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 .
In view of the appeal brief filed on 30 July 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, applicant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then applicant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
{ 4 }
Response to Arguments
101 Rejections
A. CLAIMS ARE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE
Applicant argues that the Office truncated the claims and failed to consider their physical components; see page 58 of Applicant’s filed appeal. The present 101 analysis considers all limitations, including the sensor, machinery, transport robot, arm body, finger, bearings, guide trajectory, traveling drive motor, operator console, monitor, and the functional limitations of the waveform-analysis device.
However, consideration of the claims as a whole, does not require treating every physical component as part of the identified judicial exception. The proper analysis identifies the limitations reciting a judicial exception and then evaluates the remaining limitations, individually and in combination, to determine whether the claim integrates the exception into a practical application or supplies significantly more.
B. APPARATUS CLAIMS RECITE ABSTRACT LIMITATIONS
Applicant argues that apparatus claims 1, 7, 8 and 12-17 cannot recite method steps and therefore cannot be directed to a mathematical concept or mental process. This argument is not persuasive.
The examiner is not interpreting the apparatus claims as method claims. Rather, the eligibility analysis evaluates the functional limitations defining what the generically claimed components are performing. Further, eligibility depends on the substance of the limitations, not merely whether the claim is formally designated as a machine or process claim. A machine limitation may recite a mathematical calculation or mental-process-type evaluation through functional language defining the operation of the machine.
For claims 1, 7 and 8, the “discrete Fourier transform unit,” “later-stage weighting unit,” and “accumulation unit” are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The corresponding structures include arithmetic unit 201, comprising a gate array and microprocessor programmed to perform the functional blocks 208–210 and configured to perform the disclosed discrete Fourier transform, amplitude-limiting, and accumulation algorithms. This construction does not alter the nature of the recited operations, as the corresponding structures perform a Fourier transform, compare and limit numerical amplitude values, and add the resulting values. These limitations are considered mathematical calculations for the Step 2A, Prong One analysis.
C. INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 7, 8 AND 11
Independent claims 1, 7, 8 and 11 recite:
performing a discrete Fourier transform on a detection signal; comparing amplitude values at respective frequencies with a prescribed upper-limit value and setting values exceeding the upper limit to that upper limit; and accumulating the resulting weighted amplitude values.
These limitations recite mathematical calculations and therefore fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The Fourier transform converts sampled signal values into frequency-component values through mathematical operations. The upper limit operation compares numerical amplitude values and replaces values satisfying a numerical condition. The accumulation operation adds the resulting numerical values.
Applicant argues that the claimed calculations improve waveform analysis by reducing the effect of natural vibrations and eliminating the need to identify and enter a machine-specific frequency band. The examiner acknowledges that the specification discloses this assertion. However, the claims do not integrate the mathematical calculations into a practical application that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology. The claims merely improve the result of the mathematical analysis itself.
Further, the claims do not recite an improvement to the construction or operation of the sensor. The sensor detects a physical phenomenon and supplies a detection signal in its conventional capacity. The claims do not alter how the sensor detects vibration, sound, or another physical phenomenon. In addition, the claims do not recite any change to the construction, control, or operation of the monitored machinery. The mathematical result does not automatically adjust, stop, repair, or otherwise control the machinery. Claims 1 and 11 broadly encompass analyzing a detection signal associated with unspecified machinery. Claims 7 and 8 add particular environments, i.e. a transport robot and traveling mechanism, but the mathematical result does nothing to alter the operation of the robot, arm body, finger, bearings, guide trajectory, or traveling drive motor.
Therefore, the asserted improvement resides in the mathematical treatment and interpretation of acquired signal data, thereby limiting selected numerical values and summing the resulting values to produce diagnostic information; i.e. math.
Using generic sensing and computer processing components to acquire data, perform the recited calculations, and provide an analytical result does not integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application. Nor do physical components impose a meaningful limit on the mathematical calculations. The same calculations may be applied to detection signals from different sensors and different types of machinery. The machinery and sensor identify the source and technological environment of the data but do not change the mathematical operations themselves.
D. APPLICANT’S RELIANCE ON PHYSICAL COMPONENTS
Applicant argues that claims 7 and 8 are necessarily eligible because they recite physical components comparable to the printer and sensor-containing earring discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1).
The cited examples do not establish that every claim containing physical components is eligible. Those examples illustrate claims that do not recite a judicial exception and thereby follow different fact patterns. Here, the instant claims 7 and 8 expressly require a Fourier transform, numerical amplitude limiting, and numerical accumulation, i.e. mathematical calculations.
The transport robot, arm body, finger, bearings, guide trajectory, and traveling drive motor are not improved by the result of the identified judicial exception. They merely identify the machinery from which the signal originates and generally link the mathematical analysis to a particular technological environment.
E. THALES
Applicant relies on Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States. The claims in Thales were directed to a particular arrangement of inertial sensors and a particular use of sensor data that improved the accuracy with which the physical position and orientation of an object were determined relative to a moving reference frame.
The instant claims do not require a particular improved physical arrangement of sensors relative to the monitored machinery. Claims 1 and 11 recite the sensor and machinery at a high level of generality. Claims 7 and 8 identify the machinery associated with the signal, but the claimed calculations do not modify or improve the robot, traveling mechanism, or physical relationship between sensor components. Instead, the calculations process numerical signal values to produce diagnostic information. Thales does not establish eligibility of the present claims.
F. NOVELTY AND NONOBVIOUSNESS DO NOT ESTABLISH ELIGIBILITY
Applicant repeatedly argues that the claims must be eligible because the claimed limitations are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art and because no prior art rejection was made against certain dependent claims.
Sections 101, 102 and 103 impose separate requirements. The absence or withdrawal of a prior-art rejection does not establish that a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application or contains an inventive concept.
G. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2-6, 9 AND 10
Claim 2 further defines the number and shifting of sampled values used in the discrete Fourier transform. These limitations further define the mathematical calculation and do not improve the sensor or machinery.
Claim 3 recites applying a window function to the detection signals. Applying a window function is an additional mathematical weighting operation performed as part of the signal analysis.
Claim 4 further defines the weighting operation by subtracting a frequency dependent value and setting negative results to zero. These are additional mathematical calculations.
Claim 5 compares the accumulated value with a threshold to detect an abnormal occurrence. Comparing numerical values and classifying the result as normal or abnormal constitutes an abstract evaluation of the calculated data.
Claim 6 recites an operator console used to set the upper-limit value. The specification describes the operator console as a general integrated computer having a monitor and input device. Its use to enter a numerical parameter amounts to using generic computer equipment as a tool for implementing mathematical analysis.
Claim 9 recites a transport device containing the transport robot of claim 7. Claim 10 adds a traveling mechanism, guide trajectory, and traveling drive motor. These components further define the technological environment in which the waveform analysis is used, but the claims do not require the mathematical result to control or alter those components.
The additional limitations of claims 2-6, 9, and 10 therefore do not integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application.
H. CLAIMS 12, 14, 16 AND 18
Claims 12, 14 and 16 recite that the waveform-analysis device is configured to determine whether a detection signal indicates a normal or abnormal operating state without an individual entering a frequency range that is not normally emitted during normal operation. Claim 18 recites the corresponding determination as a method step.
The normal/abnormal determination is an evaluation or judgment based on the result of the mathematical signal analysis and falls within the mental process grouping when recited at this level of generality. The claims do not specify a particular non abstract technique for making that determination beyond the mathematical operations from their respective independent claims.
The phrase “without an individual entering a frequency range” does not remove the evaluation from the mental process grouping. When considered as a whole, these claims use a sensor and programmed unit to collect and mathematically analyze information and then characterize the analytical result. The claims do not require the determination to cause a change in the machinery or to initiate a particular control or maintenance operation. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application.
I. CLAIMS 13, 15, 17 AND 19
Claims 13, 15 and 17 recite a monitor configured to display an occurrence of an abnormal operating state so that corrective action can be taken. Claim 19 recites displaying the occurrence on a monitor.
The previous reference to claims 13, 15 and 17 as displaying the result of “the mental process of claim 11” was incorrect. The apparatus claims do not depend from claim 11.
Claim 19 similarly displays the determination inherited from claim 18; displaying the result of data collection and analysis is post-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. The display does not alter the machinery, sensor, robot, traveling mechanism, or another technological component.
The limitation “so that corrective action can be taken” states an intended purpose or desired use of the displayed information. The claims do not require that corrective action be performed and do not identify a particular corrective action or a mechanism that automatically applies the correction. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract analysis into a practical application.
J. STEP 2B
The claims also do not recite additional elements amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
The mathematical calculations and normal/abnormal evaluation themselves cannot supply the inventive concept. The remaining elements include sensors performing data acquisition, an arithmetic unit comprising a gate array and microprocessor executing the calculations, a general-purpose operator console, a monitor displaying results, and machinery supplying the environment from which the data is obtained.
The specification describes the discrete Fourier transform as known, the operator console as a general integrated computer, and the physical sensor as detecting conventional physical phenomena and performing analog-to-digital conversion. Using these components to collect data, execute the recited calculations, and display the result constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional use of the respective components. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, these elements amount to merely implementing the identified mathematical steps with conventional sensing and computer components in the field of machinery monitoring.
The claims do not require a nonconventional sensor arrangement, an improvement to processor architecture, automatic control of the monitored machinery, or a particular corrective operation. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a discrete Fourier transform unit for performing discrete Fourier transform on the detection signal transmitted from the sensor unit” with corresponding structure seen in [0024];
“a later-stage weighting unit for setting amplitude values at each frequency generated by the discrete Fourier transform unit that exceed a prescribed upper-limit value to said prescribed upper-limit value” with corresponding structure seen in [0025]; and
an accumulation unit for accumulating the amplitude values of each frequency weighted by the later-stage weighting unit with corresponding structure seen in [0025-0026] in claims 1, 7 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11 and 18-20 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 11 recites the limitation "the discrete Fourier transform unit" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim lacks a recited a discrete Fourier transform unit and only defines a step for performing the DFT. Does the discrete Fourier transform unit perform the step of transformation and weighing? Clarification is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites performing discrete Fourier transform on the detection signal transmitted from the sensor unit; setting amplitude values at each frequency generated by the discrete Fourier transform unit that exceed a prescribed upper-limit value to said prescribed upper-limit value; and accumulating the amplitude values of each frequency weighted by the later-stage weighting unit has been identified as an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s filed disclosure supports the conclusion that the identified abstract idea falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, as paragraph [0016] states the Fourier transform is performed by a Fourier transform algorithm. As commonly understood, a Fourier transform involves mathematic operations. The claim further defines “setting amplitude values” which defines a mathematic operation specifically referred to as amplitude clipping. The recited accumulation of the amplitude values of each frequency weighted reads as a simple addition step of weighted summation. Therefore, the identified abstract idea is rooted in mathematic concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claimed physical phenomenon and machinery merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve the operation of the generically claimed machinery or effect the physical phenomenon in any way. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The additional element sensor unit for detecting the physical phenomenon merely reads as structure to perform an insignificant step of data gathering, as the sensor is not bettered or improved by the operation of the abstract idea. The sensor merely feeds the abstract idea data to perform the abstract idea in a routine and conventional manner; as within the Background Art of applicant’s filed specification, applicant discloses such sensors for detecting physical phenomenon are well-known. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The variously claimed devices and units, as currently claimed, read as generic computer elements acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the performance or result of the abstract improves their respective operations. Therefore, the additional element sensor, devices and units fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element machinery, physical phenomenon, sensor and generically claimed computer units/device, in combination or alone, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, while the conventional sensor collects data in a conventional manner to merely feed that data to the generically claimed computer units tasked to perform the mathematical operations. Therefore, the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 further defines the abstract idea falling into the mathematic concepts grouping without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim also further defines the sampling period performed by the generically claimed sensor without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the sensor is operating in a well-known, conventional manner (as supported by applicant Background section).
Claim 3 further defines the generically claimed computer element unit performing the identified abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as performing a window function is considered to be rooted in a mathematic operation, without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim 4 further defines the generically claimed computer element unit performing the identified abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as subtracting a weight that changes according to a frequency from the amplitude values and weights the amplitude value zero when the values are negative is considered to be rooted in a mathematic operation, without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim 5 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as making a determination regarding an abnormality by comparing the accumulation value exceeds a threshold value is considered to be a simple mathematic operation of comparing two numbers, thereby failing to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 further defines an additional element operator console. The console is considered to be a generically claimed computer element for entering data into the units for performing the abstract idea. Applicant specification supports the examiner’s conclusion that the console is merely a general computer; see para. [0020].
Claim 7 recites performing discrete Fourier transform on the detection signal transmitted from the sensor unit; setting amplitude values at each frequency generated by the discrete Fourier transform unit that exceed a prescribed upper-limit value to said prescribed upper-limit value; and accumulating the amplitude values of each frequency weighted by the later-stage weighting unit has been identified as an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s filed disclosure supports the conclusion that the identified abstract idea falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, as paragraph [0016] states the Fourier transform is performed by a Fourier transform algorithm. As commonly understood, a Fourier transform involves mathematic operations. The claim further defines “setting amplitude values” which defines a mathematic operation specifically referred to as amplitude clipping. The recited accumulating the amplitude values of each frequency weighted reads as a simple addition step of weighted summation. Therefore, the identified abstract idea is rooted in mathematic concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited transport robot having an arm body, a finger provided at a tip of the arm body via bearings and carrying objects to be transported, the claimed physical phenomenon and machinery merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve the operation of the generically claimed robot, arm body, finger, bearings, machinery or effect the physical phenomenon in any way. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The additional element a sensor unit for detecting the physical phenomenon merely reads as structure to perform an insignificant step of data gathering, as the sensor is not bettered or improved by the operation of the abstract idea. The sensor merely feeds the abstract idea data to perform the abstract idea in a routine and conventional manner, as within the Background Art of applicant’s filed specification, applicant discloses such sensors for detecting physical phenomenon are well-known. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The variously claimed devices and units, as currently claimed, read as generic computer elements acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the performance or result of the abstract improves their respective operations. Therefore, the additional element sensor, device and units fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element machinery, physical phenomenon, sensor and generically claimed computer units, in combination or alone, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, while the conventional sensor collects data in a conventional manner to merely feed that data to the generically claimed computer units tasked to perform the claimed mathematical operations. Therefore, the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites performing discrete Fourier transform on the detection signal transmitted from the sensor unit; setting amplitude values at each frequency generated by the discrete Fourier transform unit that exceed a prescribed upper-limit value to said prescribed upper-limit value; and accumulating the amplitude values of each frequency weighted by the later-stage weighting unit has been identified as an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s filed disclosure supports the conclusion that the identified abstract idea falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, as paragraph [0016] states the Fourier transform is performed by a Fourier transform algorithm. As commonly understood, a Fourier transform involves mathematic operations. The claim further defines “setting amplitude values” which defines a mathematic operation specifically referred to as amplitude clipping. The recited accumulating the amplitude values of each frequency weighted reads as a simple addition step of weighted summation. Therefore, the identified abstract idea is rooted in mathematic concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited traveling mechanism, guide trajectory, a traveling drive motor for transporting an object to be transported along the guide trajectory, and the physical phenomenon merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve the operation of the generically claimed components or effect the physical phenomenon in any way. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The additional element a sensor unit for detecting the physical phenomenon merely reads as structure to perform an insignificant step of data gathering, as the sensor is not bettered or improved by the operation of the abstract idea. The sensor merely feeds the abstract idea data to perform the abstract idea in a routine and conventional manner, as within the Background Art of applicant’s filed specification, applicant discloses such sensors for detecting physical phenomenon are well-known. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The variously claimed device and units, as currently claimed, read as generic computer elements acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the performance or result of the abstract improves their respective operations. Therefore, the additional element sensor, device and units fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element guide, motor, object, physical phenomenon, sensor and generically claimed computer units, in combination or alone, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, while the conventional sensor collects data in a conventional manner to merely feed that data to the generically claimed computer units tasked to perform the claimed mathematical operations. Therefore, the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 further defines the additional element transport device without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The result of the abstract idea has no real-world effect improving the identified abstract ideas.
Claim 10 further defines the additional elements of a traveling mechanism provided with a guide trajectory and a traveling drive motor for transporting an object to be transported along the guide trajectory. As stated above, these additional elements merely link the abstract idea to field of use, as the result of the abstract idea has no real-world effect on these elements. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites a step performing a discrete Fourier transform of a detection signal of the physical sensor; a step weighting to a prescribed upper-limit value for amplitude values of each frequency generated by the discrete Fourier transform unit if the amplitude values exceed the prescribed upper-limit; and a step adding the amplitude values of each weighted frequency has been identified as an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s filed disclosure supports the conclusion that the identified abstract idea falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, as paragraph [0016] states the Fourier transform is performed by a Fourier transform algorithm. As commonly understood, a Fourier transform involves mathematic operations. The claim further defines a step of weighting to a prescribed upper-limit value for amplitude values of each frequency generated by the discrete Fourier unit if the amplitude values exceed the prescribed upper-limit which defines a mathematic operation specifically referred to as amplitude clipping. The recited adding step reads as a simple addition step of weighted summation. Therefore, the identified abstract idea is rooted in mathematic concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claimed physical phenomenon and machinery merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve the operation of the generically claimed machinery or effect the physical phenomenon in any way. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The additional element a physical sensor and detected signal merely reads as structure to perform an insignificant step of data gathering, as the sensor is not bettered or improved by the operation of the abstract idea. The sensor merely feeds the abstract idea data to perform the abstract idea in a routine and conventional manner, as within the Background Art of applicant’s filed specification, applicant discloses such sensors for detecting physical phenomenon are well-known. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element machinery, physical phenomenon and sensor, in combination or alone, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, while the conventional sensor collects data in a conventional manner to merely feed that data to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 12, 14 and 16 recite “detect whether the detection signal is indicative of a normal operating state or an abnormal operating state of the mechanical element without an individual entering a frequency range that is not normally emitted by the machinery during normal operation of the machinery/transport robot/traveling mechanism” which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as the claim encompasses using observation and judgment upon reviewing the results of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims fail to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 13, 15 and 17 further define an additional element of a monitor. The monitor performs the instruction of displaying the result of the identified abstract ideas. The claims limitation mirror activities that the courts have found to be insignificantly extra-solution activities; see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed displaying of the results does not meaningfully limit the claims, as the displayed results have no impact on the machinery being observed, the sensor collecting the data or the generically claimed units tasked as tools for performing the abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims fail to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 18 recite “determining whether the physical phenomenon is indicative of a normal operating state or an abnormal operating state without an individual entering a frequency range that is not normally emitted by the machinery during normal operation of the machinery” which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as the claim encompasses using observation and judgment to make a determination about the result of the abstract idea without predefined ranges. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 19 and 20 further define an additional element of a monitor. The monitor performs the instruction of displaying the result of the abstract ideas of claim 19 and 20. The claim limitation mirrors activities that the courts have found to be insignificantly extra-solution activities; see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The displaying the results does not meaningfully limit the claim, as the displayed results have no impact to the machinery being observed, the sensor collecting the data or the generically claimed units tasked as tools for performing the abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims fail to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
In addition, “so that corrective action can be taken if the physical phenomenon is indicative of an abnormal operating state”, as recited in claim 20, reads as an instruction to apply the exception without providing meaningful limits on the claim. The claim broadly has applicability across many fields of endeavor that does not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. Here, there are no limits to what these generically claimed “corrective action” or how they are applied. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt et al. (2017/0260871) which teaches detecting abnormalities in acoustic signals using FFT analysis and similar filtering techniques.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
