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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
The lubricant line including the plurality of wires
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “the bearing is remote from the bearing module”. As Claim 1 requires the accelerometer to be in the bearing module, that would mean the accelerometer is also remote from the bearing. The specification does not disclose how accelerations detected remote from the bearing are specifically attributed to the bearing itself and no other sources of vibration.
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “the bearing is remote from the bearing module”. As Claim 1 requires the accelerometer to be in the bearing module, that would mean the accelerometer is also remote from the bearing. The specification does not disclose how accelerations detected remote from the bearing are specifically attributed to the bearing itself and no other sources of vibration.
Turning to the Wands factors no examples are provided nor are any located in the prior art. Furthermore, the specification has not provided any guidance.
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
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, 10 – 14 and 18 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.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “the microcontroller is configured to correlate the acceleration data and the temperature data”. It is unclear as to how the correlation is occurring and how it is related to “faulty” operation, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claims 10 – 12 and 18, the claims recite the term “remote”. It is unclear as to what distances are considered remote and which are not considered remote, thus rendering the claims indefinite. The specification requires the bearing module to be located adjacent to the bearing [0027]. Is adjacent considered remote?
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites that the “bearing is remote from the bearing module”. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP 2173.03. Claim 1 requires the bearing module to include the accelerometer. The specification requires the bearing module to be located adjacent to the bearing [0027]. As such, it is unclear as to how the bearing module can measure acceleration/change in position of the bearing when located remotely from the bearing, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 11, 15 – 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bull et al. (WO 2017/020080), in view of Reaves et al. (US 10822744)
Regarding Claim 1, Bull discloses an electronic device for monitoring a roller (10), in at least Figures 1, 2A, and 4C, the electronic device comprising: a bearing module (40) configured to monitor a bearing (380) of the roller (Figures 1, 2a), wherein the bearing module comprises an accelerometer and a temperature circuit (circuit including 230 and 360) (Figure 4c) that are configured to monitor positioning and temperature, respectively, of the bearing of the suction roller [081, 086], and wherein the bearing module comprises an enclosure (enclosure of 40) that includes both the accelerometer and the temperature circuit therein (Figure 2A, 4C).
Bull fails to expressly disclose the roller is a suction roller.
Reaves teaches monitoring the bearings of suction rollers (via 150).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Bull so that the bearing being monitored is a suction bearing for the benefit of determining any warning levels or system faults, as taught by Reaves (Col 4, lines 24 – 25).
Regarding Claim 2, Reaves teaches the accelerometer comprises a piezoelectric accelerometer that is configured to monitor the suction roller (Col 7, lines 50 – 56).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Bull discloses the bearing module further comprises: a microcontroller (80) that is configured to transmit acceleration data from the accelerometer and temperature data from the temperature circuit to an external control unit (50) that is external to the roller [078] (Figures 1, 2A), wherein the roller being a suction roller has been rendered obvious according to the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5, Bull discloses the bearing module further comprises: a cache memory, wherein the acceleration data from the accelerometer is sampled by the microcontroller and stored in the cache memory for future transmission to the external control unit (cache memory inherently being present as measurements over a predetermined period are transmitted at a later time) [088].
Regarding Claim 6, Reaves teaches the acceleration data and the temperature data are transmitted over a RS485 interface to the external control unit (Col 5, lines 55 – 58).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Bull discloses the microcontroller triggers an alert when the temperature data at the temperature circuit exceeds a threshold [085, 086].
Regarding Claim 8, Bull discloses the microcontroller is configured to correlate the acceleration data and the temperature data to trigger an alert associated with faulty operation of the bearing of the roller [085, 086], wherein the roller being a suction roller has been rendered obvious according to the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination fails to expressly disclose the accelerometer is configured to measure frequencies up to 10kHz and force up to 25 g-force; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the accelerometer measures expected and dangerous frequencies and forces of the suction roller bearing including frequencies up to 10kHz and force up to 25 g-force for the benefit of alerting the user to an alert condition, as taught by Bull [086].
Regarding Claim 10, Bull discloses the temperature circuit within the bearing module is configured to monitor the temperature at a temperature sensor that is remote from the enclosure(Figure 4C), and wherein the accelerometer within the bearing module is configured to monitor vibrations associated with the suction roller that are localized to the enclosure (Figure 4C).
Regarding Claim 11, Bull discloses the bearing is remote from the bearing module such that the temperature of the bearing is monitored remotely by the temperature circuit (Figure 4C).
Regarding Claim 15, Bull discloses a method for monitoring a bearing (380) of a roller (Figures 1, 2A), the method comprising: monitoring, by a positioning circuit (circuit of 360), a position of the bearing of the roller [086]; and monitoring, by a temperature circuit (circuit of 230), a temperature associated with the bearing of the roller [081], wherein the positioning circuit and the temperature circuit are both in an enclosure (enclosure of 40) that is mounted in the roller (Figures 2A, 4C).
Bull fails to expressly disclose the roller is a suction roller.
Reaves teaches monitoring the bearings of suction rollers (via 150).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Bull so that the bearing being monitored is a suction bearing for the benefit of determining any warning levels or system faults, as taught by Reaves (Col 4, lines 24 – 25).
Regarding Claim 16, Bull discloses sampling acceleration data from the positioning circuit [086]; and sampling temperature data from the temperature circuit [081].
Regarding Claim 17, Bull discloses transmitting data based on the acceleration data from the positioning circuit and the temperature data from the temperature circuit to an external control unit (50) that is external to the roller [078] (Figures 1, 2A), wherein the roller being a suction roller has been rendered obvious according to the rejection of Claim 15 above.
Regarding Claim 19, Bull discloses triggering an alert associated with faulty operation of the bearing of the roller based on the temperature associated with the bearing of the suction roller and a position of the bearing of the roller [085, 086], wherein the roller being a suction roller has been rendered obvious according to the rejection of Claim 15 above.
Regarding Claim 20, Bull discloses a bearing monitoring circuit for monitoring a roller, in at least Figure 4C, the bearing monitoring circuit comprising: an accelerometer (360) that is configured to monitor positioning of a bearing of the roller [086], and a temperature circuit (circuit of 230) that is configured to monitor temperature of the bearing of the roller [086], wherein the accelerometer and the temperature circuit are in a single enclosure (enclosure of 40) that is mounted in the roller (Figures 2A, 4C).
Bull fails to expressly disclose the roller is a suction roller.
Reaves teaches monitoring the bearings of suction rollers (via 150).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Bull so that the bearing being monitored is a suction bearing for the benefit of determining any warning levels or system faults, as taught by Reaves (Col 4, lines 24 – 25).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bull et al. (WO 2017/020080), in view of Reaves et al. (US 10822744), in further view of Acar (US 2013/0247666).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination fails to expressly disclose the piezoelectric accelerometer comprises a 3-axis piezoelectric accelerometer configured to measure acceleration along an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis.
Acar discloses a 3-axis piezoelectric accelerometer configured to measure acceleration along an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis [0057 – 0063].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combinations so that the piezoelectric accelerometer comprises a 3-axis piezoelectric accelerometer configured to measure acceleration along an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis for the benefit of low cost accelerometer with minimal cross-axis sensitivity, as taught by Acar [0027, 0028].
Conclusion
A complete search and consideration was not possible with respect to the claims not provided with a prior art rejection due to the 112(b) Rejections as outlined above. Upon applicant’s clarification of the claims
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights