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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
This Office Action is in response to applicant's preliminary amendments filed on 11/07/2024. Claims 1 – 5 were previously filed on 11/07/2024. Examiner has acknowledged and reviewed applicant's amendments of claim 5. Examiner has reviewed amended claim 5, and amended claim 5 does not constitute new matter issues.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance.
The primary reason for allowance of claim 5 is the prior art made of record neither shows or discloses the claim language found in claim 5, for an excitation force optimization method for optimizing an excitation force in deriving a frequency response function of a structure, the method comprising:
amplifying, by an exciter, the excitation force stepwise and repeatedly exciting the structure;
measuring, by one or more accelerometers, vibration of the structure excited by the exciter;
deriving, by an arithmetic device, a frequency response function on a basis of a measurement value of vibration of the structure.
Most notably, for fan excitation force optimization method for optimizing an excitation force in deriving a frequency response function of a structure, the method further comprising:
when a first frequency response function in which a frequency at which a peak of the frequency response function appears varies depending on a number of times of trial is derived and then a second frequency response function in which a frequency at which a peak of the frequency response function equal to or higher than a first threshold appears is constant regardless of the number of times of trial is derived by the arithmetic device, recording the second frequency response function; and
when a third frequency response function in which a peak of a frequency response function that does not exist in the second frequency response function and is equal to or higher than a second threshold appears is derived by the arithmetic device, discarding the third frequency response function and outputting a frequency response function obtained by averaging one or more of the second frequency response functions recorded.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U. S. C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sturm et al. (US 20230280247 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sturm”.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Sturm disclose an excitation force optimization system (as shown in Figure 5) that optimizes an excitation force in deriving a frequency response function of a structure (Structure Under Test, Figure 5, element 103), the excitation force optimization system comprising: an exciter (Figure 5, element 109) that excites the structure; one or more accelerometers (sensors, Figure 5, element 107) that are installed in the structure and measure vibration of the structure every time the structure is excited; and an arithmetic device that derives a frequency response function on a basis of a measurement value of vibration of the structure and controls an excitation force of the exciter on a basis of the frequency response function (paragraph 33, all lines, therein).
PNG
media_image2.png
670
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
630
802
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sturm disclose an arithmetic device (controller, Figure 6, element 701) that derives a frequency response function of a structure, the arithmetic device comprising: a reception unit that receives a measurement value of vibration of the structure from one or more accelerometers; an arithmetic unit that derives the frequency response function on a basis of the measurement value and controls an excitation force of an exciter on a basis of the frequency response function (as illustrated in a process shown in Figure 8) (paragraphs 54 and 55, all lines, therein); a display unit (user interface, Figure 6, element 707) that displays and visualizes the frequency response function; and a recording unit that records the frequency response function (paragraph 59, all lines, therein).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art made of record neither shows nor suggests the excitation force optimization system, wherein the arithmetic device amplifies the excitation force when the frequency response function is a first frequency response function in which a frequency at which a peak of the frequency response function appears varies depending on a number of times of trial, and when the frequency response function is a second frequency response function in which a frequency at which a peak of the frequency response function equal to or higher than a first threshold appears is constant regardless of the number of times of trial, the second frequency response function is recorded and the excitation force is amplified, and when the frequency response function is a third frequency response function in which a peak of a frequency response function that does not exist in the second frequency response function and is equal to or higher than a second threshold appears, the third frequency response function is discarded, and an average value of the second frequency response function is output.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art made of record neither shows nor suggests the arithmetic device, wherein the arithmetic unit amplifies the excitation force when the frequency response function is a first frequency response function in which a frequency at which a peak of the frequency response function appears varies depending on a number of times of trial, and when the frequency response function is a second frequency response function in which a frequency at which a peak of the frequency response function equal to or higher than a first threshold appears is constant regardless of the number of times of trial, the second frequency response function is recorded and the excitation force is amplified, and when the frequency response function is a third frequency response function in which a peak of a frequency response function that does not exist in the second frequency response function and is equal to or higher than a second threshold appears, the third frequency response function is discarded, and an average value of the second frequency response function is output.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WARREN K FENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3040. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Walter L. Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
WKF
Prosecution Insights