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 .
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 1-10 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.
As to claims 1 and 6, the limitation “a manager computer which is a non-transitory computer defining the remote device” in line 12 of claim 1 and line 33 of claim 6 renders the claims unclear. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of a manager computer defining the remote device is and what that would mean for the structure of the two claimed elements. As best understood based on the disclosure, it is believed that this is intended to recite that the remote device is a manager computer. This is the interpretation that will be used below.
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and claims 7-10 depend from claim 6 and inherit this issue therefrom.
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 1-10 are directed to a lifetime estimation system for a working machine, which is considered to be a machine. Claim 11-17 are directed to a working machine, which is also considered to be a machine. Therefore claims 1-17 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-12 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a lifetime estimation system for a working machine, comprising “receive the operation information transmitted from the communicator of the working machine,
calculate a strain for a target portion of the working machine to be subjected to lifetime estimation based on the hydraulic cylinder pressure and the attitude information included in the operation information detected by the one or more sensors and received by the manager computer from the communicator of the working machine,
obtain information about the time of occurrences, on the target portion, of one or more specific strains that are determined to be equal to or greater than a predetermined value set for the target portion and selected from all the strains calculated for the target portion,
estimate a lifetime for the target portion based on the information about the number of occurrences of the one or more specific strains” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0051]-[0075] of the instant PGPub, teaches the calculating, obtaining, and estimating to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the receiving, obtaining, and estimating could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements “a working machine including a machine body,
a work portion provided on the machine body,
at least one hydraulic cylinder to actuate the work portion,
one or more sensors to detect operation information including a hydraulic cylinder pressure which is a hydraulic pressure of the at least one hydraulic cylinder and attitude information which is information about an attitude of the work portion, and
a communicator communicably connected to a remote device located remotely from the working machine and configured to transmit, to the remote device, the operation information detected by the one or more sensors; and
a manager computer which is a non-transitory computer defining the remote device;”
and to “provide a notification about the lifetime estimated for the target portion.” The additional elements of the work portion, the machine body, the at least one hydraulic cylinder, the one or more sensors, the communicator, and the manager computer, and providing are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the one or more sensors are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. The one or more sensors limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The communicator and the manager computer are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. The providing a notification is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than post-solution activity. Even if the receiving is considered to be an additional element, the receiving data is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a working machine including a machine body,
a work portion provided on the machine body,
at least one hydraulic cylinder to actuate the work portion,
one or more sensors to detect operation information including a hydraulic cylinder pressure which is a hydraulic pressure of the at least one hydraulic cylinder and attitude information which is information about an attitude of the work portion, and
a communicator communicably connected to a remote device located remotely from the working machine and configured to transmit, to the remote device, the operation information detected by the one or more sensors; and
a manager computer which is a non-transitory computer defining the remote device;”
and to “provide a notification about the lifetime estimated for the target portion” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the work portion, the machine body, the at least one hydraulic cylinder, the one or more sensors, the communicator, and the manager computer are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the one or more sensors is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the calculations of the strain calculator and lifetime calculator mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The communicator and the manager computer limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The communicator and the manager computer are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. The providing a notification is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than post-solution activity. Even if the receiving is considered to be an additional element, the receiving data is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-3 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Note that claim 7 does recite the further additional elements of the working machine, however this limitation was discussed above for claim 1. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 6 is directed to a lifetime estimation system comprising “a processor configured or programmed to calculate a strain for a target portion of the working machine to be subjected to lifetime estimation based on the hydraulic cylinder pressure and the attitude information included in the operation information detected by the one or more sensors” and “the manager computer being configured or programmed to
receive the information about the calculated strain transmitted from the communicator of the working machine,
obtain information about the time of occurrences, on the target portion, of one or more specific strains that are determined to be equal to or greater than a predetermined value set for the target portion and selected from all the strains calculated for the target portion,
estimate a lifetime for the target portion included in the working machine based on the information about the number of occurrences of the one or more specific strains”. which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0051]-[0075] of the instant PGPub, teaches the calculating, obtaining, and estimating to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the receiving, obtaining, and estimating could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 6 further recites the additional elements “a working machine including
a machine body,
a work portion provided on the machine body,
a hydraulic cylinder to actuate the work portion,
one or more sensors to detect operation information including a hydraulic cylinder pressure which is a hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic cylinder and attitude information which is information about an attitude of the work portion,
a processor configured or programmed to calculate a strain for a target portion of the working machine to be subjected to lifetime estimation based on the hydraulic cylinder pressure and the attitude information included in the operation information detected by the one or more sensors, and
a communicator communicably connected to a remote device located remotely from the working machine and configured to transmit, to the remote device, information about the strain calculated by the processor, and
a manager computer which is a non-transitory computer defining the remote device” and “provide a notification about the lifetime estimated for the target portion”. The additional elements of the work portion, the machine body, the hydraulic cylinder, the one or more sensors, a processor, the communicator, and the manager computer are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the one or more sensors are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. The one or more sensors limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor, the communicator, and the manager computer are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. The providing a notification is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than post-solution activity. Even if the receiving is considered to be an additional element, the receiving data is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a working machine including
a machine body,
a work portion provided on the machine body,
a hydraulic cylinder to actuate the work portion,
one or more sensors to detect operation information including a hydraulic cylinder pressure which is a hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic cylinder and attitude information which is information about an attitude of the work portion,
a processor configured or programmed to calculate a strain for a target portion of the working machine to be subjected to lifetime estimation based on the hydraulic cylinder pressure and the attitude information included in the operation information detected by the one or more sensors, and
a communicator communicably connected to a remote device located remotely from the working machine and configured to transmit, to the remote device, information about the strain calculated by the processor, and
a manager computer which is a non-transitory computer defining the remote device” and “provide a notification about the lifetime estimated for the target portion” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the work portion, the machine body, the at least one hydraulic cylinder, the one or more sensors, the processor, the communicator, and the manager computer are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the one or more sensors is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the calculations of the strain calculator and lifetime calculator mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The processor, the communicator, and the manager computer limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor, the communicator, and the manager computer are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. The providing a notification is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than post-solution activity. Even if the receiving is considered to be an additional element, the receiving data is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible.
Claims 7-8 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 6 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 6 above.
Claim 11 is directed to a working machine comprising “one or more processors configured or programmed to
calculate a strain for a target portion of the working machine to be subjected to lifetime estimation based on the hydraulic cylinder pressure and the attitude information included in the operation information detected by the one or more sensors,
obtain information about the number of occurrences, on the target portion, of one or more specific strains that are determined to be equal to or greater than a predetermined value set for the corresponding target portion and selected from all the strains calculated for the target portion,
estimate a lifetime for the target portion based on the information about the number of occurrences, on the target portion, of the one or more specific strains” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0051]-[0075] of the instant PGPub, teaches the calculating, obtaining, and estimating to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the receiving, obtaining, and estimating could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 11 further recites the additional elements “a machine body;
a work portion provided on the machine body;
a hydraulic cylinder to actuate the work portion;
one or more sensors to detect operation information including a hydraulic cylinder pressure which is a hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic cylinder and attitude information which is information about an attitude of the work portion; and
one or more processors” and “provide a notification about the lifetime estimated for the target portion”. The additional elements of the work portion, the machine body, the hydraulic cylinder, the one or more sensors, one or more processors are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the one or more sensors are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. The one or more sensors limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The one or more processors are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. The providing a notification is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than post-solution activity. Even if the receiving is considered to be an additional element, the receiving data is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a machine body;
a work portion provided on the machine body;
a hydraulic cylinder to actuate the work portion;
one or more sensors to detect operation information including a hydraulic cylinder pressure which is a hydraulic pressure of the hydraulic cylinder and attitude information which is information about an attitude of the work portion; and
one or more processors” and “provide a notification about the lifetime estimated for the target portion” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the work portion, the machine body, the at least one hydraulic cylinder, the one or more sensors, one or more processors are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the one or more sensors is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the calculations of the strain calculator and lifetime calculator mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The processor, the communicator, and the manager computer limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The one or more processors are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. The providing a notification is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than post-solution activity. Even if the receiving is considered to be an additional element, the receiving data is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible.
Claim 12 recites the further additional elements of “a memory and/or storage as a database”. The memory and/or storage are recited at such a high level of generality as to merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, in particular a computer. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 12 is not eligible.
Claim 13 recites the further additional element of “a communicator communicably connected to a manager computer which is a non-transitory computer located remotely from the working machine, the manager computer including a database”. The communicatory and manager computer are recited at such a high level of generality as to merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, in particular a computer. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 13 is not eligible.
Claim 14 merely extends the abstract idea identified above for claim 11 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 11 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the traversal of the means-plus function interpretation on pages 26-28, it is considered that the various claimed elements are now defined by enough structure to no longer invoke 112(f).
With respect to the argument that the notification about the estimated lifetime integrates the recited features into a practical application on page 28, it is considered that the notification is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than post-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept.
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 JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights