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 Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claims 1-22 recite limitations: “a first image-capturing unit … a second image capturing unit … an offset angle calculation unit … a compensation calculation unit … a dynamic balance test processing unit … a storage unit electrically connected to the dynamic balance test processing unit … a first movement mechanism used to drive the first image-capturing unit” generic terms “unit” modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Specification describes
“a first image-capturing unit … a second image capturing unit” as “a camera, a video camera or a monitor” in Paragraph 39;
“an offset angle calculation unit … a compensation calculation unit … a dynamic balance test processing unit … a storage unit electrically connected to the dynamic balance test processing unit” as instructions executed by a processor, in Paragraph 39;
“the storage unit 31 may be a hard drive” in Paragraph 39;
“a first movement mechanism used to drive the first image-capturing unit” as “a driver, a screw, a slide rail, or a mobile platform” in Paragraph 41.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. M.P.E.P. 2181(I), Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson at 1349; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Specification must disclose adequate structure for each of the claimed functions, and the structure for special purpose functions must be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor, specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing these claimed functions. Williamson at 1351.
Claims 11 and 21 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.
Claims 11 and 21 are similarly 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.
Claims 11 and 21 are directed to “a movement control portion electrically connected to the storage unit to enable the first movement mechanism to adjust a shooting position at which the first image-capturing unit captures the first image and the second image” a generic term “portion” modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding differentiated structure, material, or act for each claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12-22 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50). Claim 11 is not rejected under this section.
The claims are directed to statutory categories of methods, apparata, (under Step 1).
Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea, directed to mathematical relationships, following rules or instructions, and mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and allusions to empirical determinations without limitation to particular empirical equations or algorithms) of visually determining geometric properties of a mechanical component (a rotor) based on how it appears in images. The claims describe the process in terms of how a person would go about determining the geometric properties based on visual observation, and simply replace a person with a computer and camera. (Except for Claim 11 that includes some mechanical structures and elements of automation).
The claims include several categories of this abstract idea: information (image, orientation, angular difference, compensation angle, compensation mass, datum point, polar coordinate system), collecting information (capture, obtain, receive,); outputting information (generate), and/or analyzing information at a high degree of algorithmic generality (calculation, generate). These categories have been identified as abstract ideas by the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed.Appx. 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception “in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, “processing unit, calculation unit, image-capturing unit, storage unit,” do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance; (cameras, processors, and storage are ordinary parts of a general purpose computer); do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (the units can be performed entirely in software using a general purpose computer as noted in specification, Paragraph 39.); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (broadly calculating geometric parameters based on visual appearance and without limitation to algorithm or formula is not a physical transformation).
This is further evidenced in that the additional elements, merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (processing, calculation, generation, obtaining and receiving of data), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (calculate geometric properties based on visual observation); adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e. obtaining, analyzing, transforming, or outputting information for use with the judicial exception as in CyperSource and Mayo); do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. linked to the intended application of determining geometric properties of a rotor without limiting the claim to include the rotor).
Substantially similar subject matter has been found ineligible in In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (An abstract idea rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, for claiming a process of analyzing data generated by mass spectrographic analysis of a gas by selecting the data to be analyzed and by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F. 3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (A purely mental process can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer.); Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection by content or source, analyzing it, and displaying results of collection and analysis are not eligible either separately or in combination); In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish the claims over prior art).
Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception, at a high level of generality. As noted above, the claims broadly provide an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result, where a computer with a camera are claimed to perform steps as they would have been performed by a person making geometric determinations based on visual observation.
The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170211591 to Horng (“Horng”) in view of YI-HAO CHUNG, YEN-LIN CHEN, “Three-Dimensional Image inpainting System Using 3D-ED-GAN for Efficient Vision-Based Detection for Rotor Dynamic Balance System,” IEEE systems, man and cybernetics society section, May 10, 2022 (“Chung”) which was provided in an IDS.
Regarding Claim 1: “A dynamic balance inspection system for performing dynamic balance inspection on a dynamic balancer with respect to a rotor of a motor, wherein the rotor comprises a positioning structure and a plurality of first counterweight portions located on a first side of the rotor, and … the dynamic balance inspection system comprises: (A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). See reasons for rejection directed to claim limitations below.)
a first image-capturing unit disposed on the first side of the rotor and movable along an axial direction (“The balance detection module C2 may include devices such as a motor, an offset detection unit and a processor. … The offset detection unit is an electronic element that can detect the magnitude of the movement of an object, such as … a camera.” Horng, Paragraph 64. Also note that “the delivery unit can move the impeller to the balance detection module and the compensating module, and align the reference mark” which indicates that the camera is movable with respect to the rotor. See Horng, Paragraph 45.)
to capture a first image of a positioning structure located on a first terminal surface and a second image of the first counterweight portions located on a second terminal surface, wherein the first terminal surface and the second terminal surface are perpendicular to the axial direction and are spaced from each other in the axial direction; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the positioning structure can be a rotor/impeller and the counterweight portions can be located on this structure. Prior art teaches this: “This permits the offset detection unit to detect the shaking magnitude of the impeller [positioning structure]. The shaking magnitude at least includes the information regarding the face run-out and the shaft run-out. Based on this, the processor is able to calculate the offset of the center of mass of the impeller. Then, the balance detection module C2 checks and outputs the offset of the center of mass of the impeller to the electrical control module Cl, so that the electrical control module Cl is able to calculate the weighting location [spaced counterweight portion] and the balancing weight that are required to adjust the impeller back to the proper position where the rotation of the impeller is balanced.” See Horng, Paragraph 64.)
an offset angle calculation unit electrically connected to the first image-capturing unit (“The balance detection module C2 may include devices such as a motor, an offset detection unit [camera] and a processor. … the processor is able to calculate the offset of the center of mass of the impeller.” See Horng, Paragraph 64.)
to obtain a first orientation corresponding to the positioning structure according to the first image, obtain a second orientation corresponding to a first designated counterweight portion of the first counterweight portions according to the second image, and … obtain a first angular difference between the first orientation and the second orientation; (Horng teaches determining the rotor offset and calculating the weighting locations [second location] relative to the rotor [first location] (in Paragraph 64), but does not discuss the offsets and locations as having coordinates or relative angles.
However, angles and coordinates are conventional geometric measures that establish locations. Chung explicitly teaches using angle and magnitude measures in the context of rotor balancing: “calculating the imbalance angle and magnitude to provide rotor balancing instructions to an operator.” Chung, Page 60025, column 2, first paragraph.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Horng to designate relative locations using angles and magnitudes as taught in Chung, in order “to provide rotor balancing instructions to an operator.” Chung, Page 60025, column 2, first paragraph.)
a dynamic balance test processing unit electrically connected to the dynamic balancer to receive a first compensation angle of the first side of the rotor and a first compensation mass corresponding to the first compensation angle from the dynamic balancer, (“the processor is able to calculate the offset of the center of mass of the impeller,” and thus to receive the output of the calculation. See Horng, Paragraph 64. Note that the offset can be “angle and magnitude” as noted in Chung, Page 60025, column 2, first paragraph and the statement of motivation above.)
wherein the first compensation angle is generated by using the positioning structure as a datum point of a dynamic balance polar coordinate system; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, polar coordinates use angles and magnitude to indicate a location. As noted above: “calculating the imbalance angle and magnitude to provide rotor balancing instructions to an operator.” Chung, Page 60025, column 2, first paragraph and the statement of motivation above.)
a compensation calculation unit electrically connected to the offset angle calculation unit and the dynamic balance test processing unit (See claim construction of unit as a processor under 112(f) above. Prior art teaches: “the processor” in Horng, Paragraph 64.)
to generate at least one first actual compensation position and at least one first actual compensation mass corresponding to the at least one first actual compensation position according to the first angular difference, the first compensation angle and the first compensation mass.” (“Then, the balance detection module C2 checks and outputs the offset of the center of mass of the impeller to the electrical control module Cl, so that the electrical control module Cl is able to calculate the weighting location [compensation position] and the balancing weight [compensation mass] that are required to adjust the impeller back to the proper position where the rotation of the impeller is balanced.” See Horng, Paragraph 64.)
Regarding Claim 2: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 1, wherein
the compensation calculation unit generates a first corrected compensation angle by correcting the first compensation angle according to the first angular difference, (“Based on this, the processor is able to calculate the offset of the center of mass of the impeller [angular difference]. Then, the balance detection module C2 checks and outputs the offset of the center of mass of the impeller to the electrical control module Cl, so that the electrical control module Cl is able to calculate the weighting location [coordinates] and the balancing weight [compensation. that are required to adjust the impeller back to the proper position where the rotation of the impeller is balanced.” Horng, Paragraph 64. See polar coordinates as angles and magnitudes in Claim 1.)
locates at least one first target counterweight portion as the at least one first actual compensation position from the first counterweight portions according to the first corrected compensation angle, and (“the electrical control module Cl is able to calculate the weighting location [coordinates] and the balancing weight [compensation. that are required to adjust the impeller back to the proper position where the rotation of the impeller is balanced.” Horng, Paragraph 64. See polar coordinates as angles and magnitudes in Claim 1.)
allocates the at least one first actual compensation mass to the at least one first actual compensation position according to the first compensation mass and the at least one first actual compensation position; (“the electrical control module Cl is able to calculate the weighting location [coordinates] and the balancing weight [compensation mass]. that are required to adjust the impeller back to the proper position where the rotation of the impeller is balanced.” Horng, Paragraph 64. See polar coordinates as angles and magnitudes in Claim 1.)
the first corrected compensation angle is generated by using the first designated counterweight portion as a datum point of a first compensation polar coordinate system.” (As noted above, polar coordinates communicate angles and magnitude and prior art teaches “calculating the imbalance angle and magnitude to provide rotor balancing instructions to an operator.” Chung, Page 60025, column 2, first paragraph and the statement of motivation above.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 2, wherein the compensation calculation unit locates at least one portion closest to the first corrected compensation angle as the at least one first target counterweight portion from the first counterweight portions.” (“the electrical control module Cl is able to calculate the weighting location [coordinates] and the balancing weight [compensation mass]. that are required to adjust the impeller back to the proper position where the rotation of the impeller is balanced.” Horng, Paragraph 64. In this case, the calculated weighting location is the closest location to the compensation weight coordinates. See polar coordinates as angles and magnitudes in Claim 1. Examiner suggests elaborating on this claim language.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 2, wherein … the compensation calculation unit locates the at least one first actual compensation position and allocates the at least one first actual compensation mass to the at least one first actual compensation position by means of optimization.” (Note that this claim does not limit means of optimization to be any particular calculation. Prior art is directed to processing to “calculate the weighting location” with the required precision, and thus embodies a level of optimization by the means of processing. See Horng, Paragraph 64. Cumulatively note an example of “optimizing the detection parameters” in Chung, Page 60025, Abstract and the statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 1 , further comprising:
a display unit electrically connected to the compensation calculation unit to display a first compensation suggested image, (“The electrical control module Cl can also output the information regarding the weighting location and the balancing weight to an external display” See Horng, Paragraph 63.)
wherein the first compensation suggested image is obtained by marking the at least one first actual compensation position and the at least one first actual compensation mass on a first side image corresponding to the first side of the rotor.” (“The electrical control module Cl can also output the information regarding the weighting location and the balancing weight to an external display” See Horng, Paragraph 63. Similarly see “provide rotor balancing instructions to an operator.” Chung, Page 60025, Column 2, first paragraph and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the rotor comprises a shaft rotating along the axial direction, and the positioning structure is located on the shaft.” (First note that the rotor is not claimed as a limitation on the inspection system, therefore this claim does not further limit the structure of claim 1. See rejection of Claim 1. Cumulatively, prior art is also directing to positioning and measuring the travel of the shaft of the rotor/impeller. See Horng, Paragraphs 63, 66.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 1, wherein
the rotor further comprises a plurality of second counterweight portions located on the second side of the rotor, and (First note that the inspection system claim is not limited to comprise the structure of the rotor. See rejection of Claim 1. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “One having ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the impeller has multiple weighting locations and balancing weights that are required to adjust the center of mass of the impeller back on the shaft 1.” Horng, Paragraph 66.)
the dynamic balance inspection system further comprises: … a second image-capturing unit disposed on the second side of the rotor to capture a third image of the second counterweight portions located on a third terminal surface, wherein the third terminal surface is perpendicular to the axial direction and is separated apart from the first terminal surface and the second terminal surface in the axial direction; (“The balance detection module C2 may include devices such as a motor, an offset detection unit and a processor. … The offset detection unit is an electronic element that can detect the magnitude of the movement of an object, such as … a camera.” Horng, Paragraph 64. Also note that “the delivery unit can move the impeller to the balance detection module and the compensating module, and align the reference mark” which indicates that the camera is movable with respect to the rotor. See Horng, Paragraph 45. See using multiple sensors, such as “two 3D sensors to obtain 3D images of the left and right sides of a rotor,” in Chung, Page 60026, first column first paragraph and second column second paragraph, and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein, the offset angle calculation unit is electrically connected to the second image-capturing unit (“The balance detection module C2 may include devices such as a motor, an offset detection unit [camera] and a processor. … the processor is able to calculate the offset of the center of mass of the impeller.” See Horng, Paragraph 64.)
to obtain a third orientation corresponding to a second designated counterweight portion of the second counterweight portions according to the third image and obtain a second angular difference between the first orientation and the third orientation; (Horng teaches determining the rotor offset and calculating the weighting locations [second location] relative to the rotor [first location] for “multiple weighting locations and balancing weights” in Paragraphs 64, 66. And, Chung teaches using angle and magnitude measures in the context of rotor balancing: “calculating the imbalance angle and magnitude to provide rotor balancing instructions to an operator.” Chung, Page 60025, column 2, first paragraph and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
the dynamic balance test processing unit is used to receive a second compensation angle of the second side of the rotor and a second compensation mass corresponding to the second compensation angle, wherein the second compensation angle is generated by using the positioning structure as the datum point of the dynamic balance polar coordinate system; (“the processor is able to calculate the offset of the center of mass of the impeller,” and thus to receive the output of the calculation for “multiple weighting locations and balancing weights.” See Horng, Paragraphs 64, 66. Note that the offset can be “angle and magnitude” as noted in Chung, Page 60025, column 2, first paragraph and the statement of motivation above.)
the compensation calculation unit is used to generate at least one second actual compensation position and at least one second actual compensation mass corresponding to the at least one second actual compensation position according to the second angular difference, the second compensation angle and the second compensation mass.” (“Then, the balance detection module C2 checks and outputs the offset of the center of mass of the impeller to the electrical control module Cl, so that the electrical control module Cl is able to calculate the weighting location [compensation position] and the balancing weight [compensation mass] that are required to adjust the impeller back to the proper position where the rotation of the impeller is balanced.” This process can be performed for “multiple weighting locations and balancing weights.” See Horng, Paragraphs 64, 66.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the first orientation is consistent with the datum point of the dynamic balance polar coordinate system.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, polar coordinates use angles and magnitude to indicate a location. As noted above: “calculating the imbalance angle and magnitude to provide rotor balancing instructions to an operator.” Chung, Page 60025, column 2, first paragraph and the statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first actual compensation mass has a fixed mass.” (“the balancing weight can be fixed to the weighting location of the impeller” Horng, Paragraphs 68, 66.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 1 , further comprising:
a storage unit electrically connected to the dynamic balance test processing unit to store a plurality of adjustment information corresponding to different rotors; (“The electrical control module Cl can also output the information regarding the weighting location and the balancing weight to an external display or a storage unit.” Horng, Paragraph 63.)
wherein the dynamic balance test processing unit is used to adjust at least one of span and level of the supporting structure of the dynamic balancer and height of a carrier carrying the rotor according to the plurality of adjustment information of the rotor.” (It is not clear that this “wherein” element limits the structure of the inspection system or suggests functions that could be performed outside of the inspection. See reasons for rejection in Claim 1. Cumulatively, prior art teaches “When the impeller is moved to the balance detection module C2, the motor will drive the impeller …” indicating an adjustment of a level and/or height of a carrier carrying the rotor structure with respect to the detection module. See Horng, Paragraphs 64, 67.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 10, further comprising:
a first movement mechanism used to drive the first image-capturing unit to move along the axial direction; and (For example, “When the impeller is moved to the balance detection module C2, the motor will drive the impeller …” indicating an adjustment of a level and/or height of a carrier carrying the rotor structure with respect to the detection module that can comprise a camera. See Horng, Paragraphs 64, 67 and reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
a movement control portion electrically connected to the storage unit to enable the first movement mechanism to adjust a shooting position at which the first image-capturing unit captures the first image and the second image according to the plurality of adjustment information of the rotor.” (“The balance detection module C2 may include devices such as a motor [movement control portion electrically connected to], an offset detection unit and a processor,” which is electrically connected to at least one storage unit. See Horng, Paragraphs 63, 64.)
Regarding Claim 12: “The dynamic balance inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the dynamic balance inspection system further comprises … an offset position calculation unit, which calculates an inner circle diameter and a center position of the shaft of the rotor according to the first image and … calculates an outer circle diameter and a center position of the body of the rotor according to the second image to determine whether the shaft and the body is located at a normal position.” (Note that an impeller is characterized by having an outer circle diameter, an inner circle diameter 2 and a center position designated by the shaft 1 as noted in Horng, Fig. 3 and Chung Fig. 11. “The rotor shaft center, radius, KP center position, balance fin, and BS position were detected using the 3D depth data and 2D amplitude data of the rotor, as displayed in Fig. 11 . By using the detected information and the imbalance vector provided by the balancing machine, we computed the optimized balance configuration, as shown in Fig. 12,” thus determining substantively similar (radius/diameter) measurements of the rotor and shaft and determining if there is imbalance with respect to a normal position. Chung, page 60030, left column, last paragraph. See statement of motivation in Claim 1. Note that while Chung does not explicitly state which image data is used to calculate which parameter, Chung does indicate that multiple image data and multiple cameras can be used to obtain the data needed for these calculations, which reads on the claim.)
Claim 13, “A dynamic balance inspection method,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because the system of Claim 1 performs the method of Claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2, in view of the Claim 13 rejection.
Claim 15 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3, in view of the Claim 13 rejection.
Claim 16 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4, in view of the Claim 13 rejection.
Claim 17 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 5, in view of the Claim 13 rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 7, in view of the Claim 13 rejection.
Claim 19 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 8, in view of the Claim 13 rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 10, in view of the Claim 13 rejection.
Claim 21 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 11, in view of the Claim 13 rejection.
Claim 22 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 12, in view of the Claim 13 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483