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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/22/2023 and 02/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “AE sensor”. It is suggested to clearly state the full name of the “AE sensor”. Appropriate correction 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 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to abstract idea of "acquire waveform information" and "estimate at least one of a surface state" based on the acquired waveform information.
These concepts constitute mental processes (observations, evaluation, and selection) and certain methods of organizing human activity (rule-based selection and communicating decisions), which are recognized judicial exceptions to § 101 subject matter eligibility. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP § 2106.04.
The claim further recites additional elements, such as "a processor" for performing the abstract idea and "a sensor" for acquiring the waveform information.
However, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
the "processor" is recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea;
the "sensor" is a well-known device for collecting data, therefore, it is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to collect data. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply "significantly more".
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement to computer architecture); Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (transformation); MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is directed to abstract idea of "estimate the contact state" based on the acquired features of the waveform information.
Similar to claim 1, the “estimate the contact state” is considered as mental processes and human activity, which are recognized judicial exceptions to § 101 subject matter eligibility. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP § 2106.04.
The claim further recites additional elements, such as "a sensor" for acquiring the features of the waveform information.
However, the "sensor" is a well-known device for collecting data, therefore, it is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to collect data. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply "significantly more".
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement to computer architecture); Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (transformation); MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 3, the recited limitations further define the feature amount of the waveform information (abstract idea as explained in claim 2 above) without additional elements. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is directed to abstract idea of "accumulate the waveform information” and “compare a difference between the waveform information and reference data acquired” without additional elements.
However, these steps can be performed mentally or with pen-and-paper and fit within the mental processes/organizing human activity groupings.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is directed to abstract idea of “determine whether a state of the brake material has changed” or “determine whether a state of the brake material or a state of the metal plate has changed” based on accumulated waveform information without additional elements.
However, these concepts constitute mental processes (observations, evaluation, and selection) and certain methods of organizing human activity (rule-based selection and communicating decisions), which are recognized judicial exceptions to § 101 subject matter eligibility. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP § 2106.04.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 6-7, the claim recites state estimation according to claim 1 (abstract idea as explained in claim 1 above), and additional element(s), such as “a state estimation system” and “a sensor provided on a brake apparatus for a hoisting machine”.
However, the “state estimation system” is recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implement the abstract idea, and “a sensor” is recited as a well-known device for collecting data, therefore, it is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to collect data. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply "significantly more".
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the similar process as recited in claim 1, which is abstract idea, and further recites a non-transitory storage medium. However, the non-transitory storage medium is recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the similar process as recited in claim 1, which is abstract idea, without additional elements.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-11 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 claims 1 and 10-11, recited limitation “a brake material fixed to a brake plate connected to a rotation shaft of the hoisting machine and a metal plate holding the brake material and restraining movement of the brake plate come into contact with each other using a sensor provided on the metal plate” renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear what “each other” is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the recited limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the difference” is referring to difference between “reference data” and “the feature amount”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the recited limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear why the “feature amount” is set to be smaller in amplitude and higher in frequency as compared to the reference data. The feature amount is sensed by sensor as recited in claim 1, and the state of the brake apparatus is determined based on difference between the reference data (as recited in claim 2) and the feature amount. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-9 either directly or indirectly depends on claims 1-3 are indefinite at least based on foregoing reasons set forth in the Office action.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrio et al. (US 2011/0240410 A1) in view of Heeder et al. (US 2019/0120313 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, Barrio discloses a state estimation method (e.g. claim 1), a non-transitory storage medium that stores a state estimation program of a brake apparatus for a hoisting machine ([0066, 0067]: Barrio discloses a method executed by a microprocessor to determine brake pad wear state. Although not explicitly disclosed by Barrio, Examiner is taking Official notice that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the method of Barrio into a program stored within a non-transitory storage medium to be executed by the microprocessor, since it is merely utilizing a general purpose computer to perform a function that is well-known in the art) and a state estimation apparatus for a brake apparatus for a hoisting machine (e.g. [0017, 0036, 0037]: detect brake pad state of an elevator machine), the state estimation apparatus comprising a processor (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0017]: controller 26) that is configured to:
Barrio discloses a brake material (e.g. Fig. 2: 34) fixed to a brake plate (e.g. Fig. 2: 30) connected to a rotation shaft (e.g. Fig. 2: 16) of the hoisting machine (e.g. Fig. 1: 10 & [0017]) and a metal plate (e.g. Fig. 2: 22) holding the brake material and restraining movement of the brake plate come into contact with each other (e.g. Fig. 2: brake pad 34 prevent element 30 and element 22 come into contact with each other).
Barrio fails to disclose, but Heeder teaches acquire waveform information of an elastic wave (e.g. [0092-0093] generated in a case when the brake is applied (i.e. restraining movement of the brake plate and the metal plate with brake pad being pressed in between) (e.g. [0089]: detect signal fluctuation when brake is applied) using a sensor (e.g. Fig. 2: & [0062, 0068]: sensor 212 detects brake pad pressure load) provided on the metal plate (e.g. Figs. 1-2 & [0063]); and
estimate at least one of a surface state of the brake material, a surface state of the metal plate, and a contact state between the brake material and the metal plate based on a feature amount of the waveform information (e.g. Fig. 12 & [0089-0090, 0095, 0097]: amplitude-frequency signal).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Barrio with the teachings of Heeder, since Heeder suggests it is advantages to determine characteristic of a braking system by detecting amplitude-frequency signal of the braking system so that different abnormal states of the braking system can be determined by one sensor, instead of using different sensors for different components. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since it is merely simple substitutions of one known method with another (i.e. replacing brake state detection of Barrio with Heeder) according to KSR.
Regarding claim 2, Heeder teaches the processor is configured to estimate the contact state between the brake material and the metal plate from a difference (e.g. Fig. 12 & [0089, 0092, 0094]: deviation and fluctuation) from reference data acquired at the time of installation of the hoisting machine or replacement of the brake apparatus (i.e. normal value implies reference data of a healthy and/or new apparatus), based on a magnitude of an amplitude and a frequency of the elastic wave acquired by the sensor as the feature amount of the waveform information of the elastic wave (e.g. [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, Heeder teaches, as the feature amount of the waveform information of the elastic wave, the amplitude of the elastic wave is smaller than an amplitude of the reference data, and the frequency of the elastic wave is higher than a frequency of the reference data (e.g. Fig. 12 & [0089]).
Regarding claim 4, Heeder teaches the processor is configured to: accumulate the waveform information, and compare a difference between the waveform information and reference data acquired at the time of installation of the hoisting machine or replacement of the brake apparatus (e.g. Fig .12 & [0089]).
Regarding claim 5, Heeder the processor is configured to determine whether a state of the brake material has changed or whether the state of the brake material or a state of the metal plate has changed, based on continuity of the accumulated waveform information (e.g. Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 6, Barrio and Heeder in combination discloses a state estimation system for a brake apparatus (e.g. Barrio: [0037]: monitor brake pad wear) for a hoisting machine (e.g. Barrio: Fig. 1 & [0016, 0017]), the state estimation system comprising: a sensor provided on a metal plate (e.g. Heeder: Fig. 2: & [0062, 0068]: sensor 212 detects brake pad pressure load) that is configured to come into contact with a brake material (e.g. Barrio: Fig. 2: 34) fixed to a brake plate (e.g. Barrio: Fig. 2: 30) connected to a rotation shaft (e.g. Barrio: Fig. 2: 16) of the hoisting machine and is configured to restrain movement of the brake plate (e.g. Barrio: Fig. 2: brake pad 34 prevent element 30 and element 22 come into contact with each other); and the state estimation apparatus according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Barrio discloses the sensor is an AE sensor or a vibration sensor (e.g. [0036-0037]: piezoelectric material to monitor brake pad wear, an piezo is a well-known vibration sensor).
Regarding claim 8, Barrio discloses a brake system (e.g. Figs. 1-2 & Abstract) for a hoisting machine (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0016, 0017]), comprising: a brake plate (e.g. Fig. 2: 30) connected to a rotation shaft (e.g. Fig. 2: 16) of the hoisting machine (e.g. Fig. 1: 10 & [0017]); a brake material fixed to the brake plate; a brake material (e.g. Fig. 2: 34) fixed to a brake plate (e.g. Fig. 2: 30) and is configured to restrain movement of the brake plate (e.g. Fig. 2: brake pad 34 prevent element 30 and element 22 come into contact with each other); and the state estimation system (e.g. [0017, 0036, 0037]: detect brake pad state of an elevator machine) for a brake apparatus for a hoisting machine according to claim 6 .
Regarding claim 9, Barrio discloses an elevator maintenance system (e.g. [0037]: monitor brake pad wear) comprising the brake system for a hoisting machine (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0016, 0017]) according to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights