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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regard to application # 18/936,418 that was filed on 11/04/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites “…the array of photo-receptors can resolve a change in dimension of the rotating element…” in lines 1-2. It is not clear what ‘resolve’ mean. If the applicant is meant to refer to ‘an optical resolution’ (‘the ability of an imaging or optical system to distinguish two closely spaced points or features as separate entities rather than a single blurred object), the recitation needs to be amended to indicated that. For the purpose of examination, the examiner assumes the recitation is in regard to an optical resolution. The claim is considered vague and indefinite.
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) 1-3 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornwall eta l. (US 5,130,641) in view of Syvenkyy (US 2021/0025819).
Regarding Claim 1, Cornwall discloses an optical sensor system comprising:
a light source configured to illuminate an edge of a rotating element (LEDs in openings 17/18 focusing light onto the edge of a rotating eddy-wheel/disk; abstract; col. 2, lines 45-65; col. 3, lines 1-40; Figs 1-2);
an optical sensor configured to detect light reflected from the edge of the rotating element, wherein the optical sensor outputs a signal indicative of a location of the edge of the rotating element (phototransitor/detector in opening 20 receives reflected light; modulation by edge or mark produces a position/rotation signal; abstract; col. 2 lines 50-65, col. 4, lines 10-40).
Syvenkyy Explicitly teaches a light filter(26) position relative to the photo detector(or in optical path)” to filter out ambient light” in a reflective edge/ contrast sensor that uses an LED or VCSEL to generate a focused beam reflected from an object edge (para. [0038], Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical sensor disclosed in Cornwall with the light filter taught in Syvenkyy with a reasonable expectation of success because it improves Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and reject ambient light. Adding such a filter between the source and edge (or on the detector( was routine to improve SNR. Cornwall’s close-tolerance slot already seeks to exclude ambient light. Syvenkyy’ s filter is a standard optical solution. The combination yields the claimed arrangement with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Cornwall discloses an optical sensor system further comprising a lens (24, 26, Fig. 2) configured to focus the light emitted from the light source.
Regarding Claim 3, Cornwall discloses an optical sensor system wherein the light source is a light emitting diode (col. 3, lines 42-44).
Claim(s) 4-5 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Cornwall eta l. (US5130641) in further view of Gomez Rivas et al. (US 2011/0170103).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Cornwall is silent, but Gomez Rivas teaches an optical sensor system comprising a polarizer (93, Fig. 5, para. [0062]) on the light source (91, Fig. 5. Para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light sources of optical sensor system disclosed in Cornwall with a polarizer as taught in Gomez Rivas with a reasonable expectation of success because it converts unpolarized light into linearly polarized light, giving you precise control over how light interacts with target objects intern eliminates glare and hot spots, enhanced contrast and color saturation as well as improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Cornwall is silent, but Gomez Rivas teaches an optical sensor system comprising a polarizer (94, Fig. 5, para. [0062]) on optical sensor (92, Fig. 5. Para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical sensor disclosed in Cornwall with a polarizer as taught in Gomez Rivas with a reasonable expectation of success because adding a polarizer allows the detector to measure the angle and degree of polarization in turn eliminates glare and unwanted reflections, enhance image contrast and extraction, reliable detection of clear and shiny objects.
Claim(s) 6-9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Cornwall eta l. (US5130641) in further view of Franklin et al. (US 6,727,493).
Regarding Claims 6-9, modified Cornwall is silent, but Franklin teaches a photodiode array (126, Fig. 6-8) for optical encoders in adjacent photodiodes have separation of approximately 5-5.8 microns( col. 6, lines 20-25) well below the claimed “ less than about 10 microns” and are arranged in rows/series (col. 5-6)). A resolution of ~0.0001 inches (~2.5 μm) is within the capability of contemporary photodiode/CCD/CMOS arrays used in high resolution optical encoders and edge sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention seeking the precision needed for dimensional monitoring of a rotating element to modify the optical sensor disclosed in modified Cornwall with an array taught in Franklin with reasonable expectation of success for extreme spatial precision and micro-level measurement accuracy. The combination of modified Cornwall with Franklin’s fine-pitch array is obvious and yields the claimed spacing and resolution with predictable results.
Claim(s) 10-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornwall eta l. (US5130641) in view of Syvenkyy (US 2021/0025819) and further view of Rath et. al. (doc. “Uncertainty Analysis of an Optoelectronic Strain Measurement System for Flywheel Rotors”).
Regarding Claim 10, Cornwall discloses an optical sensor system comprising a light source (LEDs) configure to illuminate an edge of a rotating element (eddy-wheel/disk) and an optical sensor that detects light reflected from the edge and outputs a signal indicative of the location of the edge (abstract, Fig. 1-2). The rotating element is a disk like wheel whose edge is optically sensed. Rath expressly teaches an optical reflection based sensing system applied to a flywheel rotor for measuring radial dimensional change/strain (abstract; section 2 “optoelectronic strain measurement basics”, Fig. 1-2). Rath describes a stationary light source illuminating a region of rotating flywheel and photodetector detecting reflected light to produce a signal related to the radial position/dimension of the flywheel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply Cornwall’s edge-illumination and reflection detection geometry to the flywheel of Rath because both references address contactless optical measurement of the location or dimension of rotating disk like element. Substituting the eddy-wheel of Cornwall with the flywheel of Rath is a simple and predictable substitution of one known rotating element for another and in the same optical sensing context. The combination yields claim 10 with no unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 11, Rath teaches reference values for each sensor position acquired at low speeds when the deformation is near zero; The optical deformation u at each sensor position can then be determined by the difference of the reference value and the instantaneous measurement (see discussion surrounding equations (1)-(2) and the calculations of radial position r from the optical duty cycle signal). Rath’s reference (initial) signal is obtained under near zero deformation conditions and is subtracted from subsequent measurements to quantify radial expansion of the flywheel. Implementing this already discussed difference step on a conventional processor and memory is a routine engineering design choice. Combining Cornwall’s edge sensing hardware with Rath’s flywheel application and explicit radial difference algorithm renders claim 11 obvious.
Regarding Claim 12, Rath explicitly addresses axial/longitudinal(out-of-plane) effects. Table 1 quantifies “axial height noise” (σ_Δh) as a contributor to measurement uncertainty. The text discusses the influence of axial height change (Δh) on the optical signal, notes a typical height tolerance of 200 μm, and describes the use of inductive sensors for axial position measurement(noise of 3.4 μm when averaged) (section 5 discussion of illumination spot size and axial effects; surrounding text for figure 24). Once a dimensional-difference signal (Radial or longitudinal) is available, a threshold comparison followed by a stop rotation command is a standard industrial safety control function. High speed flywheels present a well-known risk of material failure or mechanical contact upon excessive dimensional change. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention performing condition monitoring of radial/axial dimension (the stated purpose of Rath) would have found it obvious to store in the same memory already used for the difference calculation, instructions that halt rotation when a longitudinal threshold is exceeded. The combination produced only the expected safety result.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is parallel to claim 11 but directed to a change in longitudinal dimension of the flywheel . Rath’s detailed treatment of axial height change (Δh) and the recognition that axial motion affects the optical signal make the longitudinal difference calculation the direct analog of the radial calculation already taught. Applying the same reference versus instantaneous difference logic to the longitudinal component is obvious.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and adds the stop-rotation step when the longitudinal dimension difference exceeds a threshold. The limitation is obvious for identical reasons given under claim 12: once the launch difference signal exists threshold based shutdown is a routine and predictable safety measure.
Regarding Claim 15, Rath is directed to condition monitoring of flywheel rotors and kinetic energy storage systems. Standard flywheel energy storage system (FESS) architectures include a motor, a flywheel operatively coupled to the motor and an enclosure (introduction, page 1). Mounting the optical sensor system of claim 1 inside the enclosure is the natural and obvious placement for contactless monitoring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy storage system disclosed in Rath with the optical sensor of modified Cornwall with a reasonable expectation of success because it measures/indicates the location of the edge of the flywheel. Rath teaches optoelectronic contactless measurement. The optical sensor disclosed in claim 1 is expected optoelectronic sensor for the contactless measurement. The combination yields the claimed arrangement with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 (a radial-difference calculations within the energy-storage system) is rejected being obvious over Cornwall, Syvenkyy, and Rath for the same reasons as claim 11.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 (stop rotation when longitudinal difference exceeds threshold) is rejected being obvious over Cornwall, Syvenkyy, and Rath for the same reasons as claim 12.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 (longitudinal-difference calculation) is rejected being obvious over Cornwall, Syvenkyy, and Rath for the same reasons as claim 13.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 (stop rotation when longitudinal difference exceeds threshold) is rejected being obvious over Cornwall, Syvenkyy, and Rath for the same reasons as claim 14.
Regarding Claim 20, having a second optical sensor system for radial and longitudinal dimensions is an obvious duplication of sensors oriented for two axes. Rath already uses multiple sensors at different positions to separate radial deformation from other motion components. Adding a second identical system with an LED, filter, and sensor for orthogonal axis is a routine and predictable multiplication of the same known elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second identical system, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
BeJczy et al. (US 4,694,153) discloses a series of independent parallel pairs of light emitting and detecting diodes for a linear pixel array, which is laterally positioned over an edge-like discontinuity in a workpiece to be scanned, is disclosed. These independent pairs of light emitters and detectors sense along intersecting pairs of separate optical axes. A discontinuity, such as an edge in the sensed workpiece, reflects a detectable difference in the amount of light from that discontinuity in comparison to the amount of light that is reflected on either side of the discontinuity. A sequentially synchronized clamping and sampling circuit detects that difference as an electrical signal which is recovered by circuitry that exhibits an improved signal-to-noise capability for the system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
