warning device for issuing a warning when the deviation exceeds a first threshold value; and an engine stop unit for determining that a target cylinder is under an abnormal state and stopping the target cylinder or the internal combustion engine when the deviation exceeds a second threshold value which is larger than the first threshold value. As a result, it is possible to issue a warning before the exhaust gas property exceeds the regulation value due to increase in the deposit deposition amount, and also to promptly take measures upon the exhaust gas property exceeding the regulation value.”]
It would have been obvious to apply the method of Andou to the engine of Lee because doing so would have 1. allowed a user to have repairs performed with regards to a milder issue, and 2. prevented further damage to the engine with regards to a serious issue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Du et al. (US 20190108692 A1) – Method and Apparatus to Isolate an On-Vehicle Fault
Knaup (US 20180364132 A1) – Method for Conducting a Vibration-Diagnostic Monitoring of a Machine
Sprague et al. (US 5902934 A) – Phase Magnitude Signal Detector
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
