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 .
Status of the claims
The amendment received on December 10, 2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1 and 8 are amended. Thus, claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed December 10, 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On the page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[W]hen considering claim 1 as a whole, as required, the claim sets forth an improvement to the field of power generation apparatuses or motor apparatuses by evaluating low-cycle fatigue damage to predict damage resulting from the rotation of the power generation apparatus or motor apparatus component(s) with precision. In addition, the improvement is reflected by updating the preset threshold value based on a time of the actual breakage of the component. This provides a more accurate threshold for issuing the alarm. Further, claim 1 has been amended to limit the claim such that the evaluation area is the component, which is a rotating copper member that is a conductor”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has argued that the abstract idea itself is significant. However, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Applicant has not, respectfully, demonstrated with evidence why the abstract idea itself would amount to more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II : Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). Furthermore, additional elements are also well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Bryant (US 2004/0236450), Haruyama (WO2014050284A1)). Therefore, the amended claim is not patent subject matter for 101 rejection.
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, 3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A rotating electrical machine damage diagnostic system which evaluates fatigue damage in a component of a rotating electrical machine of a power operation apparatus or motor apparatus based on a sensor signal representing detection by a sensor installed in the rotating electrical machine, comprising:
a strain range calculating section for determining elastic strain and elastic stress in an evaluation area of the rotating electrical machine in terms of a quadratic function of a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine detected by the sensor,
determining a frequency of occurrence and an amplitude of an elastic strain range and a frequency of occurrence of an elastic stress range in the evaluation area, and using Neuber’s rule to perform conversion of the elastic strain range and the elastic stress range into a total strain range;
a fatigue damage rate calculating section for calculating fatigue damage rates in the evaluation area of the rotating electrical machine from the total strain range resulting from the conversion; and
an integration section for cumulating the fatigue damage rates to calculate a cumulated fatigue damage rate,
wherein either the fatigue damage rate calculating section or the integration section issues an alarm when the fatigue damage rates or a cumulated value of the integration section exceeds a preset threshold value, and
wherein upon an actual breakage of the component of the rotating electrical machine, the preset threshold value is updated based on a time of the actual breakage of the component,
wherein the evaluation area is the component, which is a rotatinq copper member that is a conductor.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
For example, steps of “a strain range calculating section for determining elastic strain and elastic stress in an evaluation area of the rotating electrical machine in terms of a quadratic function of a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine detected by the sensor (paras. [0011], [0030] of instant application),” “determining a frequency of occurrence and an amplitude of an elastic strain range and a frequency of occurrence of an elastic stress range in the evaluation area, and using Neuber’s rule to perform conversion of the elastic strain range and the elastic stress range into a total strain range (paras. [0032], [0036], [0038], [0044] of instant application),” “a fatigue damage rate calculating section for calculating fatigue damage rates in the evaluation area of the rotating electrical machine from the total strain range resulting from the conversion (paras. [0040]-[0042] of instant application),” “an integration section for cumulating the fatigue damage rates to calculate a cumulated fatigue damage… when the fatigue damage rates or a cumulated value of the integration section exceeds a preset threshold value (paras. [0046] and [0048] of instant application),” as drafted, are a mathematical calculations. Also, step of “upon an actual breakage of the component of the rotating electrical machine, the preset threshold value is updated based on a time of the actual breakage of the component (paras. [0048]-[0049] of instant application)” is mathematical calculations because preset threshold updated based on comparing between previous value and latest value is merely a mathematical calculation.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a rotating electrical machine damage diagnostic system which evaluates fatigue damage in a component of a rotating electrical machine of a power operation apparatus or motor apparatus based on a sensor signal representing detection by a sensor installed in the rotating electrical machine (preamble); issuing an alarm; and
In Claim 8: a rotating electrical machine damage diagnostic method for evaluating fatigue damage in a component of a rotating electrical machine of a power operation apparatus or motor apparatus based on a sensor signal representing detection by a sensor installed in the rotating electrical machine (preamble); issuing an alarm.
The generically recited a rotating electrical machine damage diagnostic system, (claim 1) and a rotating electrical machine damage diagnostic method (claim 8) are not meaningful and represent field-of-use limitation. The additional element such as a rotating electrical machine, a power operation apparatus and motor apparatus, a sensor are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional element such as step of either the fatigue damage rate calculating section or the integration section issues an alarm is also not meaningful and represent insignificant (post-activity) extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Bryant (US 2004/0236450), Haruyama (WO2014050284A1)). For example, Bryant and Haruyama teaches a rotating electrical machine damage diagnostic system which evaluates fatigue damage in a component of a rotating electrical machine of a power operation apparatus or motor apparatus based on a sensor signal representing detection by a sensor installed in the rotating electrical machine length (paras. [0003], [0018], [0087], [0091], [0126], [0135], [0228] of Bryant; page 5, lines 6-7 and page 5, lines 29-30 of Haruyama) and the evaluation area is the component, which is a rotatinq copper member that is a conductor (paras. [0135], [0228] of Bryant; page 5, lines 6-7 and page 5, lines 29-30 of Haruyama). The independent claim, therefore, are not patent eligible. Further, merely “notifying” a result (i.e., issuing an alarm) is nothing more than outputting a signal or displaying result. There is established case law (electric power group for example) to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 3,
The additional element of the fatigue damage rate calculating section uses a fatigue strength diagram for strain control of materials in the evaluation area and modified Miner's rule to calculate the fatigue damage rates in the evaluation area of the rotating electrical machine” is mathematical concepts (see para. [0019] of instant application).
Regarding claim 5,
The additional elements of “a damage diagnostic apparatus including the strain range calculating section, the fatigue damage rate calculating section and the integration section is connected with an installation place of the rotating electrical machine via a communications line and performs remote diagnosis” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 3, lines 5-9 of Himo; para. [0103] of Saha; page 3, lines 14-33 and page 3, lines 34-40 of Murakami et al. (JP 200166228A)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6,
The additional elements of “the rotating electrical machine includes a rotating component and a non-rotating component, and wherein the evaluation area is an area in the rotating component” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 3, lines 12-13, page 2, line 37-page 3, line 3, page 3, lines 18-21 of Himo; paras. [0021]-[0025] of Noth et al (US 2018/0299341 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 USC 101. No prior art rejection is applied because the prior art of record fails to teach the following claim features. Regarding claims 1 and 8, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach the limitation of “a strain range calculating section for determining elastic strain and elastic stress in an evaluation area of the rotating electrical machine in terms of a quadratic function of a rotational speed of the rotating electrical machine detected by the sensor, counting frequency of occurrence of an elastic strain range and an elastic stress range in the evaluation area, and using Neuber’s rule to performing conversion of the elastic strain range and the elastic stress range into a total strain range; a fatigue damage rate calculating section for calculating fatigue damage rates in the evaluation area of the rotating electrical machine from the total strain range resulting from the conversion; and an integration section for cumulating the fatigue damage rates to calculate a cumulated fatigue damage rate, wherein either the fatigue damage rate calculating section or the integration section issues an alarm when the fatique damaqe rates or a cumulated value of the integration section exceeds preset threshold value,wherein upon an actual breakage of the component of the rotating electrical machine, the preset threshold value is updated based on a time of the actual breakage of the component, and wherein the evaluation area is the component, which is a rotatinq copper member that is a conductor.” Dependent claims 3 and 5-6 further limit these independent claims and additionally not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. 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 571-273-8300.
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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858