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
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “characterised” should be spelled as “characterized.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “digitalised” should be spelled as “digitalized.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “analysed” should be spelled as “analyzed.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). All subsequent dependent claims are also rejected under 112 2nd.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). All subsequent dependent claims are also rejected under 112 2nd.
Claims 1-14 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.
The term “in the region” in claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 14, & 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in the region” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What distance specifically defines “in the region?” Is 1cm “in the region?” Is 1m “in the region?” Is 1km “in the region?” Clarification is required. All subsequent dependent claims of claims 1 & 14 are also rejected under 112 2nd.
Claim 3 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 3 requires a “zero-centred section.” It is especially unclear what variable is zero-centred. The reference to figures la and 1b suggests that the amplitude interval of the section includes the zero point however, this is not defined in claim 3.
Claim 10 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 10 depends from claim 9. Claim 9 lists possible mathematical evaluation methods that one can choose from to use to perform necessary tasks. Only one is necessary. It does not have to be the “histogram method” necessary in claim 10. Therefore, if one chooses any one of the other methods, this requirement is at least moot and at worst undefined. Clarification is required.
Claims 15-16 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 15-16 require “a time-of-flight analysis unit, which supplies a position result.” The element for which the time-of-flight is analyzed is unclear here since the sensor or transducer is not necessarily magnetostrictive in claim 14 and moreover not every magnetostrictive sensor or transducer outputs a time-of-flight as a measurement signal. Furthermore, the element for which a position result is provided is unclear since the sensor or transducer does not necessarily belong to a position measurement system in claim 14 and it is also not defined there what position is determined and whether or not the sensor or transducer contributes to this, let alone the manner in which it contributes to measuring a position.
Claims 15-16 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 15-16 appear to contain dual dependency to both claim 1 & claim 14. This renders the claim indefinite because it is not known which claim it must depend from. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rudnitzki et al (U.S. PGPub # 2019/0017487 A1).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Rudnitzki teaches:
Method for operating an electromagnetic, in particular magnetostrictive-sensor or transducer (Fig. 1 Element 23. See paragraphs 0038 & 0043.), in particular of a position measuring system, characterised in that a mechanical shock and/or vibration condition occurring during operation of the sensor/transducer or a vibration of the sensor/transducer caused thereby is detected by statistical evaluation of signal fluctuations in the region of a baseline or zero line of a measurement signal provided by the sensor/transducer (Fig. 1 Element 23. See paragraphs 0038 & 0043. Fig. 11 Elements 236, 238, 240, & 242. See paragraphs 0071-0076.).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki teaches during the evaluation of signal fluctuations in the region of the baseline/zero line, a comparison is made with a characteristic curve of the measurement signal for the undisturbed case (See Fig. 6, 7, & 9. See paragraphs 0053-0064.).
Regarding claim 3, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki teaches the measurement signal is digitalised and resulting data points of a corresponding signal waveform are evaluated in a zero-centred, time-limited section of the measurement signal (Fig. 11 illustrates a method in which the time profile (for example ADSR) of a section of the measurement signal from the knock sensor is compared (240, 242) with a reference signal (fingerprint 230) from a database (232). This implies that the measurement signal to be compared is digitized beforehand. It is clear that the amplitudes of noise signals are produced around the zero point. Since the time profile of the measured signal is compared with the reference signal by means of a processor (72) with finite memory (74), the measured signal and the reference signal must each be limited in terms of time. See paragraphs 0071-0076.).
Regarding claim 4, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki teaches the signal waveform of an undisturbed, electromagnetically effective, in particular magnetostrictive material is used as the characteristic curve of the measurement signal in the undisturbed case (See paragraphs 0029-0031 wherein baselining is disclosed to address normal conditions versus possible noises that can be “heard” by the sensors.).
Regarding claim 8, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki teaches the evaluation of signal fluctuations in the region of a baseline/zero line of the signal waveform occurs by means of statistical evaluation of data points generated from a signal waveform (See Fig. 6, 7, 9, & 11. See paragraphs 0053-0064.).
Regarding claim 9, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki teaches the statistical evaluation takes place using one or more of the following mathematical evaluation methods (The methods stated below are generally known options in the field of statistical evaluation that will be adapted by a person skilled in the art to the present problem, without exercising inventive skill.), on the basis of data points of a corresponding signal waveform generated from a measurement signal:
- "quantile method", in which the difference between a first and a last quantile (e.g. a quartile) of data points of the signal waveform is evaluated (See Fig. 14 wherein “the “quantile method” also appears to be directly suggested because Fig.14 shows an illustration in which the difference between two quartiles of data points is evaluated.);
- "histogram method", in which the sides of a histogram of data points of the signal waveform close to the value zero are evaluated according to the ratio of sides to centre; - "standard deviation method", in which the standard deviation of data points of the signal waveform close to the baseline/zero line are analysed;
- "data density method", in which the data density of data points of the signal waveform near the baseline/zero line are analysed.
Regarding Independent claim 14, Rudnitzki teaches:
Device for operating an electromagnetic, in particular magnetostrictive, sensor or transducer (Fig. 1 Element 23. See paragraphs 0038 & 0043.), in particular of a position measuring system (Fig. 1 Element 23. See paragraphs 0038 & 0043.), characterised by an evaluating unit for detecting any mechanical shock and/or vibration conditions occurring (Fig. 1 Elements 25 & 72. See paragraphs 0038 & 0043.) during operation of the sensor/transducer or any vibration of the sensor/transducer caused thereby (Fig. 1 Element 23. See paragraphs 0038 & 0043.) by evaluating signal fluctuations in the region of a baseline or zero line of a measurement signal provided by the sensor/transducer (Fig. 1 Element 23. See paragraphs 0038 & 0043.).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 5-7, 10, & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudnitzki et al (U.S. PGPub # 2019/0017487 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki may not explicitly teach signal waveforms which deviate from the characteristic curve in the undisturbed case are labelled as “unreliable” and/or are excluded from further processing or are given a lower weighting or are deleted.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have signal waveforms which deviate from the characteristic curve in the undisturbed case be labelled as “unreliable” and/or be excluded from further processing or be given a lower weighting or be deleted because it is generally known, in the field of signal analysis and categorization, to identify and reject outliers for a robust assessment. For this purpose, the measurements are usually characterized by indicator values (for example the maximum amplitude, a mean value etc.) and measurements with indicator values outside an expected range (that is to say a range delimited by two threshold values) are identified as outliers and are excluded from further processing. Applying this principle to the methods known is considered to be obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki may not explicitly teach signal waveforms are excluded from the further processing or are given a lower weighting or are deleted if the deviation of a currently recorded signal waveform exceeds an empirically predeterminable threshold value of at least one determined indicator variable.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have signal waveforms be excluded from the further processing or be given a lower weighting or be deleted if the deviation of a currently recorded signal waveform exceeds an empirically predeterminable threshold value of at least one determined indicator variable because it is generally known, in the field of signal analysis and categorization, to identify and reject outliers for a robust assessment. For this purpose, the measurements are usually characterized by indicator values (for example the maximum amplitude, a mean value etc.) and measurements with indicator values outside an expected range (that is to say a range delimited by two threshold values) are identified as outliers and are excluded from further processing. Applying this principle to the methods known is considered to be obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 6, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki may not explicitly teach the deviation of a currently measured signal waveform is quantified in that relevant increased values of at least one determined indicator variable are detected in that the at least one indicator variable exceeds an empirically predeterminable threshold value which was determined in advance in the case of undisturbed measurements.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the deviation of a currently measured signal waveform be quantified in that relevant increased values of at least one determined indicator variable be detected in that the at least one indicator variable exceeds an empirically predeterminable threshold value which was determined in advance in the case of undisturbed measurements because it is generally known, in the field of signal analysis and categorization, to identify and reject outliers for a robust assessment. For this purpose, the measurements are usually characterized by indicator values (for example the maximum amplitude, a mean value etc.) and measurements with indicator values outside an expected range (that is to say a range delimited by two threshold values) are identified as outliers and are excluded from further processing. Applying this principle to the methods known is considered to be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki may not explicitly teach in the histogram method, the number of data points is evaluated depending on the value of a deviation from the value zero.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to, in the histogram method, have the number of data points be evaluated depending on the value of a deviation from the value zero because the zero value is easy to see, understand and is a point from which deviations can easily be measured.
Regarding claim 15, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 14, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki may not explicitly teach at least one amplifier for amplifying the measurement signal supplied by the sensor/transducer, a comparator for comparing at least one time interval of the amplified measurement signal in the region of the baseline/zero line with a characteristic curve of data points of a signal waveform for the undisturbed case, a time-of-flight analysis unit, which supplies a position result, an analogue/digital converter for converting the measurement signal into digital data points of a corresponding signal waveform, and a statistics unit for statistical evaluation in accordance with claim 1, in order to determine or supply a shock indicator variable.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have at least one amplifier for amplifying the measurement signal supplied by the sensor/transducer, a comparator for comparing at least one time interval of the amplified measurement signal in the region of the baseline/zero line with a characteristic curve of data points of a signal waveform for the undisturbed case, a time-of-flight analysis unit, which supplies a position result, an analogue/digital converter for converting the measurement signal into digital data points of a corresponding signal waveform, and a statistics unit for statistical evaluation in accordance with claim 1, in order to determine or supply a shock indicator variable because these are all commonly used circuit elements and processing devices used ubiquitously in modern electronics to process, analyze and transform data.
Regarding claim 16, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 14, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki may not explicitly teach at least one amplifier for amplifying the measurement signal supplied by the sensor/converter, at least one analogue/digital converter for converting the measurement signal into data points of a corresponding signal waveform, a digital signal processor for evaluating the measurement data, a time-of-flight analysis unit, which supplies a position result, and a statistics unit for statistical evaluation in accordance with claim 1, in order to determine or supply a shock indicator variable.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have at least one amplifier for amplifying the measurement signal supplied by the sensor/converter, at least one analogue/digital converter for converting the measurement signal into data points of a corresponding signal waveform, a digital signal processor for evaluating the measurement data, a time-of-flight analysis unit, which supplies a position result, and a statistics unit for statistical evaluation in accordance with claim 1, in order to determine or supply a shock indicator variable because these are all commonly used circuit elements and processing devices used ubiquitously in modern electronics to process, analyze and transform data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant. The specific structural and functional limitations disclosed in claim 11 would require impermissible hindsight to make obvious even if all elements were to be found in the prior art.
Regarding Independent claim 11, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki does not explicitly teach operating a magnetostrictive sensor or transducer of a position measuring system having a magnetostrictive waveguide, wherein a mechanical rotational or torsional wave packet is generated in the waveguide by an interrogation current pulse which propagates in both directions along the waveguide, wherein a measuring sensor arranged near one end of the waveguide is provided for receiving a said measurement signal to convert the rotational/torsional wave packet progressing in the waveguide into an electronic signal, wherein in a first time period of the measurement signal, the interrogation current pulse causes an oscillating interrogation noise and a collective mechanical response of the waveguide caused by the interrogation current pulse in the received measurement signal in the region of the baseline/zero line, and wherein, in a second time interval of the measurement signal, an oscillating background noise and a target signal superimposed on the background noise are present on the interrogation noise in the region of the baseline/zero line, wherein the target signal is followed by a further, oscillating background noise, characterised in that, for at least one time range with oscillating noise in the region of the baseline/zero line, measured values of the recorded measurement signal in the at least one time range are compared with corresponding measured values of a sensor/transducer disturbed by a mechanical shock and/or vibration condition and a non-disturbed sensor/transducer and, depending on the result of the comparison, a disturbed or non-disturbed condition of the sensor/transducer is inferred.
Regarding claim 12, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki teaches at the statistical evaluation is restricted to time intervals of data points of a signal waveform which are not influenced by the interrogation noise or the superimposed target signal.
Regarding claim 13, Rudnitzki teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Rudnitzki teaches measured values recorded in the at least one time range of a sensor/transducer disturbed by a mechanical shock and/or vibration condition are disturbed by low-frequency noise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights