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 Amendment
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 07/01/2025. Claims 1, 5, and 11 have been amended, and claims 6, 8, and 9 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-12 are examined below.
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 1-5, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites (additional elements crossed out):
A computer-implemented method of maintenance prediction for a medical imaging apparatus, the method comprising:
Measuring, over a predetermined first period of measurement time, a first data set of at least one parameter relating to an operation of the medical imaging apparatus
Analyzing, based on the measured parameter, the first data set to determine a plurality of operation modes, of the medical imaging apparatus;
Measuring, over a predetermined second period of time, at least a second data set of the at least one parameter
Analyzing, based on the measured parameter, the second data set to determine at least one operation mode, of the medical imaging apparatus;
comparing the operation mode determined from the second data set with the plurality of operation modes of the first data set to identify the operation mode in the first data set which corresponds to the operation mode determined from the second data set;
within the same operating mode in the first data set and in the second data set, validating whether a value of the measured parameter of the first data set differs from a value of the measured parameter of the second data set;
generating a feedback signal based on a result of the validation, wherein the feedback signal includes a maintenance prediction information for the medical imaging apparatus; and
selecting data samples from the second data set at one or more predefined trigger points.
The above limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by a “computer” and “at least one sensor” nothing in the claim precludes the steps as being described as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. For example, but for the “computer” and “sensor” language, the limitations describe a system for measuring at least two data sets associated with an apparatus at two separate times, analyzing the data sets to determine their respective associated operation modes, corresponding the operation mode of the second data set with an operation mode of the first data set, validating that values of the first data set and second data set differ from each other, and generating a feedback signal (i.e., maintenance prediction information) based on the validation. An analog example would be a mechanic observing a vehicle engine’s RPM during idling at a first and second time, noticing a significant change in the RPM during the second time, and determining that the vehicle is due for maintenance. The limitations describe the management of personal behavior, as well as actions that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes steps that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11 features limitations similar to those of claim 1 but for the recitation of a “monitoring device” comprised of “at least one sensor” and a “processor”. Therefore claim 11 is also found to be directed to the same abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a “computer” and “sensors” (Claim 1) and a “monitoring device” comprised of “at least one sensor” and a “processor” (Claim 11) to perform the steps. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least pages 10 and 14-15) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), particularly as it relates to the recited “at least one sensor”, and a “monitoring device” comprised of “at least one sensor” and a “processor” elements. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “at least one sensor”, and a “monitoring device” comprised of “at least one sensor” and a “processor” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-5, 7, and 10 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 and include all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, they are also directed to the same abstract idea. The remaining dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea since they merely further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-5, 7, and 10-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “validating whether a value of the measured parameter of the first data set differs from a value of the measured parameter of the second data set” is indefinite. It is unclear what particular values are being compared in order to be determined to “differ”. Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate that the operation mode data sets contain various values. For example consider if data set 1 features values 1, 2 , 3, and 4, and data set 2 also features values 1, 2, 3, and 4. While value “1” of data set 1 differs from values “2, 3, and 4” of data set 2, value “1” of data set 1 is also the same as value “1” of data set 2. The Examiner suggests amending the language along the lines of “validating whether a sequence of consecutive values of the measured parameters of the first data set differs from a sequence of consecutive values of the second data set, wherein the first data set and second data set feature the same amount of values”, or language which indicates which values of each data set are compared with each other (ex. data set values at time 1, values at time 2, etc.).
Independent claim 11 features limitations similar to those of claim 1, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Dependent claims are rejected as well since they inherit the limitations of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-5, 7, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara (US 2017/0188443) in view of Roberts (US 10,440,535) and Fukube (US 2006/0004544).
Regarding claim 1, Nakahara discloses A method of maintenance prediction for a medical imaging apparatus, the method comprising:
measuring, over a predetermined first period of measurement time, a first data set of at least one parameter relating to an operation of the medical imaging apparatus by at least one sensor; (see at least Para. [0060] – “When the learning mode (Mod="2") is set by the mode setting unit 24, the learning unit 25 performs cluster analysis by using the frequency analysis result Fa output from the frequency analysis unit 21, and the synchronization position representative value xyz, the synchronization temperature representative value T, and the synchronization angle representative value 8 output from the state data acquisition unit 22 as input data, so as to generate one or more clusters. Centroid coordinates Cc and a radius Cr are calculated for each of the generated clusters.”, and Para. [0105] – “In the repeatedly performed processes from step S12 to step S17, first, the central processing unit 113 performs a measured data acquisition process until collecting of vibration data corresponding to the number of FFT points is completed (step S13 and step S14). The measured data acquisition process is a process of acquiring data such as three-axis accelerations, a temperature, and angular velocity measured by the acceleration sensor 131, the temperature sensor 132, and the gyro sensor 133 of the sensor unit 13, and calculating vibration data, a position representative value, a temperature representative value, and an angle representative value, and a specific process flow thereof will be described later with reference to FIG. 12.”
analyzing, based on the measured parameter, the first data set to determine a plurality of operation modes, of the medical imaging apparatus; (Paras [0096]-[0097] disclose the positioning of the X-ray tube (i.e., operation mode) being taken into consideration when performing comparisons to predict failure. See at least Para. [0097] – “In other words, in the present embodiment, a difference in abnormal noise can be sensed by taking into consideration a difference in a position, a temperature, and an attitude angle of the X-ray tube 12, and thus it is possible to sense a predictive fault indicator of the X-ray tube 12 with high accuracy.” Also see at least Para. [0107] – “Successively, the central processing unit 113 repeatedly performs processes from step S18 to step S21 by the same number as the number of learning samples, and, in the repeatedly performed processes, performs an FFT process on vibration data of each learning sample (step S19) and performs a representative value acquisition process (step S20).”
measuring, over a predetermined second period of time, at least a second data set of the at least one parameter by the at least one sensor, wherein the predetermined second period of time is shorter than the predetermined first period of time; (see at least Para. [0062] – “When the predictive fault indicator sensing mode (Mod="3") is set by the mode setting unit 24, the abnormality calculation unit 26 calculates distances between coordinates indicated by the frequency analysis result Fa analyzed by the frequency analysis unit 21, and the synchronization position representative value xyz, the synchronization temperature representative value T, and the synchronization angle representative value 8 output from the state data acquisition unit 22, and centroid coordinates Ccj of each cluster j, with respect to the vibration data Dv obtained from the X-ray tube 12 which is a predictive fault indicator sensing target. The abnormality calculation unit 26 calculates values dj obtained by subtracting a radius Crj of each cluster j from the calculated distances, obtains the minimum value among the calculated values dj, and outputs the minimum value as an abnormality Sd.”, which discloses a “sensing mode” (i.e, second data set). Also see Para. [0111] – “Hereinafter, processes from step S32 to step S37 are the same as the processes from step S12 to step Sl7 except that the number of learning samples is replaced with the number of sensing target samples in step S12 and step S17 in the learning process illustrated in FIG. 9, and thus a description thereof will be omitted.” The Examiner notes that the language “wherein the predetermined second period of time is shorter than the predetermined first period of time” merely recites a design choice. The sole difference between the invention and the prior art is that the invention features the measuring of data during a second time period that is shorter than a first period. This is akin to a mere omission of an element (i.e., an amount of time). See MPEP §2144.04 – “ See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).". As no unexpected result is produced by the measuring of data for a shorter amount of time, there is no patentable significance in doing so. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Nakahara to measure data for a shorter amount of time recited by the instant claims since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known)
analyzing, based on the measured parameter, the second data set to determine at least one operation mode, of the medical imaging apparatus; (See at least Para. [0112] – “Successively, the central processing unit 113 repeatedly performs processes from step S38 to step S42 by the same number as the number of sensing target samples, and, in the repeatedly performed processes, performs an FFT process on vibration data of each sensing target sample ( step S39), performs a representative value acquisition process (step S40), further performs an abnormality calculation process (step S41), and finishes the predictive fault indicator sensing process.” In other words, sensing target values (i.e., second data set) is analyzed.)
Nakahara does not explicitly disclose comparing the operation mode determined from the second data set with the plurality of operation modes of the first data set to identify the operation mode in the first data set which corresponds to the operation mode determined from the second data set; (see Roberts, Claim 20 – “A computer-implemented system for monitoring one or more assets, comprising: one or more asset-monitoring module for monitoring the asset and providing monitored data comprising current and voltage data; and a processing device receiving the monitored data and comparing it against previously recorded data in order to determine the present mode of operation of the asset; wherein the system is asset-agnostic, supporting multiple types and brands of assets and such that the performance of the one or more assets can be managed and monitored in real-time.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara to utilize the teachings of Roberts since the monitoring of usage information may allow for the estimation of the health of the equipment in real-time, raising alerts and making recommendations accordingly (Col. 6, Lines 13-19)).
Nakahara does not explicitly disclose:
within the same operating mode in the first data set and in the second data set, validating whether a value of the measured parameter of the first data set differs from a value of the measured parameter of the second data set;
generating a feedback signal based on a result of the validation, wherein the feedback signal includes a maintenance prediction information for the medical imaging apparatus;
(See Fukube, Para. [0129] – “In a system and a method for supporting monitoring and diagnosing of maintenance and troubles related to the measuring device to which accelerated electron beams are applied in vacuum, data from the operation monitoring sensors during the starting step and the measuring step of the measuring device are recorded and preserved in real time and synchronously. Then, timing and operation level are compared and reproduced by overlapping the data with data at the time of initial or normal operation. Further, when the difference which indicates that the maintenance is necessary or it is diagnosed that the trouble occurs is detected on data, probable trouble cause items are selected from pre-stored selection items on troubles and countermeasures against the troubles. Then, the result obtained by executing the preliminarily prepared confirmed matters for specifying the trouble causes are inputted so as to further specify the causes whereby the system and the method can support the maintenance and diagnosis of the device, and can preserve and make use of the diagnosis data.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara and Roberts to utilize the teachings of Fukube since it would allow for the system to instantly cope with maintenance, the search of cause of trouble and countermeasures in an optimum manner (Para. [0135]))
Nakahara discloses selecting data samples from the second data set at one or more predefined trigger points. (See at least Para. [0054] – “The state data acquisition unit 22 acquires the position data Dp, the temperature data Dt, and the angle data Da which are output from a position data output portion 1352, a temperature data output portion 1353, and an angle data output portion 1354 of the sensor unit 13 in different cycles.”
Regarding claim 2, Nakahara discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the measured parameter is at least one of: a vibration of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, a vibration of the medical imaging apparatus, an acceleration of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, an acceleration of the medical imaging apparatus, a surrounding temperature of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, a surrounding temperature of the medical imaging apparatus, a surrounding humidity of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, a surrounding humidity of the medical imaging apparatus, a temperature of the medical imaging apparatus, a temperature of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, a mechanical shock of the medical imaging apparatus, a mechanical shock of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, a vacuum parameter of the medical imaging apparatus, an emitter parameter of the medical imaging apparatus, a power supply parameter of the medical imaging apparatus, an over/under voltage parameter of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, an over/under voltage parameter of the medical imaging apparatus, an over/under current parameter of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, an over/under current parameter of the medical imaging apparatus, a X-ray radiation parameter of the medical imaging apparatus, a rotation speed of a component of the medical imaging of the apparatus relative to the medical imaging apparatus, a rotation speed of the medical imaging apparatus, an electron beam parameter of the medical imaging apparatus, and a magnetic field parameter of the medical imaging apparatus. (see Para. [0042] – “Next, a sensor unit 13 is configured to include an acceleration sensor 131, a temperature sensor 132, a gyro sensor 133, an AID converter 134, a signal processing portion 135, and the like, and is attached to a casing of the X-ray tube 12. Here, the acceleration sensor 131, which is a so-called three-axis acceleration sensor, measures accelerations in three-dimensional directions (an x direction, a y direction, and a z direction) applied to the X-ray tube 12; the temperature sensor 132 measures the temperature of the casing of the X-ray tube 12; and the gyro sensor 133 measures an attitude angle of the X-ray tube 12. The attitude angle of the X-ray tube 12 is assumed to be an angle formed by a horizontal plane of the rotation anode 123.”)
Regarding claim 3, Nakahara discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined first period of measurement time corresponds to an active operating life of the medical imaging apparatus, and wherein the active operating life of the medical imaging apparatus is one week of active operation life of the medical imaging apparatus. (See Para. [0105] – “In the repeatedly performed processes from step S12 to step S17, first, the central processing unit 113 performs a measured data acquisition process until collecting of vibration data corresponding to the number of FFT points is completed (step S13 and step S14). The measured data acquisition process is a process of acquiring data such as three-axis accelerations, a temperature, and angular velocity measured by the acceleration sensor 131, the temperature sensor 132, and the gyro sensor 133 of the sensor unit 13, and calculating vibration data, a position representative value, a temperature representative value, and an angle representative value, and a specific process flow thereof will be described later with reference to FIG. 12.” The Examiner asserts that the measured data occurs during operation of the X-ray tube, and is therefore corresponds to an active operating life. The Examiner further notes that the language “wherein the active operating life of the medical imaging apparatus is one week of active operation life of the medical imaging apparatus” merely recites a design choice. The sole difference between the invention and the prior art is that the invention features the measurement of data for a particular amount of time. This is akin to a mere duplication of parts. See MPEP §2144 VI B, and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671; 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960), where it is stated that "the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced…". As no unexpected result is produced by the measuring of data for a particular (i.e., longer or shorter) period of time, there is no patentable significance in doing so. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Nakahara, Roberts, and Fukube to measure data for one week as recited by the instant claims since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results of obtaining additional temperature data to be utilized.
Regarding claim 4, Nakahara and Roberts do not explicitly disclose The method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more trigger points is at least one of: a predefined rotation speed of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, a predefined rotation speed of the medical imaging apparatus, a start-up of the medical imaging apparatus, a defined angle position of the medical imaging apparatus, with respect to a gantry, a determined electrode beam focus of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, a load exerted on a component of the medical imaging apparatus, a load exerted on the medical imaging apparatus, a predefined temperature of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, a predefined temperature of the medical imaging apparatus, a defined temperature range of the medical imaging apparatus, a predefined operation time of a component of the medical imaging apparatus, and a predefined operation time of the medical imaging apparatus. (See Fukube, Para. [0129] – “In a system and a method for supporting monitoring and diagnosing of maintenance and troubles related to the measuring device to which accelerated electron beams are applied in vacuum, data from the operation monitoring sensors during the starting step and the measuring step of the measuring device are recorded and preserved in real time and synchronously.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara and Roberts to utilize the teachings of Fukube since they are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., predictive maintenance of devices), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, Nakahara and Roberts do not explicitly disclose The method according to claim 1, further comprising identifying changes in the parameter of the second data set with respect to the parameter of the first data set, and providing the feedback signal with an estimation of a maintenance based on the changes. ( See Fukube, Para. [0129] – “Then, timing and operation level are compared and reproduced by overlapping the data with data at the time of initial or normal operation. Further, when the difference which indicates that the maintenance is necessary or it is diagnosed that the trouble occurs is detected on data, probable trouble cause items are selected from pre-stored selection items on troubles and countermeasures against the troubles. Then, the result obtained by executing the preliminarily prepared confirmed matters for specifying the trouble causes are inputted so as to further specify the causes whereby the system and the method can support the maintenance and diagnosis of the device, and can preserve and make use of the diagnosis data.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara and Roberts to utilize the teachings of Fukube since they are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., predictive maintenance of devices), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.)
Regarding claim 7, Nakahara and Roberts do not explicitly disclose The method according to a claim 1,wherein the analyzing the second data set comprises analyzing the second data set to determine a plurality of operation modes of the medical imaging apparatus, wherein the plurality of operation modes of the second data set are compared with the plurality of operation modes of the first data set to identify the operation modes which corresponds to the operation modes determined from the second data set. (See Fukube, Para. [0129] – “In a system and a method for supporting monitoring and diagnosing of maintenance and troubles related to the measuring device to which accelerated electron beams are applied in vacuum, data from the operation monitoring sensors during the starting step and the measuring step of the measuring device are recorded and preserved in real time and synchronously. Then, timing and operation level are compared and reproduced by overlapping the data with data at the time of initial or normal operation.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara and Roberts to utilize the teachings of Fukube since they are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., predictive maintenance of devices), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.)
Regarding claim 10, Nakahara and Roberts do not explicitly disclose The method according claim 1 wherein the predetermined second period of measurement time depends on the selected trigger point and the parameter to be measured, wherein the selected trigger point is a start point of the predetermined second period of measurement time, wherein a selected range of the selected trigger point is at least one of: a length of the predetermined second period of measurement time, and a drift over the predetermined second period of measurement time. (See Fukube, Para. [0129] – “In a system and a method for supporting monitoring and diagnosing of maintenance and troubles related to the measuring device to which accelerated electron beams are applied in vacuum, data from the operation monitoring sensors during the starting step and the measuring step of the measuring device are recorded and preserved in real time and synchronously.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara and Roberts to utilize the teachings of Fukube since they are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., predictive maintenance of devices), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.)
Claim 11 features limitations similar to those of claim 1, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, Nakahara discloses The monitoring device according to claim 11, wherein for a component of the medical imaging apparatus at least one sensor is provided for measuring a parameter of the component of the medical imaging apparatus, and wherein the component of the medical imaging apparatus to which the sensor is attached is at least one of: a motor, an emitter, a vacuum, a housing, a cooling medium, a cathode, an anode, a rotor, a stator. (See Para. [0149] – “In this case, the sensor unit 13 is attached to the casing of the X-ray tube 12, and the sensor unit 13 is connected to the X-ray tube predictive fault indicator sensing
device 11.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant makes a conclusory statement that the steps of “measuring”, “analyzing”, “comparing”, “validating”, “generating”, and “selecting” can only be performed by a computer. This is not persuasive. The Examiner has already provided an analogous example demonstrating that the steps can indeed be performed by a human in the body of the rejection above.
Applicant argues that Examiner failed to recite any case law relevant to the current claims. This is not required per the Office’s guidance.
Applicant argues that the claims impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception since the claims are much more than a drafting effort, designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Supreme Court in Alice Corp. cautioned that merely limiting the use of an abstract idea "to a particular technological environment" or implementing the abstract idea on a "wholly generic computer" is not sufficient as an additional feature to provide "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself." Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358 (citations omitted). The computers or processors recited in the claims are not particular in any way, other than that a particular abstract idea is being implemented using them. The instant claims do not require any specialized hardware. The instant claims recite only computer elements that are described at a high level of generality. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The Supreme Court has stated expressly that simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer "specialized," nor does it automatically transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application by providing an allegedly improved system and method for maintenance prediction for a medical imaging apparatus. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the body of the 101 rejection above, “the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo)” Merely providing an estimation of a status of a device does not provide an improvement to any involved computing elements, or to any technology. The claims are not integrated into a practical application, nor do they feature limitations that qualify as “significantly more”.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding 112(a) rejections have been considered and are persuasive.
Upon reconsideration of the rejection claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it has been determined that the limitation presents an issue with “breadth” rather than “indefiniteness”.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that Nakahura a) describes a learning process of a neural network, and is allegedly irrelevant to the Applicant’s feature of measuring values, and b) the acquired data of Nakahara is not a data set of one parameter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0111] states, in part “In the repeatedly performed processes from step S12 to step S17, first, the central processing unit 113 performs a measured data acquisition process until collecting of vibration data corresponding to the number of FFT points is completed (step S13 and step S14). The measured data acquisition process is a process of acquiring data such as three-axis accelerations, a temperature, and angular velocity measured by the acceleration sensor 131, the temperature sensor 132, and the gyro sensor 133 of the sensor unit 13, and calculating vibration data, a position representative value, a temperature representative value, and an angle representative value, and a specific process flow thereof will be described later with reference to FIG. 12.” Nakahura clearly discloses collecting multiple points of data (i.e., corresponding to the number of FFT points). Further the “learning mode” disclosed in paragraph [0060] demonstrates that the acquired data is “over a predetermined first period of time”.
Applicant argues that Nakahura describes representative and target values and is irrelevant to the Applicant’s limitation of “measuring, over a predetermined second period of time, at least a second data set of the at least one parameter by the at least one sensor, wherein the predetermined second period of time is shorter than the predetermined first period of time”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0111] states in part, ““Hereinafter, processes from step S32 to step S37 are the same as the processes from step S12 to step Sl7 except that the number of learning samples is replaced with the number of sensing target samples in step S12 and step S17 in the learning process illustrated in FIG. 9, and thus a description thereof will be omitted.” The “sensing target samples” indicate that data is acquired at at least a second time.
Applicant argues that Nakahara does not disclose “…wherein the predetermined second period of time is shorter than the predetermined first period of time”. This is not persuasive per the body of the rejection above where it is found that the language in question equates to a mere omission of an element.
Based upon at least the above reasoning, the 103 rejection is maintained.
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 KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685