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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejections
Applicant argues the instant claims are not directed towards an abstract idea; stating no case of any tribunal has or could be cited in support of the 101 rejections of claims 1-11.
Initially, the examiner would like to point to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50) which sets forth a test that distills the relevant case law to aid in examination, and does not attempt to articulate each and every decision. As further explained in the 2019 PEG, the Office has shifted its approach from the case-comparison approach in determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea and instead uses enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent. By grouping the abstract ideas, the 2019 PEG shifts examiners’ focus from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types. In summary, the 2019 PEG synthesizes the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination.
Applicant further argues the amount of citing’s to the MPEP, i.e. MPEP 2106.05(a), (g), (h), stating no portion of the aforementioned sections of the MPEP were explained or analyzed in support of the of the 101 rejection of the claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The 101 rejection, as detailed below, evaluates all the claimed additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept. The examiner considered them both individually and in combination to ensure if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Because this approach considers all claim elements, the Supreme Court has noted that "it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims ‘must be considered as a whole.’" Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218 n.3, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188, 209 USPQ 1, 8-9 (1981)).
The supplied sections of the MPEP are the provided evidence, along with the examiner’s analysis, of how at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B the recited additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Applicant further argues “the clear and unmistakable claimed concrete, physical and non-abstract components clearly establish that Claims 1 to 11 are clearly and unquestionably patent eligible”, however the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The full scope of the claims under the BRI have been considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement for diagnosis conditions of a machinery be detecting a sensor that detects a physical phenomenon). The claim "as a whole," in does not recites an ordered combination that achieve the alleged improvements; as the result of the identified abstract idea has no impact to any of the additional elements instantly claimed. Although a sensor unit, a discrete Fourier transform unit, a later-stage weight unit, and an accumulation unit (which as disclosed simply as divided up modules of a computer system; [0020]), these generically disclosed sensor is a sensor gathering data, at a high level, and sending that data to computer elements merely acting as tools for performing the identified abstract ideas. Neither the sensor or units are improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. Lastly, the claimed machinery and its componentry are not bettered the by the result or performance of the abstract idea. Claim 1, 7, 8 and 11 have no connection with applicant’s alleged improvement.
Applicant additionally argues claim 7, specifically stating “Claim 7 is an apparatus claim and therefore by law cannot and does not recite a single method step let alone the three method steps recited above”. The examiner does not contest applicant’s argument and agrees claim 7 is an apparatus claim and does not recite a method step, specifically those found in claim 1. It is important to note, the 101 rejection does not state that claim 7 was considered to include method steps of claim 1. Therefore, the examiner is unsure as how applicant’s statement factually asserts the claims are patent eligible.
The argued additional elements of claim 7, as stated below, merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither of these generically claimed components are impacted, improved or bettered by the performance or result of the identified abstract ideas. The robot, arm body, finger, bearings have no interrelationship with the sensor in an unconventional manner nor is the result of the abstract idea beneficial to these elements.
Applicant alleges every single pending claim significantly improves the efficiency of the machinery as the machinery can be operated in its intended function for longer periods due to the fact that the machinery need not be tested or otherwise investigated to determine a specific frequency band or range that must be set by a worker from the frequency spectral data after the fast Fourier transform displayed on the display unit. The examiner appreciates the assertion; however the instant claims do not reflect such an improvement; as what is calculated and displayed has no impact on the machinery itself. This claim analysis is supported by the courts who have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: for example, displaying information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, like applicant’s alleged improved efficiency of the machinery as the machinery can be operated in its intended function for longer periods due to the fact that the machinery need not be tested or otherwise investigated to determine a specific frequency band or range that must be set by a worker from the frequency spectral data after the fast Fourier transform displayed on the display unit; see Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Applicant’s also make reference to Thales Vision Inc v. US. (Page 17 of applicant remarks filed 08/08/2025). However, the examiner would like to point out that this court case does not follow the same fact patterns as the instant application. The Court stated that the claims found in Thales Vision Inc did not contain an abstract idea; i.e. at step 2A of the Alice Framework Test, the answer would have been NO, thereby concluding the test and rendering the claims patent eligible. However, in the instant applicant, the examiner found the instant claims to be directed towards an abstract idea, which results in a YES at step 2A. It appears unreasonable to draw any comparisons between the instant claims and those found eligible by the Court in Thales, as one set of claims were found to contain no abstract ideas while applicant’s set of claims are directed towards an abstract idea. The claims of the instant invention and Thales Vision Inc. are not analogous.
Applicant throughout their arguments make allegations towards applicant’s claimed invention of readily and accurately discriminate between a physical phenomenon indicative to normal operation of the transfer robot and a physical phenomenon indicative of abnormal operation of the transfer robot requiring servicing independent of any frequency or frequency range. Applicant alleges that the claims are an improvement on the technology of deciding when to perform determining abnormalities and servicing. However, this argument is not persuasive. Making determinations based on the results of the abstract idea are some of the abstract concepts identified by the examiner in Step 2A. In Step 2B, it cannot be the abstract concepts themselves that improve a technology or technical field but rather the additional elements or extra solution activities such that the claims themselves amount to significantly more than the abstract concept. Currently, there are no additional elements or extra solution activities claimed that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Applicant additionally argues claim 8, specifically pointing to the examiner identified additional elements. Again these additional elements merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither of these generically claimed components are impacted, improved or bettered by the performance or result of the identified abstract ideas. The guide trajectory, a traveling drive motor, waveform analysis device and sensor unit have no interrelationship with the abstract idea such that these elements are benefited by the abstract idea. They merely link the abstract idea to a field of use.
Therefore, the additional elements of a machinery, sensor, analysis devices, robot, traveling mechanism, guide, drive motor, object, and various units acting as tools, fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as these elements are not improved or bettered by the result of the abstract idea.
Note: claim 20 was not rejected under 101, as it contains limitations related to definitive corrective actions applied to the additional element “machinery” that provides significantly more and integrates the abstract idea into practical application.
112 Rejections
The previously set forth 112 rejection have been overcome based on applicant’s filed amendments dated 12/12/2025.
102 Rejections
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the amplitude value at any frequency generated by the discrete Fourier transform is pX (where pX is an amplitude value greater than p0), any and all amplitude values pX are adjusted, reset or weighted to be p0 by the later-stage weighting unit, i.e., any and all amplitude values at any frequency that exceed the upper-limit value are adjusted, weighted or reset to be the upper-limit value by the later-stage weighting unit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues on page 10, Tamatsukuri does not have any means to adjust or reset any amplitude value at any frequency generated by the discrete fast Fourier transform, however, these limitations are not found within the claims and therefore, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Tamatsukuri does not have any means to adjust or reset any amplitude value at any frequency generated by the discrete Fourier transform unit to a prescribed upper-limit value or adjusting the "absolute value" in any way regardless of how large or high the absolute value is) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). These these limitations are not found within the instant claims and therefore applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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 1-19 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; selling 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 “selling 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; selling 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 “selling 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; selling 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 “selling 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, 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 performing discrete Fourier transform on the detection signal transmitted from the sensor unit; selling 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 “selling 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 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” 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 mental process of claim 11. 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 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)
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 20 further define an additional element of a monitor. The monitor performs the instruction of displaying the result of the mental process of claim 19. 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” reads as an instruction to apply the exception without providing meaningful limits on the claim. The claim broad has applicability across many fields of endeavor that 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” are or how they are applied. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tamatsukuri (2019/0339119).
With respect to claim 1, Tamatsukuri teaches a waveform analysis device (30) for detecting a physical phenomenon (i.e. acceleration; [0039]) that occurs during operation of machinery (1) and for analyzing a detection signal (i.e. an acceleration signal; [0039]), comprising: a sensor unit (28) for detecting the physical phenomenon (i.e. acceleration; [0039]); a discrete Fourier transform unit (31) for performing discrete Fourier transform on the detection signal transmitted from the sensor unit [0047]; a later-stage weighting unit for selling 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 (as Tamatsukuri teaches in [0048], a module performing s106 and s107 is used to sell amplitude values outside a set range set by a worker); and an accumulation unit (a module part of the unit 30) for accumulating the amplitude values of each frequency weighted by the later-stage weighting unit (as Tamatsukuri teaches accumulating the amplitude value of each frequency data in the predetermined frequency band; [0048]).
The method steps of claim 11 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, Tamatsukuri teaches the waveform analysis device (30) for wherein the later-stage weighting unit (i.e. the module performing s106 and 107) subtracts a weighting that changes according to the frequency from the amplitude values of each frequency generated by the discrete Fourier transform unit [0047], and weights the amplitude values to zero when the amplitude values are negative.
With respect to claim 5, Tamatsukuri teaches the waveform analysis device (30) wherein abnormal occurrence is detected when an addition value added by the accumulation unit (i.e. the portion of 30) exceeds a prescribed threshold value (as Tamatsukuri teaches a portion of 30, specifically module 39 determines an abnormality has occurred [0043]).
With respect to claim 6, Tamatsukuri teaches the waveform analysis device (30) wherein the prescribed upper-limit value is set by an operator console (i.e. as Tamatsukuri teaches a worker sets the disclosed range which includes the upper-limit value via 36; [0007]).
With respect to claim 7, Tamatsukuri teaches a transport robot (1, Fig. 4) having an arm body (11a/b,12), a finger (21) provided at a tip of the arm body (11a) via bearings (27; [0032]) and carrying objects (W) to be transported [0057], and a waveform analysis device (30) for calculating a detection signal of a physical phenomenon [0038] generated by the finger (21), said waveform analysis device (30) comprising: a sensor unit (28) for detecting the physical phenomenon (i.e. acceleration; [0039]); a discrete Fourier transform unit (31) for performing discrete Fourier transform on the detection signal transmitted from the sensor unit [0047]; a later-stage weighting unit for selling 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 (as Tamatsukuri teaches in [0048], a module performing s106 and s107 is used to sell amplitude values outside a set range set by a worker); and an accumulation unit (a module part of the unit 30) for accumulating the amplitude values of each frequency weighted by the later-stage weighting unit (as Tamatsukuri teaches accumulating the amplitude value of each frequency data in the predetermined frequency band; [0048]).
With respect to claim 8, Tamatsukuri teaches a traveling mechanism (7) having providing with a guide trajectory (i.e. defined by guide rails (not shown) and arms of a robot 1; [0031]), a traveling drive motor (8) for transporting an object (W) to be transported along the guide trajectory (as defined by the guide rails and arms of the robot), and a waveform analysis device (30) for calculating a detection signal of a physical phenomenon [0038] generated in the guide trajectory (as defined by the guide rails and robot 1), said waveform analysis device (30) comprising: a sensor unit (28) for detecting the physical phenomenon (i.e. acceleration; [0039]); a discrete Fourier transform unit (31) for performing discrete Fourier transform on the detection signal transmitted from the sensor unit [0047]; a later-stage weighting unit for selling 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 (as Tamatsukuri teaches in [0048], a module performing s106 and s107 is used to sell amplitude values outside a set range set by a worker); and an accumulation unit (a module part of the unit 30) for accumulating the amplitude values of each frequency weighted by the later-stage weighting unit (as Tamatsukuri teaches accumulating the amplitude value of each frequency data in the predetermined frequency band; [0048]).
With respect to claim 9, Tamatsukuri teaches a transport device (7) provided with the transport robot (1) of rejected claim 7 (as seen above).
With respect to claim 10, Tamatsukuri teaches the transport device of rejected claim 9 (as seen above) further having a traveling mechanism provided with a guide trajectory (defined by guide rails, not shown and the robot 1), and a traveling drive motor (8) for transporting an object (W) to be transported along the guide trajectory (defined by the guide rails and robot 1 itself).
With respect to claim 12, Tamatsukuri teaches the transport device wherein: the waveform analysis device (30) is configured to 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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamatsukuri (2019/0339119).
With respect to claim 2, Tamatsukuri teaches the waveform analysis device (30) wherein the discrete Fourier transform unit (i.e. the portion of the device 31 performing s106-107) performs discrete Fourier transform by shifting n consecutive detection signals obtained from the sensor unit (28) at a prescribed sampling period by r (as when performing DFT, shifting consecutive segments of data is common practice in non-stationary signal processing, like the acceleration sensing taught in Tamatsukuri).
Tamatsukuri remains segment regarding the r is an integer from 1 to n/16, and n is a power of 2 greater than or equal to 256.
The need to optimize the sampling period in a DFT operation is well known, as further evidenced in Tamatsukuri teaches using DFT to sample the signals from the accelerometer. Because Tamatsukuri teaches the recited DFT, the examiner has concluded the recited r variable requires only a finite number of potential variables standard for efficient DFT computations based on a signals characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to derive the claimed r variable, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, to be part of the well-known practice of DFT and evidenced by Tamatsukuri. As there are only a finite number of predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of determining the most effective r term, thereby improving the accuracy of frequency estimations with signals having varying characteristics. MPEP 2141 III.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamatsukuri (2019/0339119) in view of Bohannan et al. (4,901,575).
With respect to claim 3, Tamatsukuri teaches the waveform analysis device (30) further comprising: a front-stage weighting unit (i.e. a filter circuit) for weighting the n detection signals (as sensed by the senor 28) but remails silent regarding the filter being a window function.
Bohannan et al. teaches a similar device that used a window function to filter n detection signals, Col. 17 lines 12-23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the filter taught in Tamatsukuri to include the window function as taught in Bohannan et al. because Bohannan et al. teaches such a modification allows the device to select the portion of the signals that are of interest, thereby improving the detection accuracy, Col. 7 lines 6-17.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamatsukuri (2019/0339119) in view of Stanke et al. (5,996,415).
With respect to claim 4, Tamatsukuri teaches the waveform analysis device (30) for wherein the later-stage weighting unit (i.e. the module performing s106 and 107) subtracts a weighting that changes according to the frequency from the amplitude values of each frequency generated by the discrete Fourier transform unit [0047], but remains silent regarding weights the amplitude values to zero when the amplitude values are negative.
Stanke et al. teaches a windowing function that uses an apodization function, known to zero out the FFT smoothly, Col. 19 lines 8-19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the device to include the apodization function taught in Stanke et al. because Stanke et al. teaches such smoothing functions aids in improving signal characterization, thereby improving the accuracy of signal detection in Tamatsukuri.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights