Ex Parte Tucker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2018

14322312 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/322,312 07/02/2014
130674 7590 10/30/2018
Lightfoot & Alford PLLC (BHTI)
4100 Eldorado Parkway
Suite 100-271
McKinney, TX 75070
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian Tucker
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.
0021-00082 2243
EXAMINER
DUNLAP, JONATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2018 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):
patentdocket@lightfootalford.com
lightfootalfordpllc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN TUCKER, TOM WOOD, ROBERT WARDLAW,
BANG NGUYEN, and ALLEN ALTMAN1
Appeal2017-010887
Application 14/322,312
Technology Center 2800
Before RAEL YNN P. GUEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to systems and methods of
rotorcraft (e.g., helicopters) usage monitoring. E.g., Spec. ,r l; Claims 1, 17.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., which is also
identified as the real party in interest. See Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010887
Application 14/322,312
Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 2 (Claims Appendix) of the
Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief:
1. A method of monitoring usage of a component of an aircraft,
the method comprising:
monitoring a usage of the component by using a torque
measurement system to calculate low cycle event torque events
over a time period;
categorizing the usage of the component by assigning a usage
value based upon whether a number of low cycle event torque
events in the time period is above or below a threshold; and
determining a life used of the component.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 2-11, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 2, as indefinite.
Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 1, 2, and 4--19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Zhao (US 2010/0235109 Al, published Sept. 16, 2010) and Arms (US
2008/0036617 Al, published Feb. 14, 2008). Final Act. 3-10.
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Final Action, and in the Examiner's Answer. See generally Final Act. 2-10;
Ans. 2-5.
2
Appeal2017-010887
Application 14/322,312
Rejection 1
The Appellant does not acknowledge, address, or otherwise assert
error in the Examiner's § 112, ,r 2 rejection. See Br. 3. The rejection has not
been withdrawn. See generally Ans.; see also Final Act. 2. Accordingly, we
summarily affirm the § 112, ,r 2 rejection.
Rejection 2
The Appellant argues the claims subject to Rejection 2 as a group.
See Br. 3--4. We select claim 1 as representative, and the remaining claims
will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)
The Examiner finds that Zhao discloses a method comprising each
element of claim 1 except that Zhao "fails to explicitly disclose monitoring
torque events." Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that "Arms teaches
monitoring sensor detected events, wherein the sensor can be a torque
sensor." Id. The Examiner determines:
The invention by Zhao teaches monitoring generic loading
signals and fails to expressly state that these loads are torques.
The invention by Arms teaches a plurality of different sensors
which may be used to monitor specific load applications to
various components, including both load from a strain sensor
and torque from a torque sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art
could have simply substituted the torque sensor of Arms for the
sensor of Zhao and arrived at predictable and repeatable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to utilize a torque sensor and torque events in the
invention by Zhao, as taught by Arms.
Id. at 4.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant asserts that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Arms with Zhao
3
Appeal2017-010887
Application 14/322,312
because "the entire thrust and purpose of the Arms reference is to provide
embedded sensors that communicate wirelessly and utilize harvested power
to operate." Br. 3. The Appellant further argues that combining Arms with
Zhao "would require significant changes to the helicopter components of
Zhao," and that "[a]ny attempt to utilize a torque sensor of Arms in the Zhao
system would necessarily require including the energy harvesting features
(including a self-contained battery within the sensor) disclosed by Arms."
Id.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner finds that Arms, like Zhao,
"is concerned with the use of collected data ... in the determination of usage
and remaining estimated life span of a component of the helicopter."
Ans. 2-3. That finding is supported by the record. The title of Arms is
"Energy Harvesting, Wireless Structural Health Monitoring System"
(emphasis added). Arms at [54], Title. Arms discloses a sensor that logs
data relating to usage of a component, and Arms teaches that "[t]he
component is replaced if information in the memory shows that the
component was subject to damaging usage." Id. at Abstract. Additionally,
both Zhao and Arms disclose load sensors, and, as noted above, Arms also
discloses torque sensors, indicating the desirability of torque sensors in
monitoring systems such as those of Zhao and Arms. See Zhao ,r 67;
Arms ,r 84 ( describing "other sensors, such as wireless strain, vibration,
torque and load sensors"). On this record, the Appellant's argument that a
person of ordinary skill would not have combined Zhao and Arms because
Arms is concerned with "provid[ing] embedded sensors that communicate
wirelessly and utilize harvested power to operate" is not persuasive of
reversible error in the rejection. See Br. 3.
4
Appeal2017-010887
Application 14/322,312
With respect to the Appellant's arguments concerning modifications
that allegedly would need to be made to Zhao to utilize the sensors of Arms,
the Examiner finds that any modifications would have been minimal because
"Arms directly bonds the sensor to an existing component and then
surrounds the sensor with ... shielding materials so as to embed the sensor
in the materials," and "Arms teaches that the sensor technology is retrofitted
to existing components, rather than redesigning the components
themselves." Ans. 3 (citing Arms ,r,r 176, 179, 181). The Examiner further
finds that any modifications to Zhao required by its combination with Arms
would have been "well within the level of ordinary skill in the art." Id. The
Appellant does not file a Reply Brief to challenge those findings, and, on
this record, we discern no basis to reject them. We observe that, even in the
Appeal Brief, the Appellant does not assert that the alleged modifications to
Zhao would have been beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art. See
Br. 3.
The Appellant also argues, without persuasive explanation, that the
alleged significant redesign of Zhao would "change the basis of the
functionality of Zhao." Id. That argument is not persuasive because, as set
forth above, the record supports the Examiner's determination that
combining the sensor of Arms with Zhao would not have required
significant redesign, and, in any event, would not have required any redesign
beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art. As explained above, Zhao
discloses load sensors, and Arms discloses both load and torque sensors. In
the Answer, the Examiner explains that "the basis of functionality of Zhao is
not predicated on the type of sensor used to provide the data, but rather on
manipulation of the data collected from the sensor to estimate remaining
5
Appeal2017-010887
Application 14/322,312
lifetime of the component to which the sensor is related." Ans. 5. The
Examiner further finds that the torque sensor of Arms would be used in Zhao
to "provide a load distribution as required by Zhao, and thus the combination
would not change the basis of functionality of Zhao." Id.
The Appellants do not file a Reply Brief to challenge those findings.
On this record, we discern no basis to reject them. We are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections .... ").
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6