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
Current application, US Application No. 18/190,145 filed on filed on 03/27/2023, claims foreign priority to JP 2022-091375, filed on 06/06/2022.
Examiner acknowledges that the certified copy of foreign priority document has been received. However, the certified English translation copy of the original foreign document, which is not written in English, has not been received. There is no requirement to submit certified English translation copy at this stage according to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3). However, should the need of certified English translated copy arise according to the cases mentioned in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3), submission may be requested in the future.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 03/27/2023. Claims 1-23 are currently pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because unnecessary cluttering items are found. Please see the annotated edit below and remove unnecessary items for clarity. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
PNG
media_image1.png
559
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claims 1-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claims 1, 22 and 23, the limitation “that” in “that is correlated with magnitude of power consumption of the pump” should be deleted to reduce a clutter. The limitation “acquired by the power index acquisition section” in “based on the value of the power index acquired by the power index acquisition section” should be also deleted to reduce the clutter because deletions do not change the substance and scope of the claim limitations. As per claim 22, the limitation “thereon” in “A teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program” should be also deleted to avoid a clutter.
As per claim 23, the limitation “acquired in the acquiring the power index” in “based on the value of the power index acquired in the acquiring the power index” should be deleted to avoid unnecessary clutter for clarity.
As per claims 2-21, claims are also objected because base claim 1 is objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The current application includes limitations in claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18 and 20-22 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18 and 20-22 include a limitation/element that use generic placeholders, various section(s) that are coupled with functional language, configured to “acquire”, “determine”, “decide”, or “output” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structure of the “determination section” is interpreted as a subcomponent of a computer (see specification – control unit 160 is realized by the computer [Fig. 1], a determination section 348 [0085, 0098, Fig. 1, 3], which is inside the control unit 160).
The physical structure of the “power index acquisition section” is interpreted as a circulatory system sensor (see specification – The circulatory system sensor 298 may be one example of a power index acquisition section [0083], 298: circulatory system sensor [0193, Fig. 2]).
The physical structure of the “a fluid temperature acquisition section” is interpreted as a fluid temperature sensor (see specification – liquid temperature sensor 292 may be one example of a fluid temperature acquisition section [0083, Fig. 2]).
The physical structure of the “a decision section” is interpreted as a subcomponent of a computer (see specification – control unit 160 is realized by the computer [Fig. 1], a determination section 348 [0085, 0098, Fig. 1, 3], which is inside the control unit 160, decision section 346 [0085, Fig. 3-4], which is inside the determination section 348).
The physical structure of the “an environment temperature acquisition section” is interpreted as an air temperature sensor (see specification – outside air temperature sensor 294 may be one example of an environment temperature acquisition section [0083, Fig. 2]).
The physical structure of the “a driving section” is interpreted as a driving unit which is a mechanical part comprising pump which circulates fluids, e.g. lubricants, through gear boxes. (see specification – driving unit 140 [0025, 0094, Fig. 1 & 2]), which comprises gear box, pump and pump driving motor).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 6-10, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claim 6, the limitations “acquire information indicating one or more determination criteria including the determination criterion that respectively correspond to one or more fluid temperature ranges which are one or more numerical ranges regarding the temperature of the fluid; (limitation A)
decide an adaptive criterion which is a determination criterion of the one or more determination criteria that corresponds to the temperature of the fluid acquired by the fluid temperature acquisition section (limitation B)” are ambiguous because deciding an adaptive criterion of a determination criterion (singular) appears to choose one of “the one or more determination criteria acquired” (plural) in the first limitation, i.e. limitation A. However, neither claims nor specification describe how to choose one of many determination criteria adaptively using a certain rule, condition or method. Since adaptively choosing is stated without meats and bounds, the limitation B is indefinite.
As per claim 7-10, claims are also rejected because base claim 6 is rejected.
As per claim 18, the limitation “a type of the instruction” is ambiguous because neither claims nor specification describe types of the instruction although the specification recites where the instruction comes from and repeats the same phrase as claimed without further details (see specification – an instruction form the user 20, instruction from the control unit 160 [0051], presence or absence of an instruction
to start the pump unit 270 and/or a type of that instruction [0121] ).
As per claim 21, the limitation “driving section” is ambiguous because the specification fails to mention “driving section”, but “driving unit” (see specification – driving unit 140 [0025, 0094, Fig. 1 & 2]), which comprises gear box, pump and pump driving motor. For the sake of examination, the limitation is interpreted as driving unit, which is a mechanical part comprising pump which circulates fluids, e.g. lubricants, through gear boxes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A determination apparatus configured to determine deterioration of a fluid to be used in circulation, (1.A) comprising:
a power index acquisition section configured to acquire information indicating a value of a power index, (1.B.1) which is an index that represents a state of a pump for circulating the fluid and that is correlated with magnitude of power consumption of the pump; (1.B.2)
and a determination section configured to, based on the value of the power index acquired by the power index acquisition section, determine (i) whether the fluid has deteriorated, (ii) a degree of the deterioration of the fluid, and/or (iii) necessity of replacement of the fluid. (1.C)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Apparatus - Machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.B.2) – (1.C) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Processing groupings as the limitations show Mathematical Relationship with optional Mental observation.
The highlighted limitation (1.A) shows a mathematical calculation/relationship of the fluid deterioration (see limitation 1.C and see specification [0164, Fig. 11], showing how to calculate the cumulative number of fails using the power index to determine deterioration of the fluid).
The highlighted limitation (1.B.2) shows mental observation regarding the description of the power index and also shows mathematical relationship between the index and the magnitude of power consumption.
The highlighted limitation (1.C) shows mathematical relationship between the power index value and the deterioration degree combined with mental judgement.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A determination apparatus”, “a power index acquisition section configured to acquire information indicating a value of a power index” and “a determination section”;
In Claim 6: “a fluid temperature acquisition section configured to acquire information indicating a temperature of the fluid” and “acquire information indicating one or more determination criteria”;
In Claim 10: “an environment temperature acquisition section configured to acquire information indicating a temperature of an environment in which the fluid is used”;
In Claim 21: “A mobile object”, “a driving section configured to output driving force for moving the mobile object”, “the fluid containing … a lubricant agent”, “the pump” and “the determination apparatus”;
In Claim 22: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that causes a computer to function”;
In Claim 23: “A determination method”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A determination apparatus”
is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links an apparatus with an abstract idea, i.e. determine deterioration of a fluid to be used in circulation. The limitation “a power index acquisition section configured to acquire information indicating a value of a power index” represents a standard data collection step using a generic sensor in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
The limitation/element “a determination section” represents a general computer or a processor in the art and it is not particular.
As per claim 6, the limitation “a fluid temperature acquisition section configured to acquire information indicating a temperature of the fluid” represents a standard temperature data collection step using a generic temperature sensor in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation/step “acquire information indicating one or more determination criteria” represents a standard decision criteria collection step in the art and also only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 10, the limitation “an environment temperature acquisition section configured to acquire information indicating a temperature of an environment in which the fluid is used” represents a standard environment temperature data collection step using a generic environment temperature sensor in the art and only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception.
As per claim 21: the additional elements “A mobile object, comprising:
a driving section configured to output driving force for moving the mobile object;
the fluid containing, as a principal component, a lubricant agent to be used for lubricating a machine component constituting at least part of the driving section;
the pump;
and the determination apparatus” shows physical and tangible elements, e.g. a mechanical part comprising pump which circulates fluids, e.g. lubricants, through gear boxes, in the art which indicates an integration of a practical application to the judicial exception at step 2A prong 2 and therefore claim 21 is patent eligible.
As per claim 22, the additional element in the preamble “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that causes a computer to function” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the storage mediums with an apparatus performing an abstract idea, i.e. determine deterioration of a fluid to be used in circulation. The additional elements also represent general computer sub components and they are not particular in the art.
As per claims 23, the additional element in the preamble “A determination method”
is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links an apparatus with an abstract idea, i.e. determine deterioration of a fluid to be used in circulation.
In conclusion, the above additional elements except those treated as patent eligible, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Vogt, Ikeda and others in the list of prior art of record)
Claims 1-20 and 22-23, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 15-18, 20-22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt (EP 2341340 B1), hereinafter “Vogt” in view of Ikeda (US 20160133070 A1), hereinafter “Ikeda”.
As per claim 1, Vogt discloses
A determination apparatus configured to determine deterioration of a fluid to be used in circulation, (a measuring device for fluid state change, in particular for monitoring the oil quality in a vehicle, for monitoring fluids and in particular for operating and lubricating agents in a drive or a device, preferably in a vehicle engine [pg. 2 line 12-20]) comprising:
a power index acquisition section configured to acquire information indicating a value of a power index, which is an index that represents a state of a pump for circulating the fluid and that is correlated with magnitude of power consumption of the pump; (measuring device, fluid or oil pump whose power consumption is monitored as a measure of the oil quality, pump whose power consumption is measured and thus meaningful measurements of the oil quality ‘aging, viscosity … are obtained [pg. 2 line 21-31], measuring the power consumption of a fluid pump, current consumption … ammeter [pg. 3 line 32-40, Fig. 1])
and based on the value of the power index acquired by the power index acquisition section, determine (i) whether the fluid has deteriorated, (ii) a degree of the deterioration of the fluid. (oil quality factors, pump whose power consumption is monitored as a measure of the oil quality … aging, viscosity [pg. 2 line 26], the measurement of power consumption as a direct measure of the oil quality [pg. 3 line 37-38, Fig. 1]).
However, Vogt is silent regarding determine (iii) a necessity of replacement of the fluid and using a determination section.
Ikeda discloses determining the necessity of replacement of the vehicle consumable including liquid (figuring out a deterioration state of a consumable of the vehicle [abs], deterioration sates of consumable [0008], the degree of deterioration, the deterioration rate … that requires … replacement [0031], engine oil, the deterioration rate [0032], liquid such as oil and coolant, and gas [0059-0060]) and using a computer (computer … vehicle managing system [0004, 0025, Fig. 1]), which implies including the determination section.
Ikeda is in the same art of determining the quality of the vehicle liquid like Vogt.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Vogt in view of Ikeda to configure a determination section to, based on the value of the power index acquired by the power index acquisition section, determine (i) whether the fluid has deteriorated, (ii) a degree of the deterioration of the fluid, and/or (iii) necessity of replacement of the fluid for handling a required vehicle maintenance with ease (see Vogt - monitoring the oil quality in a vehicle in a simple manner [pg. 2 line 12-13], quality for the smooth and low-maintenance operation of a drive or device are important [line 18-20]).
As per claim 15, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 1 set forth above.
Vogt further discloses viscosity properties of the fluid, use of fluid temperature to determine the declining fluid quality (viscosity [pg. 2 line 3, line 26 ], oil temperature, temperature profile, indication of the declining oil quality [pg. 4 line 6-14, pg. 5 13-17, Fig. 3-4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art to check viscosity at a predetermined temperature or in a predetermined temperature range as the fluid principal component decreases as deterioration of the liquid progresses for handling a required vehicle maintenance with ease.
As per claim 16, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 1 set forth above.
Vogt further discloses
the fluid contains, as a principal component, a lubricant agent to be used for lubricating a machine component for driving a mobile object, (engine oil in a motor vehicle [pg. 1 line 23], lubricant [line 27]),
the fluid and the pump are mounted on the mobile object, and the determination apparatus further comprises a decision section configured to, based on at least one of a movement status of the mobile object or a start status of the pump, decide whether to execute determination processing of the deterioration of the fluid. Vogt - (sensors … vehicle …motor position …angle and lateral acceleration sensors, a corresponding deduction of the permitted running distance can be made until the next oil change, temporal level change at engine start, as with viscous oil only a slow pumping out of the oil pan takes place [pg. 3 line 2-22]).
As per claim 17, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 16 set forth above.
Vogt further discloses
deciding the movement status of the mobile object based on at least one of movement velocity of the mobile object, a movement distance from a position where a user of the mobile object started the mobile object, or elapsed time from a time point where the user of the mobile object started the mobile object. (over a certain time or distance, running distance, off-distance [pg. 2 line 37 – pg. 3 line 10], at engine start [pg. 3 line 2-22]).
As per claim 18, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 16 set forth above.
Vogt further discloses deciding the start status of the pump based on presence or absence of an instruction to start the pump (oil flow, temporal level change at engine start … slow pumping out [pg. 3 line 15-17], additional measured values are … stored in a control unit and compared again and again [pg. 3 line 23-25], control unit 15 and evaluation unit 17 [pg. 4 line 27-31], implying using the instruction of a processor).
As per claim 20, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 1 set forth above.
Vogt discloses configuring the power index acquisition section to acquire the information indicating the value of the power index regarding the pump from a mobile object mounted with the fluid and the pump (a measuring device for fluid state change, in particular for monitoring the oil quality in a vehicle, for monitoring fluids and in particular for operating and lubricating agents in a drive or a device … in a vehicle engine [pg. 2 line 12-20], measuring device, fluid or oil pump whose power consumption is monitored as a measure of the oil quality, pump whose power consumption is measured and thus meaningful measurements of the oil quality ‘aging, viscosity … are obtained [pg. 2 line 21-31]), but is silent regarding the information acquisition via communication network.
Ikeda discloses information acquisition via communication network (the vehicle 20 has: a vehicle-information acquiring unit 21 for acquiring and collecting various vehicle information; and a control unit 22 which controls the behavior of the vehicle or others based on the acquired vehicle information and which has a communication function of transmitting the vehicle information to the vehicle preventive maintenance server 10 via the network 50 by wireless communication [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art to acquire the information indicating the value of the power index regarding the pump from a mobile object mounted with the fluid and the pump via communication network for handling a required vehicle maintenance with ease.
As per claim 21, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 16 set forth above.
Vogt further discloses
a mobile object, (Vogt – a vehicle [pg. 2 line 12-20]) comprising:
a driving section configured to output driving force for moving the mobile object; (vehicle engine [pg. 2 line 12-20])
the fluid containing, as a principal component, a lubricant agent to be used for lubricating a machine component constituting at least part of the driving section; (motors, gearboxes, fluids, lubricants [pg. 1 line 27], vehicle engine, engine oil, lubricants and all other fluids [pg. 2 line 16-20])
the pump; (pump [pg. 2 line 24-25])
and the determination apparatus (a measuring device for fluid state change, in particular for monitoring the oil quality in a vehicle, for monitoring fluids [pg. 2 line 16-20]).
As per claim 22, Vogt discloses
a determination apparatus configured to determine deterioration of a fluid to be used in circulation, (a measuring device for fluid state change, in particular for monitoring the oil quality in a vehicle, for monitoring fluids and in particular for operating and lubricating agents in a drive or a device, preferably in a vehicle engine [pg. 2 line 12-20]) comprising:
a power index acquisition section configured to acquire information indicating a value of a power index, which is an index that represents a state of a pump for circulating the fluid and that is correlated with magnitude of power consumption of the pump; (measuring device, fluid or oil pump whose power consumption is monitored as a measure of the oil quality, pump whose power consumption is measured and thus meaningful measurements of the oil quality ‘aging, viscosity … are obtained [pg. 2 line 21-31], measuring the power consumption of a fluid pump, current consumption … ammeter [pg. 3 line 32-40, Fig. 1])
and based on the value of the power index acquired by the power index acquisition section, determine (i) whether the fluid has deteriorated, (ii) a degree of the deterioration of the fluid. (oil quality factors, pump whose power consumption is monitored as a measure of the oil quality … aging, viscosity [pg. 2 line 26], the measurement of power consumption as a direct measure of the oil quality [pg. 3 line 37-38, Fig. 1]).
However, Vogt is silent regarding determine (iii) a necessity of replacement of the fluid, use of a determination section and uses of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that causes a computer to function as a determination apparatus.
Ikeda discloses determining the necessity of replacement of the vehicle consumable including liquid (figuring out a deterioration state of a consumable of the vehicle [abs], deterioration sates of consumable [0008], the degree of deterioration, the deterioration rate … that requires … replacement [0031], engine oil, the deterioration rate [0032], liquid such as oil and coolant, and gas [0059-0060]), using a computer (computer … vehicle managing system [0004, 0025, Fig. 1]), which implies including the determination section, and using a storage unit associated with maintenance planning unit in a vehicle preventive maintenance system which includes computer (vehicle preventive maintenance system, storage unit, managing unit [0012]).
Ikeda is in the same art of determining the quality of the vehicle liquid like Vogt.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Vogt in view of Ikeda to disclose use of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that causes a computer to function as a determination apparatus and use a determination section configured to, based on the value of the power index acquired by the power index acquisition section, determine (i) whether the fluid has deteriorated, (ii) a degree of the deterioration of the fluid, and/or (iii) necessity of replacement of the fluid for handling a required vehicle maintenance with ease
As per claim 23, Vogt discloses
determining deterioration of a fluid to be used in circulation, (for fluid state change, in particular for monitoring the oil quality in a vehicle, for monitoring fluids and in particular for operating and lubricating agents in a drive or a device, preferably in a vehicle engine [pg. 2 line 12-20]) comprising:
acquiring information indicating a value of a power index, which is an index that represents a state of a pump for circulating the fluid and that is correlated with magnitude of power consumption of the pump, by acquiring information indicating a value of the power index; (measuring device, fluid or oil pump whose power consumption is monitored as a measure of the oil quality, pump whose power consumption is measured and thus meaningful measurements of the oil quality ‘aging, viscosity … are obtained [pg. 2 line 21-31], measuring the power consumption of a fluid pump, current consumption … ammeter [pg. 3 line 32-40, Fig. 1])
and determine (i) whether the fluid has deteriorated, (ii) a degree of the deterioration of the fluid. (oil quality factors, pump whose power consumption is monitored as a measure of the oil quality … aging, viscosity [pg. 2 line 26], the measurement of power consumption as a direct measure of the oil quality [pg. 3 line 37-38, Fig. 1]) based on the value of the power index acquired by the power index acquisition section.
However, Vogt is silent regarding determine (iii) a necessity of replacement of the fluid and fails to explicitly recite a method of determination.
Ikeda discloses determining the necessity of replacement of the vehicle consumable including liquid (figuring out a deterioration state of a consumable of the vehicle [abs], deterioration sates of consumable [0008], the degree of deterioration, the deterioration rate … that requires … replacement [0031], engine oil, the deterioration rate [0032], liquid such as oil and coolant, and gas [0059-0060]) and using a method of adjusting (method of adjusting the deterioration rate [0034])
Ikeda is in the same art of determining the quality of the vehicle liquid like Vogt.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Vogt in view of Ikeda to determine (i) whether the fluid has deteriorated, (ii) a degree of the deterioration of the fluid, and/or (iii) necessity of replacement of the fluid based on the value of the power index acquired in the acquiring the power index for handling a required vehicle maintenance with ease.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt and Ikeda in view of Miller (Miller (US 20230116404 A1), hereinafter “Miller”.
As per claim 2, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding the power index is at least one of power consumption amount (Wh) of the pump in each period, a statistic amount of power consumption (W) of the pump in each period, a statistic amount of rotation speed (r/min) of the pump in each period, or a statistic amount of torque (N
°
m) of the pump in each period.
Miller discloses power consumption amount for a period of time ((current power consumption value … current period of time, an updated power consumption value of the … pump over an update period of time [0010], pump power consumption over a period of time [0077], RPM, set period of time [0097], pump power consumption value aggregated or averaged over a period of time [0100]).
Miller also concerned about determining a quality of the fluid circulated by the pump like the prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Miller to set the power index as at least one of power consumption amount (Wh) of the pump in each period, a statistic amount of power consumption (W) of the pump in each period, a statistic amount of rotation speed (r/min) of the pump in each period, or a statistic amount of torque (N ° m) of the pump in each period for a convenient way to determine the fluid quality with precision.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt, Ikeda and Miller in view of Kazuno (JP 2016115426 A), hereinafter “Kazuno”.
As per claim 3, Vogt, Ikeda and Miller disclose claim 2 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art discloses the claim except the condition of checking if the rotation speed of the pump is a predetermined value or falls within a predetermined numerical range.
The missing checking condition can be found in the newly found reference, Kazuno, in (rotational speed of the … pump … is limited to a predetermined rotational speed [pg. 5-15]) for setting operational range of the pump related to determining voltage range of the pump.
Kazuno is in the similar vehicle part controlling art like the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Kazuno to configure the power index acquisition section to acquire the information indicating the value of the power index as in the claim if the rotation speed of the pump is a predetermined value or falls within a predetermined numerical range for determining the fluid quality with precision.
As per claim 4, Vogt, Ikeda, Miller and Kazuno disclose claim 3 set forth above.
Kazuno further disclose the statistic amount to be a mean value (power consumption of the … pump, average value is obtained [pg. 14 line 1-9]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt and Ikeda in view of Eggart (DE 102021103389 A1), hereinafter “Eggart” and Veit (DE 102013204725 A1), hereinafter ‘Veit’.
As per claim 5, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art disclose the claim except the condition of the value of the power index.
Eggart disclose the power index value condition to be a predetermined amount of power consumption data when analyzing the fluid cluster characteristics (instead of directly measuring a property of the fluid, as is typical of various prior art solutions, the present invention can obtain power consumption data (e.g., flow data) of the pump that is supplying the fluid and, based thereon, calculate the determine the property of the fluid [ pg. 3 line 30-35], cluster recalculation may be performed after a predetermined amount of power consumption data has been added to the clusters, [pg. 12 line 13-18], side note: cluster in chromatography shows a particular characteristic sample in the fluid).
Eggart addresses determining a characteristic of a fluid delivered by a pump using the power consumption value of the pump similar to the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Eggart to configure the determination section to determine (i) whether the fluid has deteriorated, (ii) the degree of the deterioration of the fluid, and/or (iii) the necessity of the replacement of the fluid based on whether the value of the power index acquired by the power index acquisition section meets a predetermined determination criterion for determining the fluid quality with precision.
However, the combined prior art is silent regarding the determination criterion is a numerical range for which at least one of an upper limit or a lower limit is predetermined, or a numerical range to be derived based on a predetermined function.
Veit discloses controlling power consumption of the pump defined by the predetermined criteria, e.g. maximum limit, can be used to control the fuel injection pump (power consumption of the electric fuel pump … by a maximum limit [abs, pg. 5 line 5-14 ]).
Veit is in the same vehicle component control art like the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Veit to set the determination criterion as a numerical range for which at least one of an upper limit or a lower limit is predetermined for determining the fluid quality with precision.
Claims 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt and Ikeda in view of Okihara (JP 2022165463 A), hereinafter ‘Oki’.
As per claim 11, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 1 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding use of a machine learning model to determine the quality of transported fluid.
Oki discloses use of a learning model to determine a deterioration of lubricant oil (a learning model … output deterioration information indicative of a deterioration state of a lubrication oil using image data of the lubrication oil [abs, claim 1], the power output value … may be included, may include drive current value … drive current of a motor [pg. 11 line 26-32], if the machine lubricated by the lubricating oil 310 is an electric motor, the measurement data input to the learning model 610 may include data indicating the input voltage or current of the electric motor, data indicating the number of rotations of the electric motor, and data indicating the number of revolutions of the electric motor. Data indicating the temperature, data indicating the output of the electric motor, and the like may be included [line 33-38]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Oki to determine the fluid quality using a machine learning model as claimed for determining the fluid quality with precision.
As per claim 13, Vogt, Ikeda and Oki disclose claim 11 set forth above.
Vogt further discloses acquiring information indicating a temperature of the fluid (at least one additional sensor for the oil temperature, temperature profile [pg. 4 line 4-14]) and output/display the determination results (an oil change … extreme values or deviations … warning … display [pg. 2 line 32-26]) as claimed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt, Ikeda and Oki in view of JP ‘022 (JP S6397022 U), hereinafter “JP022”.
As per claim 14, Vogt, Ikeda and Oki disclose claim 11 set forth above.
Vogt further discloses acquiring information indicating a temperature of the fluid (at least one additional sensor for the oil temperature, temperature profile [pg. 4 line 4-14]) and output/display the determination results (an oil change … extreme values or deviations … warning … display [pg. 2 line 32-26]) as claimed in view other combined prior art.
However, the set forth combined prior art is silent regarding acquire information indicating a temperature of an environment in which the fluid is used.
JP022 discloses acquiring the temperatures of the atmosphere and fuel (B (temperature … states, such as the atmosphere and fuel [pg. 3 line 19-20, pg. 5 line 41-42 ], detect air temperature or the temperature of the liquid fuel of a fuel tank [pg. 5 line 30-31]).
JP022 is also concerned about determining the fluid quality if a vehicle like the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of JP022 to acquire temperature of an environment in which the fluid is used and determine the fluid quality using the acquired temperatures for determining the fluid quality with precision.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt and Ikeda in view of Berndorfer (US 20030005751 A1), hereinafter ‘Bern”.
As per claim 19, Vogt and Ikeda disclose claim 16 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is explicit regarding the determination apparatus is mounted on the mobile object.
Bern discloses the processor mounted on the vehicle (onboard method [0005], determining oil viscosity [0007], control module 24, digital signal processor, onboard chip [0025, Fig. 1-3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Bern to mount the determination apparatus on the mobile object for determining the fluid quality in a vehicle with precision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claim 6, the closest prior art of record, Vogt, Ikeda, Eggart and Veit, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations
“acquire information indicating one or more determination criteria including the determination criterion that respectively correspond to one or more fluid temperature ranges which are one or more numerical ranges regarding the temperature of the fluid;
decide an adaptive criterion which is a determination criterion of the one or more determination criteria that corresponds to the temperature of the fluid acquired by the fluid temperature acquisition section” in combination with other limitations.
As per claims 7-10, claims would be allowable because base claim 6 would be allowable.
As per claim 12, the closest prior art of record, Vogt, Ikeda and Oki, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations “if an absolute value of difference between the temperature of the fluid in an (n-1)th sampling period (n is an integer equal to or greater than 2 of the plurality of sampling periods and the temperature of the fluid in an nth sampling period of the plurality of sampling periods does not meet a predetermined condition, decide not to execute the determination processing, or not to output a determination result of the determination processing even if executing the determination processing, and the predetermined condition includes a condition that the absolute value is greater than a predetermined value, or a condition that the absolute value is equal to or greater than a predetermined value” in combination of other limitations.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as additional references relevant to the current claims.
Takahashi (US 20020139331 A1) discloses (detects the degree of deterioration of hydraulic fluid such as a change in the viscosity of the hydraulic fluid based on at least one of an oil temperature [0055], degree of deterioration of … fluid, degree of deterioration which requires replacement [0055-0056]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857y7