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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the recitations of “a hardened area” in line 2, “a part” in line 4 and “a hardened area” in line 15 refer to previously recited limitations.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitations of “the measurement points” in line 7, “the amplitude” in line 8, “the first peak” in line 8 and “the MBN envelope” in line 8 lack antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “it” in line 9 appears to refer to the method.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “a plurality of reference parts” in line 11 appears to refer to “reference parts” in line 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 2023/0228712 A1) in view of Morozov (GB 2495292 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ozeki et al. teach a method for the non-destructive measurement of a parameter to a hardened area where an end of a hardened area of a part to be measured is located (the measuring apparatus 100 non-destructively measures a mechanical property of a substance 1 in a measured object 101; [0031]; Figs 1-2; from the measurement result, each part harder than preset surface layer hardness is determined as a hardened portion; [0089]; FIG. 12), said method comprising:
a) scanning a measurement area of a part by applying a variable magnetic field to the part and measuring an MBN, Magnetic Barkhausen Noise, signal at least one measurement point along the measurement area by means of a sensor (it is known that, in a steel material, changes in a magnetic hysteresis curve and Barkhausen noise correlate with the mechanical property of the material such as tensile strength and hardness; the magnetic hysteresis curve is also called a B-H curve, and is a curve indicating the relationship between the magnetic field strength and the magnetic flux density; [0050]; Figs 1-3; the scanning unit 6 may move the sensor 3 to an evaluation location designated by the physical quantity measurement control unit 83; [0053]);
b) processing the MBN signal obtained for each of the measurement points determined to obtain the amplitude of the MBN envelope (the control unit 8 returns to the process in step S1 and further collects learning data; [0066]; FIG. 5; the magnetic hysteresis curve or B-H curve has an amplitude of an envelope);
such that it comprises:
i) training a regression model by using reference parts, which comprises carrying out the previous steps a) and b) applied to a plurality of reference parts with a known parameter (examples of the calculation model used in the present disclosure include a regression model using the k-nearest neighbor algorithm, a local linear regression model, and a regression model using a support vector machine; [0043], [0073], [0084]; FIG. 5; the calculation model may be prepared as a linear regression model or a nonlinear regression model that links the explanatory variables and the objective variable of the learning data; [0073]; FIG. 7);
ii) measuring the part to be measured, which comprises carrying out the previous steps a) and b) applied to the part to be measured with a hardened area with an unknown parameter (measurement step S11; [0071]; FIG. 7; the control unit 8 calculates the mechanical property of the substance 1 using the generated calculation model and at least two physical quantities necessary as input; [0074]);
iii) calculating a property of the part to be measured by applying the trained regression model to the part to be measured (calculation step S14; FIG. 7).
Further regarding claim 1, Ozeki et al. do not teach the non-destructive measurement of a parameter is a measurement of a distance to the hardened area where the end of the hardened area of the part to be measured is located; and the processing the MBN signal is to obtain the amplitude of the first peak of the MBN envelope.
Further regarding claim 1, Morozov teaches a non-destructive measurement a distance to a hardened area where an end of the hardened area of a part to be measured is located (the present invention represents an improvement in simplicity and accuracy of non-destructive evaluation of thickness of surface hardened layers of steels and other ferromagnetic metals; first paragraph, page 12; the end being an interface between a hardened layer and the non-hardened layer); and a processing a MBN signal is to obtain an amplitude of a first peak of the MBN envelope (the proportionality between the amplitudes of the two peaks depends on the thickness of the surface hardened layer; fourth paragraph, page 13) for the purpose of evaluating the thickness of a hardened layer as the parameter to be measured.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the non-destructive measurement of a parameter is a measurement of a distance to the hardened area where the end of the hardened area of the part to be measured is located; and the processing the MBN signal is to obtain the amplitude of the first peak of the MBN envelope, as taught by Morozov, into Ozeki et al. for the purpose of evaluating the thickness of a hardened layer as the parameter to be measured.
Regarding claim 2, Ozeki et al. teach wherein the measurement area of the reference parts and the part to be measured is a single measurement point (the scanning unit 6 may move the sensor 3 to an evaluation location designated by the physical quantity measurement control unit 83; [0053]; the evaluation location being the same for different measurements).
Regarding claim 5, Ozeki et al. teach a measurement system to carry out the method (the measuring apparatus 100 non-destructively measures a mechanical property of a substance 1 in a measured object 101; [0031]; Figs 1-2; from the measurement result, each part harder than preset surface layer hardness is determined as a hardened portion; [0089]; FIG. 12), said system comprising:
- a magnetizing element to apply a variable magnetic field to the part (excitation coil 31 and a magnetizing yoke 32; FIG. 3);
- a sensor to detect the resulting MBN signal on the surface of the part (sensor 3; FIG. 3); and
- a processing unit to obtain the resulting MBN signal at the measurement point where the sensor is placed (control unit 8; FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Ozeki et al. teach positioning means for positioning the sensor that allow it to be placed at different measurement points (the scanning unit 6 may move the sensor 3 to an evaluation location designated by the physical quantity measurement control unit 83; [0053]; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Ozeki et al. teach means configured to ensure that the sensor and/or the magnetizing element are positioned and maintained at a specific distance corresponding to the measurement point where the sensor picks up the MBN signal (the scanning unit 6 may move the sensor 3 to an evaluation location designated by the physical quantity measurement control unit 83; [0053]; FIG. 2; the sensor is suggested to be maintained at the distance for stable measurement).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 2023/0228712 A1) as modified by Morozov (GB 2495292 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thale et al. (US 2023/0018264 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ozeki et al. as modified by Morozov do not teach wherein more than one sensor is used to simultaneously measure the measurement area of the reference parts and/or the part to be measured.
Further regarding claim 3, Thale et al. teach more than one sensor is used to simultaneously measure a measurement area of a part to be measured (here, it is conceivable to arrange even more Hall elements 30; [0044]; FIG. 2) for the purpose of measuring multiple locations with one applied magnetic field.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein more than one sensor is used to simultaneously measure the measurement area of the reference parts and/or the part to be measured, as taught by Thale et al., into Ozeki et al. as modified by Morozov for the purpose of measuring multiple locations with one applied magnetic field.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 2023/0228712 A1) as modified by Morozov (GB 2495292 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kopmanis (US 2020/0116576 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ozeki et al. as modified by Morozov do not teach wherein the part to be measured is a crankshaft.
Further regarding claim 4, Kopmanis teaches a part to be measured is a crankshaft (the hardened region may be a laser hardened region, the unhardened region may not be laser hardened and the selectively hardened part may be a crankshaft, a camshaft, or a gear; [0008]; crankshaft 30; FIG. 8) for the purpose of applying the non-destructive measurement in the auto industry.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the part to be measured is a crankshaft, as taught by Kopmanis, into Ozeki et al. as modified by Morozov for the purpose of applying the non-destructive measurement in the auto industry.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozeki et al. (US 2023/0228712 A1) as modified by Morozov (GB 2495292 A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Thale et al. (US 2023/0018264 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ozeki et al. as modified by Morozov do not teach a plurality of magnetizing elements and/or sensors.
Further regarding claim 8, Thale et al. teach a plurality of magnetizing elements and/or sensors (here, it is conceivable to arrange even more Hall elements 30; [0044]; FIG. 2) for the purpose of measuring multiple locations with one applied magnetic field.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a plurality of magnetizing elements and/or sensors, as taught by Thale et al., into Ozeki et al. as modified by Morozov for the purpose of measuring multiple locations with one applied magnetic field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRICK X LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3798. The examiner can normally be reached MWFSa 10am-8pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
8 August 2026
/KENDRICK X LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights