Ex Parte Peczalski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2016

13096253 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/096,253
92689 7590
HONEYWELL/SLW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
04/28/2011
04/14/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andy Peczalski
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0025854 US 4159
EXAMINER
BLOSS, STEPHANIE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDY PECZALSKI and DINKAR MYLARASW AMY1
Appeal2014-005818
Application 13/096,253
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and BEYERL YA.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-12, 14--18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
1 Honeywell International Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005818
Application 13/096,253
Appellants claim a sensing system 200 comprising a radar-based
vibration sensor 230 for obtaining vibration data from mechanical operation
of a component in a machine, a machine-mounted vibration sensor 221-224,
and a processing unit 250 configured to fuse or combine the vibration data
from the machine-mounted and radar-based sensors, exclude relative
vibration of the machine, and provide indications relating to the status of the
machine component (independent claims 1 and 8, Fig. 2). Appellants also
claim a method performed by such a sensing system comprising the steps of
identifying relative vibration in the combined vibration data and filtering the
combined vibration data by excluding the identified relative vibration "that
is constant in operation of the operating machine" (remaining independent
claim 15).
A copy of representative claims 1 and 15, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A sensing system comprising:
a radar-based vibration sensor, the radar-based vibration
sensor configured to obtain vibration data from mechanical
operation of a component in a machine of interest using radio
frequency energy directed at a first location;
a vibration sensor mounted to the machine of interest, the
machine mounted vibration sensor configured to obtain
vibration data from mechanical operation of the component
proximate to mounting at a second location; and
a processing unit configured to analyze the vibration data
obtained by the radar-based vibration sensor, analyze the data
obtained by the machine mounted vibration sensor, fuse the
vibration data obtained by the machine mounted vibration
sensor with the vibration data obtained by the radar-based
vibration sensor, exclude relative vibration of the machine of
interest at the first location and the second location identified in
the vibration data, and provide indications related to a status of
the mechanical operation of the component in the machine of
interest determined from the vibration data.
2
Appeal2014-005818
Application 13/096,253
15. A method performed by a sensing system,
compnsmg:
collecting a first set of vibration data from a radar-based
displacement sensor, the radar-based displacement sensor being
directed to measure vibrations from a region of interest on an
operating machine using radio frequency energy, and the first
set of vibration data including one or both of temporal and
spectral data;
processing the first set of vibration data collected from
the radar-based displacement sensor to analyze vibration
measurements from the radar-based displacement sensor;
collecting a second set of vibration data from a multiple
mounted vibration sensors configured to measure vibrations
from an area proximate to the mounted vibration sensors on the
operating machine, wherein the area proximate to the multiple
mounted vibration sensors differs at least in part from the
directed area measured with the radar-based displacement
sensor;
processing the second set of vibration data collected from
the multiple mounted vibration sensors to analyze vibration
measurements from the mounted vibration sensors;
combining the second set of vibration data collected from
the mounted vibration sensors in the area proximate to the
multiple mounted vibration sensors with the first set of
vibration data collected from the radar-based displacement
sensor in the directed area;
identifying relative vibration in the combined vibration
data;
filtering the combined vibration data that is common to
the mounted vibration sensors and the radar-based displacement
sensor, by excluding the identified relative vibration that is
constant in operation of the operating machine;
deriving a status of mechanical operation for the
operating machine from the filtered vibration data; and
providing user indications related to the status of the
mechanical operation for the operating machine.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
3
Appeal2014-005818
Application 13/096,253
claims 1 and 5-7 over Clearwater (US 4,887,087, iss. Dec. 12, 1989)
in view of Breed (US 2009/0043441 Al, pub. Feb. 12, 2009);
claim 2 over Clearwater, Breed, and Buell (US 6,672, 167 B2, iss. Jan.
6, 2004);
claims 3 and 4 over Clearwater, Breed, and Lal (US 6,972,846 B2, iss.
Dec. 6, 2005);
claims 8-12 and 15-18 over Toomey (US 2003/0014199 Al, pub.
Jan. 16, 2003) in view of Buell and Breed; and
claims 14 and 20 over Toomey, Buell, Breed, and Clearwater.
In the rejections of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the Examiner
finds that neither Clearwater nor Toomey discloses the claimed feature
wherein relative vibration is excluded from the vibration data but that Breed
discloses "[d]ata from multiple sensors is ... combined to remove errors
(paragragh 0332, 0375) which the examiner takes to be able to include
relative vibrations" (Final Action 3, 8-9). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to combine each of Clearwater and Toomey with
Breed so as to exclude relative vibration from the vibration data as claimed
(id. at 3--4, 9-10).
Appellants argue that Breed does not exclude relative vibration as
required by the independent claims (App. Br. 16, 22).
In response, the Examiner states that "the appellant fails to clearly
define what this vibration is relative to[, and] [t]herefore any measure of
vibration would be able to be qualified as relative vibration" (Ans. 4).
Appellants reply by contending that the independent claim phrase
"relative vibration" does not encompass any vibration as stated by the
Examiner but instead defines vibration "that is constant in operation of the
operating machine" as expressly recited in claim 15 and as disclosed in
4
Appeal2014-005818
Application 13/096,253
Specification i-f 36 ("relative vibration or other harmonics that are constant in
operation of the system") (Reply Br. 3).
We find persuasive merit in Appellants' contention. The record of
this appeal contains meaningful support for interpreting the phrase "relative
vibration" as defining vibration that is constant in operation of the machine
and no support for the Examiner's interpretation that the phrase
encompasses any vibration. Further regarding this claim phrase, we
emphasize that the Examiner does not propose providing either Clearwater
or Toomey with a processor configured to exclude, or a step of excluding,
relative vibration that is constant in operation of the machine being assessed.
For these reasons, none of the Examiner's§ 103 rejections will be
sustained.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5