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/s filed on [01/01/2024 and 01/01/2024] has/have been acknowledged and considered by examiner.
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.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claims 1, 14, and 15, recite “magnetization means configured to arrange at least part of the component of the rock breaking system into a state of magnetization at least during a measurement period”. The term “means” is a generic placeholder (nonce term). The limitation recites the function of arranging at least part of the component of the rock breaking system into a state of magnetization but does not recite sufficient structure for performing the function. The specification identifies the structures capable of performing this function in Pg. 9, lines 2-6. Therefore, the interpretation is a permanent magnet 18, a magnetizing coil 28, magnetized steel, magnetized iron, or equivalents thereof.
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 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claims 7 and 9 recite the limitation “e>0”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While a person of ordinary skill in the art might infer that “e” refers to an electromotive force or voltage, the claims do not explicitly define the variable “e”. A possible correction would be to amend the claim to recite “causing a voltage (e) that is greater than zero”.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 13 recites “a component of an impact mechanism such as a frame structure of the impact mechanism”. Under MPEP 2173.05(d), the use of exemplary language like “such as” or “for example” in a claim renders it indefinite because it leaves the reader in doubt as to whether the feature following the phrase is a required limitation or merely an optional example. The applicant must amend the claim to remove the exemplary language.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2010037905A1 (Keskiniva) in view of US20120063263A1 (Kamata).
With regards to claims 1, 14, and 15, Keskiniva teaches an arrangement for measuring rock breaking dynamics (“an arrangement in connection with a rock drilling rig”; [0002]), the arrangement comprising:
at least one component of a rock breaking system, the at least one component being subjected to stress during rock breaking (“a rock drilling machine comprising an impact device, a feed device and a tool with a drill bit at the end thereof for breaking rock, and the impact device being arranged to cause a stress wave to the tool” [0002]); and
at least one measuring system including at least one measuring coil (“The measuring means 11 may also be a coil” [0027])
wherein the at least one measuring system is configured to measure a particle velocity on a basis of change in a magnetic flux through the at least one measuring coil in response to movement due to the particle velocity in the at least one component (“Alternatively, the momentum of the reflected stress wave can be determined by a contact-free measurement for example by measuring the particle speed of the tool 7 in the direction of travel of the stress wave, i.e. by measuring the speed of a particular point or part of the tool 7 in the direction of travel of the reflected stress wave. Particle velocity is directly proportional to the reflected stress wave. The measuring means 11 may be a laser, for example, that allows particle speed to be measured optically. The measuring means 11 may also be a coil, for example, that allows a change in the magnetic field caused by the stress wave to be measured in the tool 7” [0027]).
Keskiniva does not teach magnetization means configured to arrange at least part of the component of the rock breaking system into a state of magnetization at least during a measurement period.
However, Kamata teaches magnetization means configured to arrange at least part of the component of the rock breaking system into a state of magnetization at least during a measurement period (“at least one magnet for creating a DC magnetic flux field mounted within the housing… The moving coil of the seismic sensor generates velocity signals based on a first magnetic flux field of the magnet and senses a second magnetic flux field of the stationary coil relative to a position of the moving coil” [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring arrangement of Keskiniva to incorporate the teachings of Kamata wherein it includes magnetization means configured to arrange at least part of the component of the rock breaking system into a state of magnetization at least during a measurement period to eliminate the shortcomings and problems relating to the extraction of displacement signals from the moving mass [0021] (Kamata).
With regards to claim 2, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata teaches wherein the at least one measuring system is arranged on the at least one component parallel or angular to a central axis of the component (“a moving coil within the housing structured and arranged so as to be fixed in a radial direction relative to the housing and movable in an axial direction thereof”; [0027] Kamata) to surround at least partly the at least one component or into at least one void of the at least one component (“As depicted in FIG. 1A, a typical geophone 10 has one or more cylindrical moving coil 12 that is suspended by springs 20 so as to be disposed around a magnet 15” [0007] Kamata).
With regards to claim 3, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata teaches wherein the magnetization means is arranged between the measuring coils or at least partly around the at least one measuring coil, or one measuring coil is arranged between the magnetization means (“FIG. 5C, stationary coils 22 are provided between the upper coil and the lower coil of the moving coil 12” [0093] Kamata).
With regards to claim 4, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata teaches wherein the at least one measuring system includes at least one of the following:
one measuring coil and two magnetization means, which are configured to be magnetized in different directions relative to each other (“The upper cylindrical permanent magnet 15 is polarized outside to inside and the lower magnet 15 is polarized from inside to outside” [0091] Kamata);
one measuring coil, wherein the measuring coil is a two-part measuring coil, and one or two magnetization means, wherein a winding direction of the two-part measuring coil is configured to be changed in a middle of the two-part measuring coil (“The upper coil and the lower coil are wound on the same bobbin, but in opposite directions”; [0076] Kamata);
and/or two measuring coils and one magnetization means (“A fixed or stationary coil is wound on each magnet part so that the two stationary coil windings have opposite directions”; [0082] Kamata).
With regards to claim 6, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata teaches wherein a measurement of a particle velocity is configured to depend on a change direction of the magnetic flux, a winding direction of the at least one measuring coil, and connection of poles of the at least one measuring coil (“Since the direction of the magnetic flux to the upper coil is opposite of the direction of the magnetic flux to the lower coil, the upper coil and the lower coil of the moving coil generate the same electrical signals”; [0076] Kamata).
With regards to claim 11, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata teaches wherein the at least one measuring coil comprises at least two measuring coils, which are connected in series (“the upper coil and the lower coil of the moving coil that are electrically connected in series” [0075] Kamata).
With regards to claim 12, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata teaches wherein the arrangement is further configured to measure temperature of the at least one measuring coil (“By knowing the temperature coefficient of the moving coil, the temperature of the sensor can be monitored so as to compensate for variations in sensed data due to temperature”; [0102] Kamata).
With regards to claim 13, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata teaches wherein the at least one component of the rock breaking system is at least one of the following: a tool, a drill rod, a drill bit, a component of an impact mechanism such as a frame structure of the impact mechanism, an impact device, a drill shank, an attenuating device, an adapter and/or a coupling sleeve (“a rock drilling machine comprising an impact device, a feed device and a tool with a drill bit”; [0001] Keskiniva).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2010037905A1 (Keskiniva) in view of US20120063263A1 (Kamata) and JP2010054236A (Masatake).
With regards to claim 5, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata does not teach wherein the at least one measuring system is configured to measure an angular particle velocity by arranging the at least one measuring system angular to a central axis of the at least one component.
However, Masatake teaches wherein the at least one measuring system is configured to measure an angular particle velocity by arranging the at least one measuring system angular to a central axis of the at least one component (“the line connecting the centers of the end faces of the part forms a predetermined angle with the axial direction of the rotating shaft to be detected… The predetermined angle is preferably set to approximately 45 °”; [00017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring arrangement of Keskiniva and Kamata to incorporate the teachings of Masatake wherein the at least one measuring system is configured to measure an angular particle velocity by arranging the at least one measuring system angular to a central axis of the at least one component to “identify the direction in which torque is applied” and to accurately detect the direction and magnitude of angular forces ([00015] Masatake).
Claim 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2010037905A1 (Keskiniva) in view of US20120063263A1 (Kamata) and JP2001133336A (Hiroshi).
With regards to claim 7, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata does not teach wherein the at least one measuring coil of the measuring arrangement includes a first measuring coil and a second measuring coil, and wherein the measuring arrangement is configured to: measure a particle velocity when the magnetic flux of the first measuring coil is growing and the magnetic flux is against a winding direction of the first measuring coil causing a voltage e>0; and the magnetic flux of the second measuring coil is decreasing and the magnetic flux is in a same direction as a winding direction of the second measuring coil causing a voltage e>0.
However, Hiroshi teaches wherein the at least one measuring coil of the measuring arrangement includes a first measuring coil and a second measuring coil, and wherein the measuring arrangement is configured to: measure a particle velocity when the magnetic flux of the first measuring coil is growing and the magnetic flux is against a winding direction of the first measuring coil causing a voltage e>0; and the magnetic flux of the second measuring coil is decreasing and the magnetic flux is in a same direction as a winding direction of the second measuring coil causing a voltage e>0 (“a compressive stress is applied to the magnetostrictive region 14A to reduce the magnetic permeability, and a tensile stress is applied to the magnetostrictive region 14B to increase the magnetic permeability… the induced electromotive force generated in the detection coil 20A decreases and the induced electromotive force generated in the detection coil 20B increases”; “Both exciting coils 19A and 19B are connected in series in the forward polarity (having the same winding direction). In addition, the detection coils 20A and 20B are connected in series with opposite polarities (winding directions are opposite to each other), and a differential AC that is a difference between the AC outputs induced in the detection coils 20A and 20B by the excitation coils 19A and 19B is generated” [0036]; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring arrangement of Keskiniva and Kamata to incorporate the teachings of Hiroshi wherein the at least one measuring coil of the measuring arrangement includes a first measuring coil and a second measuring coil, and wherein the measuring arrangement is configured to: measure a particle velocity when the magnetic flux of the first measuring coil is growing and the magnetic flux is against a winding direction of the first measuring coil causing a voltage e>0; and the magnetic flux of the second measuring coil is decreasing and the magnetic flux is in a same direction as a winding direction of the second measuring coil causing a voltage e>0 to “reduce the detection error due to the temperature change” and achieve “high output sensitivity and excellent linearity” ([0043]-[0045] Hiroshi).
With regards to claim 8, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata and Hiroshi teaches wherein a negative pole of the second measuring coil is connected to a positive pole of the first measuring coil (“the detection coils 20A and 20B are connected in series with opposite polarities… and a differential AC… is generated” [0028] Hiroshi).
With regards to claim 9, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata does not teach wherein the at least one measuring coil of the measuring arrangement includes a first measuring coil and a second measuring coil, and wherein the measuring arrangement is configured to measure the particle velocity when the magnetic flux of the first measuring coil is growing and the magnetic flux is against a winding direction of the first measuring coil causing a voltage e>0, and the magnetic flux of the second measuring coil is decreasing and the magnetic flux is against a winding direction of the second measuring coil causing a voltage e>0.
However, Hiroshi teaches wherein the at least one measuring coil of the measuring arrangement includes a first measuring coil and a second measuring coil, and wherein the measuring arrangement is configured to measure the particle velocity when the magnetic flux of the first measuring coil is growing and the magnetic flux is against a winding direction of the first measuring coil causing a voltage e>0, and the magnetic flux of the second measuring coil is decreasing and the magnetic flux is against a winding direction of the second measuring coil causing a voltage e>0 (“a compressive stress is applied to the magnetostrictive region 14A to reduce the magnetic permeability, and a tensile stress is applied to the magnetostrictive region 14B to increase the magnetic permeability… the induced electromotive force generated in the detection coil 20A decreases and the induced electromotive force generated in the detection coil 20B increases”; “Both exciting coils 19A and 19B are connected in series in the forward polarity (having the same winding direction). In addition, the detection coils 20A and 20B are connected in series with opposite polarities (winding directions are opposite to each other), and a differential AC that is a difference between the AC outputs induced in the detection coils 20A and 20B by the excitation coils 19A and 19B is generated” [0036]; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measuring arrangement of Keskiniva and Kamata to incorporate the teachings of Hiroshi wherein the at least one measuring coil of the measuring arrangement includes a first measuring coil and a second measuring coil, and wherein the measuring arrangement is configured to measure the particle velocity when the magnetic flux of the first measuring coil is growing and the magnetic flux is against a winding direction of the first measuring coil causing a voltage e>0, and the magnetic flux of the second measuring coil is decreasing and the magnetic flux is against a winding direction of the second measuring coil causing a voltage e>0 to “reduce the detection error due to the temperature change” and achieve “high output sensitivity and excellent linearity” ([0043]-[0045] Hiroshi).
With regards to claim 10, Keskiniva as modified by Kamata and Hiroshi teaches wherein a positive pole of the second measuring coil is connected to a positive pole of the first measuring coil (“the detection coils 20A and 20B are connected in series with opposite polarities… and a differential AC… is generated” [0028] Hiroshi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSAMAH MURSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-9534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11 a.m. 8 p.m. ET..
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/OSAMAH MURSHED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights