DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/19/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
1. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,885,667. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the rationale detailed below.
Application 19/407,556
US Patent No. US 11,885,667
Claim 2
Claim 1
A system for machine monitoring and fault detection comprising:
a first sensor positioned at a first location with respect to a least one machine, said first sensor being operative to sense first data intrinsically generated by operation of said at least one machine and to output first signals corresponding to said sensed first data;
at least a second sensor positioned at a second location with respect to said at least one machine, said at least second sensor being operative to sense, synchronously with the sensing of said first data by said first sensor, second data intrinsically generated by operation of said at least one machine and to output second signals corresponding to said sensed second data;
a signal analyzer operative to:
receive at least a portion of said first and second signals;
extract a first phase of said first signals and a second phase of said second signals;
analyze said first and second phases with respect to one another; and
provide an output based on the phase analysis, said output comprising an indication of the presence or absence of at least one fault of said machine, an identification of said fault and a severity thereof, and
a controller operative to receive said indication and, in a case of said indication indicating said fault to be present, initiate at least one of a repair event on said at least one machine, an adjustment to a maintenance schedule of said at least one machine and an adjustment to an operating parameter of said at least one machine based on said indication.
A system for continuously monitoring at least one machine comprising:
at least one magnetic sensor sensing magnetic field emission intrinsically generated by operation of at least one machine and outputting magnetic field emission signals corresponding to said magnetic field emission;
at least one vibration sensor sensing vibrations arising from said at least one machine and outputting vibration signals corresponding to said vibrations, said sensing of said vibrations being performed synchronously with said sensing of said magnetic field emission;
a signal analyzer receiving at least a portion of said magnetic field emission signals and said vibration signals, performing phase analysis of said magnetic field emission signals in order to extract a phase of said magnetic field emission signals, and analyzing said vibration signals with respect to said phase extracted from said magnetic field emission signals, said signal analyzer providing an output based on said analysis, said output comprising an indication at least of the presence or absence of at least one fault of said machine; and
a control module receiving said indication and, in a case of said indication indicating said fault to be present, initiating at least one of a repair event on said at least one machine, an adjustment to a maintenance schedule of said at least one machine and an adjustment to an operating parameter of said at least one machine based on said indication.
Claim 3
Claim 1
The system according to claim 2, wherein said first and second sensors are a same type of sensor.
at least one magnetic sensor …
at least one vibration sensor …
Claim 13
Claim 11
A method for machine monitoring and fault detection comprising:
sensing, by a first sensor positioned at a first location with respect to a least one machine, first data intrinsically generated by operation of said at least one machine; outputting, by said first sensor, first signals corresponding to said sensed first data;
sensing, by at least a second sensor positioned at a second location with respect to said at least one machine and synchronously with said sensing of said first data by said first sensor, second data intrinsically generated by operation of said at least one machine;
outputting, by said second sensor, second signals corresponding to said sensed second data;
extracting a first phase of said first signals and a second phase of said second signals;
analysing said first and second phases with respect to one another;
providing an output based on said analysing of said phases, said output comprising an indication at least of the presence or absence of at least one fault of said machine, an identification of said fault and a severity thereof, and
initiating, by a controller, at least one of a repair event on said at least one machine, an adjustment to a maintenance schedule of said at least one machine and an adjustment to an operating parameter of said at least one machine based on said indication of said presence of said fault.
A method for continuously monitoring at least one machine comprising:
sensing magnetic field emission intrinsically generated by operation of at least one machine and outputting magnetic field emission signals corresponding to said magnetic field emission;
sensing vibrations arising from said at least one machine and outputting vibration signals corresponding to said vibrations, said sensing of said vibrations being performed synchronously with said sensing of said magnetic field emission;
receiving at least a portion of said magnetic field emission signals and said vibration signals, performing phase
analysis of said magnetic field emission signals in order to extract a phase of said magnetic field emission signals, and
analyzing said vibration signals with respect to said phase extracted from said magnetic field emission signals,
providing an output based on said analysis, said output comprising an indication at least of the presence or absence of at least one fault of said machine; and
in a case of said indication indicating said fault to be present, initiating at least one of a repair event on said at least one machine, an adjustment to a maintenance schedule of said at least one machine and an adjustment to an operating parameter of said at least one machine based on said indication.
In view of the foregoing, claims 2, 3 and 4 are anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,885,667. In view of the foregoing, claim 13 is anticipated by claims 11 of US Patent No. US 11,885,667.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 14, it is dependent on claim 13 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 15, it is dependent on claim 13 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above.
2. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,885,667 in view of Pal et al. (US 20160245686 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Pal”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the rationale detailed below.
Claim 4
Claim 1
The system according to claim 3, wherein said first and second sensors are both single- or multiple-axis vibration sensors or both single- or multiple-axis magnetic field emission sensors and synchronization therebetween is per sensor axis.
at least one magnetic sensor …
at least one vibration sensor …
Claim 5
Claim 1
The system according to claim 2, wherein said first location is different from said second location.
at least one magnetic sensor …
at least one vibration sensor …
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,493,379 claims the core for a system for continuously monitoring at least one machine of claim (see claim 1 above). However, claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,493,379 fails to claim “both single- or multiple-axis vibration sensors or both single- or multiple-axis magnetic field emission sensors”.
Pal is a similar or analogous core to the claimed invention as evidenced. Pal teaches multiple axis sensor to generate multiple axis vibration data from the sensors (see at least at Para 0102, “a method of detecting faults in rotor driven equipment may include generating multiple axis vibration data from one or more vibration sensors”).
In view of the motivations such as generating multiple axis vibration data from one or more vibration, one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art core for a system for monitor a machine presented in claim 1 in US Patent No. US 11,885,667.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In view of the foregoing, claim 4 is obvious over (and therefore not patentably distinct from) corresponding claim 1 in US Patent No. US 11,885,667 in view of Pal.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,493,379 claims the core for a system for continuously monitoring at least one machine of claim (see claim 1 above). However, claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,493,379 fails to claim “said first location is different from said second location”.
Pal is a similar or analogous core to the claimed invention as evidenced. Pal teaches both sensors placed in different location (see at least at Para 0054, “Similar sensor packages may be installed across different factories over different machines. To develop a generalized solution which may work across sensors installed at different locations in different conditions”).
In view of the motivations such as generating multiple axis vibration data from one or more vibration, one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art core for a system for monitor a machine presented in claim 1 in US Patent No. US 11,885,667.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In view of the foregoing, claim 4 is obvious over (and therefore not patentably distinct from) corresponding claim 1 in US Patent No. US 11,885,667 in view of Pal.
Regarding Claim 15, it is dependent on claim 13 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 16, it is dependent on claim 13 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
3. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,885,667 in view of Pinto et al. (US 20160306012 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Pinto”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the rationale detailed below.
Claim 11
Claim 1
The system according to claim 2, wherein said fault comprises at least one of mechanical looseness, unbalance, misalignment, eccentricity, damaged rotor bars, a crawling fault, a stator fault, electrical discharge, energy loss, negative phase sequence, and faults arising from extreme operating conditions
said signal analyzer providing an output based on said analysis, said output comprising an indication at least of the presence or absence of at least one fault of said machine
Claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,493,379 claims the core for a system for continuously monitoring at least one machine of claim (see claim 1 above). However, claim 1 of US Patent No. US 11,493,379 fails to claim “said fault comprises at least one of mechanical looseness, unbalance, misalignment, eccentricity, damaged rotor bars, a crawling fault, a stator fault, electrical discharge, energy loss, negative phase sequence, and faults arising from extreme operating conditions”.
Pinto is a similar or analogous core to the claimed invention as evidenced. Pinto teaches examples of fault arising from operating conditions (see at least at Para 0025, “The presence of broken rotor bar or end ring causes an unbalance to the rotor magnetic flux, as the current cannot flow through the broken or cracked bar/end-ring. The unbalanced rotor flux can be considered as the combination of positive- and negative-sequence rotor flux … measure the magnetic flux leakage of the rotor in case of broken rotor bar or rotor misalignment”).
In view of the motivations such as generating multiple axis vibration data from one or more vibration, one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art core for a system for monitor a machine presented in claim 1 in US Patent No. US 11,885,667.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In view of the foregoing, claim 11 is obvious over (and therefore not patentably distinct from) corresponding claim 1 in US Patent No. US 11,885,667 in view of Pinto.
Examiner Note
Claims 2 and 13 are respectively rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of US Patent No. US 11,885,667.
Claims 6-10, 12 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome nonstatutory double patenting, set forth in this Office action.
No prior art rejection has been made because the prior art of record take alone or in combination fails to teach the following features:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of Claim 2,
“said at least second sensor being operative to sense, synchronously with the sensing of said first data by said first sensor, second data intrinsically generated by operation of said at least one machine … extract a first phase of said first signals and a second phase of said second signals; analyze said first and second phases with respect to one another”.
Independent Claim 13 has not been rejected by no prior art since it has similar features as of claim 2 set for above.
The following is an examiner's statement for the closest arts:
Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art, Pinto et al. (US PGPUB US 2016/0306012 A1) teaches a system for machine monitoring and fault detection (Fig. 1, 1; Para 0009; Para 0011) comprising: a first sensor (Fig. 1, a magnetic field sensor 11) positioned at a first location with respect to a least one machine, said first sensor being operative to sense first data intrinsically generated by operation of said at least one machine (Para 0025) and to output first signals corresponding to said sensed first data (Para 0025);
a signal analyzer (Fig. 1, a processing unit 12) receiving at least a portion of said first and second signals …,
…
provide an output based on the phase analysis, said output comprising an indication of the presence or absence of at least one fault of said machine, an identification of said fault and a severity thereof (Para 0030, “The processing unit 12 integrated in the portable unit 10 can receive the magnetic field intensity signal representing the axial magnetic field leakage at the first point 31 from the magnetic field sensor 11 integrated in the portable unit 10, and/or receive the magnetic field intensity signal representing the radial magnetic field leakage at the first point 32 from the magnetic field sensor 11 integrated in the portable unit 10, and can compare (i.e., analysis) the received magnetic field intensity value to expected value and determine based on the comparison if a fault is present in the electric machine”); and
a controller (an alarm device) operative to receive said indication and, in a case of said indication indicating said fault to be present, initiate at least one of a repair event on said at least one machine, an adjustment to a maintenance schedule of said at least one machine and an adjustment to an operating parameter of said at least one machine based on said indication (Para 0036, “The system 1 can further include an alarm device for generating warning signal in response where said processing unit determined a fault present in the electric machine”).
The closest prior art, Pal et al. (US PGPUB US 2016/0245686 A1) teaches at least a second sensor positioned at a second location with respect to said at least one machine (Para 0102, “detecting faults in rotor driven equipment may include generating multiple axis vibration data from one or more vibration sensors communicatively coupled to the rotor driven equipment and collecting the data from the one or more machine wearable sensors onto a mobile data collector”);
… provide an output based on the phase analysis, said output comprising an indication of the presence or absence of at least one fault of said machine, an identification of said fault and a severity thereof (Para 0054, “the data collected from different sensors may be directional and/or non-directional data. For example, temperature related data may be in a scalar form but magnetic field and/or vibration data may be in a vector form”; Para 0050, “Sensor data may be fed via a data hub (example: a mobile application) to a cloud server. The cloud server may collect, analyze and store the sensor data using Big Data technology”; Para. 0010, “Some non-patent literature used information contained in vibration signals to devise a system for alarm detection and diagnosis of failures in mechanical components of power wind mills”).
The closest prior art, Bechhoefer et al. (US PGPUB US 2011/0125419 A1) teaches vibration data acquired by a gear sensor and determining a time synchronous average for the acquired sensor data (Para 0207).
The closest prior art, SUH et al. (US PGPUB US 2008/0159619 A1) teaches phase analysis approach to combine data acquired from multiple frequencies (Para 0027) with respect to the limitation of “provide an output based on the phase analysis”.
The closest prior art, Dufoumier et al. (US PGPUB US 2004/0154715 A1) teaches extracting the useful signal including two different phases where the signal produced here by vibrations generated by mechanical tire wear indicators in material (Para 0073-0074; Para 0116; Para 0173; Para 0185 and 0190).
However, the closest prior arts, either alone or in combination, do not specifically teach “said at least second sensor being operative to sense, synchronously with the sensing of said first data by said first sensor, second data intrinsically generated by operation of said at least one machine … extract a first phase of said first signals and a second phase of said second signals; analyze said first and second phases with respect to one another”.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
May (US PGPUB US 2008/0134727 A1) teaches a position sensor device including: a vibration detect unit configured to detect a vibration of a washing machine and a magnetic field sensor to detect a magnetic field signal.
Maruyama et al. (US PGPUB US 2012/0319854 A1) teaches both a magnetic field sensor and a vibration sensor configured to measure contact failure (Figs. 1 and 2; Para 0017-0018).
Srinivasa et al. (US PGPUB US 2011/0098968 A1) teaches vibration analysis and phase analysis of vibration waveforms performed on a machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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 571-273-2555.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights