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 .
Status of the claims
The argument received on February, 24 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-14, and 18-19 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Thus, claims 1 and 3-22 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 24, 2026 with respect to the claim rejection of claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the claim rejection of claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. (b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 24, 2026 with respect to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 24, 2026 with respect to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 1, 3-5, 8-14, and 18-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to MPEP 2181, II, B, “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Image… the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241.” A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding algorithm for performing the claimed function as described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Figs. 3A-3B and page 9, line 33-page 14, line 23.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3-14 and 18-22 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A system for monitoring operation of a lubrication apparatus, which is connected to provide a pulsating flow of lubricant on a lubrication path to a lubrication point of a machine, said system comprising:
a pressure sensor configured to provide a pressure signal representing measured fluid pressure in the lubrication path, and
a control unit configured to process pressure data in the pressure signal for detection of pulses,
wherein the control unit is programmed with logical instructions process a time sequence of monitoring values given by the pressure data for detection of a rising edge with a gradient in excess of a threshold value, wherein the control unit is further programmed with logical instructions to:
allocate a pulse at the rising edge,
count the detected pulses,
determine a malfunction of the lubrication apparatus when a number of detected pulses per unit time is outside a predefined range, and
generate an electronic signal indicative of the malfunction.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: 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 (process).
Step 2A, Prong One: 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 exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that 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.
For example, the additional element of “a control unit configured to process pressure data in the pressure signal for detection of pulses (see page 2, lines 3-12), wherein the control unit is programmed with logical instructions process a time sequence of monitoring values given by the pressure data for detection of a rising edge with a gradient in excess of a threshold value (see page 2, lines 3-12), wherein the control unit is further programmed with logical instructions to: allocate a pulse at the rising edge (see page 2, lines 3-12), count the detected pulses (see page 2, lines 14-15)” are mathematical calculations. Further, the limitation of “determine a malfunction of the lubrication apparatus when a number of detected pulses per unit time is outside a predefined range (see page 2, lines 14-15: C2)” is mental process (evaluation/judgement) based on mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or human mind, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 19 and 20.
Step 2A, Prong Two: 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a system for monitoring operation of a lubrication apparatus, which is connected to provide a pulsating flow of lubricant on a lubrication path to a lubrication point of a machine (preamble); step of a pressure sensor configured to provide a pressure signal representing measured fluid pressure in the lubrication path and generating an electronic signal indicative of the malfunction;
In Claim 19: a method of monitoring operation of a lubrication apparatus, which is connected to provide a pulsating flow of lubricant on a lubrication path to a lubrication point of a machine (preamble); step of obtaining a pressure signal representing measured fluid pressure in the lubrication path from a pressure sensor in the lubrication path and generating an electronic signal indicative of the malfunction; and
In Claim 20: a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer instructions which, when executed by at least one processor is configured to cause the at least one processor to perform the method (preamble); step of a pressure sensor configured to provide a pressure signal representing measured fluid pressure in the lubrication path and generating an electronic signal indicative of the malfunction.
The additional elements such as system, control unit, lubrication apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional element of “generating an electronic signal indicative of the malfunction” is insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Nishimura, Karlsson, Uusitalo (US 2013/0074628 A1)). For example, Nishimura and Karlsson teach the limitation of a system and method for monitoring operation of a lubrication apparatus, which is connected to provide a pulsating flow of lubricant on a lubrication path to a lubrication point of a machine (Fig. 1 and paras. [0024], [0026] of Nishimura; paras. [0029]-[0032] of Karlsson). Further, Nishimura, Karlsson, and Uusitalo teach the limitation of a pressure sensor configured to provide a pressure signal representing measured fluid pressure in the lubrication path (Fig. 1 and para. [0026] of Nishimura; paras. [0030]-[0040] of Karlsson; paras. [0029]-[0034] of Uusitalo) and obtaining a pressure signal representing measured fluid pressure in the lubrication path from a pressure sensor (Fig. 1 and para. [0026] of Nishimura; paras. [0030]-[0040] of Karlsson; paras. [0029]-[0034] of Uusitalo). Further, Nishimura, Karlsson, and Uusitalo teach the limitation of non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer instructions which, when executed by at least one processor (para. [0047] of Nishimura; paras. [0030]-[0040] of Karlsson; paras. [0015]-[0016] of Uusitalo). Furthermore, merely “generating” a result (i.e., an electronic signal indicative of the malfunction”) is nothing more than outputting a signal or displaying result. There is established case law (electric power group for example) to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claims 3-14 and 18-22,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mathematical calculations. The explanation for the rejection of Claim 1 therefore is incorporated herein and applied to Claims 2-14 and 18-22. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claim 1 and Claims 19-20 are just a description of the data received and used for mathematical calculations (i.e., merely parts of mathematical calculations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. (US 2005/0003036 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Nishimura”) (cited in IDS dated January 6, 2005).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura discloses a system (Fig. 1) for monitoring operation of a lubrication apparatus (para. [0024]: the centralized lubrication device 10 includes parallel distributors (for main-pipe depressurizing centralized lubrication) 14-1 and 14-2, a progressive distributor (for pressure-progressive centralized lubrication)), which is connected to provide a pulsating flow of lubricant (Fig. 1 parallel distributors 14-1 and 14-2) on a lubrication path to a lubrication point of a machine (Fig. 1, injecton molding machine 20), said system comprising:
a pressure sensor (Fig. 1, 16) configured to provide a pressure signal representing measured fluid pressure in the lubrication path (para. [0026]), and
a control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) configured to process pressure data in the pressure signal for detection of pulses (para. [0026]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored at predetermined intervals after lubrication is started by the pump 12 being driven),
wherein the control unit (para. [0026]: see above) is programmed with logical instructions (para. [0026]: controller; para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be constructed by using the processors, storage means, display means, and input means already provided in the controller of the injection molding machine and adding some software) to process a time sequence of monitoring values given by the pressure data (para. [0026]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is fed to a storage/calculation unit 17, in which the lubricant pressure is stored as a function of time) for detection of a rising edge with a gradient in excess of a threshold value (Fig. 10; paras. [0049]-[0052]), wherein the control unit is further programmed with logical instructions to (para. [0026]: input means already provided in the controller of the injection molding machine and adding some software):
allocate a pulse at the rising edge (Fig. 10; para. [0049]: sampling is performed at every predetermined sampling period. Then, “1” is added to the value of the indicator n (Step 103), note that the above feature of “1” reads on “ rising edge”),
count the detected pulses (Fig. 10; para. [0049]: the lubricant pressure P detected by the pressure sensor 16 is read, and stored as the lubricant pressure P(n) detected at the sampling time n indicated by the indicator “n” (Step 104)),
determine a malfunction of the lubrication apparatus when a number of detected pulses per unit time is outside a predefined range (para. [0050]: Further, reference data Ps(n) corresponding to the indicator n is read (Step 105), and whether the detected lubricant pressure P(n) is within the reference range corresponding to the reference data Ps(n) or not is determined (Step 106); para. [0051]: if the detected lubricant pressure P(n) is within the reference range, or in other words, if it satisfies the above formula (1), it is determined whether or not a lubrication termination command is issued from the host controller. If not, the procedure returns to Step 103, and then Steps 103 to 108 are performed at every predetermined processing period, note that the above feature of “if not within the range “ in para. [0051] reads on “malfunction”), and
generate an electronic signal indicative of the malfunction (para. [0052]: if it is determined at Step 106 that the detected lubricant pressure P(n) is not within the reference range, an alarm is given, note that the above feature of “alarm” reads on “generate an electronic signal indicative of the malfunction”).
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition Nishimura teaches that the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) is configured to, when a rising edge is detected, evaluate monitoring values subsequent to the rising edge in relation to a decay criterion (para. [0035]: If the detected lubricant pressure is not within the reference range, it is determined that there is an abnormality in a lubricant feeding passage of the parallel distributor, note that “rising edge” and “decay criterion” reads on “ “abnormality” and “reference range, ” respectively), and allocate the pulse at the rising edge provided that the decay criterion is fulfilled (Fig. 10 and paras. [0047]-[0054]: a lubrication abnormality and its location is determined. In place of the lubricant pressure, the lubricant flow rate may be measured).
Regarding claim 8, Nishimura discloses all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Nishimura discloses that the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) is configured to generate the time sequence of monitoring values to represent a time series of difference values between consecutive pressure values in the pressure signal from the pressure sensor (para. [0026]: detecting abnormality as a function of time; para. [0044]: sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals).
Regarding claim 19, it is a method type claim and has similar limitations as of part of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-program type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of a non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 1; para. [0047]: processor), taught by Nishimura.
Regarding claim 21, Nishimura discloses all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Nishimura discloses that the characteristic pressure values comprise an end pressure value at an end of the respective detection time period (para. [0044]: the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals after lubrication is started; para. [0048]: after the pump 12 starts to be driven, the lubricant pressure is detected by the pressure sensor 16 and stored at predetermined intervals, notes that the above feature of “at predetermined intervals” reads on “at an end of the respective detection time period”).
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 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.
Claims 4, 6-7, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura.
Regarding claim 4, Nishimura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition Nishimura teaches that the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) is configured to selectively increase a sampling rate of the pressure signal from pressure sensor in synchronization with a pulsation interval of the pulsating flow of lubricant (para. [0026]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored at predetermined intervals; para. [0049]: Sampling is performed at every predetermined sampling period, note that Nishimura teaches the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor at predetermined intervals (see para. [0026] and sampling performed at every predetermined sampling period (see para. [0049]) Therefore, selectively increasing a sampling rate of the pressure signal from pressure sensor in synchronization with a pulsation interval of the pulsating flow of lubricant would be an obvious variation of such methods. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Nishimura to perform the above feature in order to monitor the flow of lubricant related values).
Regarding claim 6, Nishimura teaches all the limitation of claim 5, in addition, Nishimura teaches that the decay criterion is fulfilled when the time sequence of monitoring values decreases by at least a predefined amount in relation to a peak pressure of the rising edge during a predefined decay period after the rising edge (para. [0026]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored at predetermined intervals; para. [0035]: If the detected lubricant pressure is not within the reference range, it is determined that there is an abnormality in a lubricant feeding passage of the parallel distributor, note that Nishimura teaches the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor at predetermined intervals (see para. [0026] and the reference range that corresponds to decay criterion (see para. [0035]). Therefore, the decay criterion fulfilled when the time sequence of monitoring values decreases by at least a predefined amount in relation to a peak pressure of the rising edge during a predefined decay period after the rising edge would be an obvious variation of such methods. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Nishimura to calculate the above feature in order to monitor the flow of lubricant related values).
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura teaches all the limitation of claim 5, in addition, Nishimura teaches that the decay criterion is fulfilled when the time sequence of monitoring values corresponds to a predefined decay profile during a predefined decay period after the rising edge (para. [0026]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored at predetermined intervals; para. [0035]: If the detected lubricant pressure is not within the reference range, it is determined that there is an abnormality in a lubricant feeding passage of the parallel distributor…if the waveform of the detected lubricant pressure deviates from the reference range, it is determined that there is an abnormality; para. [0044]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals… the stored lubricant pressure is used as reference data, note that Nishimura teach the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor at predetermined intervals (see para. [0026] and the reference range that corresponds to decay criterion (see para. [0035]). Therefore, the decay criterion is fulfilled when the time sequence of monitoring values corresponds to a predefined decay profile during a predefined decay period after the rising edge would be an obvious variation of such methods. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Nishimura to calculate the above feature in order to monitor the flow of lubricant related values).
Regarding claim 18, Nishimura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Nishimura teaches that the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) is configured to selectively increase a sensitivity for detecting the rising edge in the time sequence of monitoring values in synchronization with a pulsation interval of the pulsating flow of lubricant liquid (para. [0026]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored at predetermined intervals; para. [0049]: Sampling is performed at every predetermined sampling period, note that Nishimura teaches the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor at predetermined intervals (see para. [0026]) and sampling performed at every predetermined sampling period (see para. [0049]) Therefore, selectively increase a sensitivity for detecting the rising edge in the time sequence of monitoring values in synchronization with a pulsation interval of the pulsating flow of lubricant liquid would be an obvious variation of such methods because selectively increasing the sensitivity can be performed by adjusting sampling rate. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Nishimura to perform the above feature in order to monitor the pulsating flow of lubricant related values).
Regarding claim 22, Nishimura discloses all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Nishimura teaches that the respective detection time period is 10%-40% of the duration of a respective pulse in the pressure signal (para. [0044]: the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals after lubrication is started; para. [0048]: after the pump 12 starts to be driven, the lubricant pressure is detected by the pressure sensor 16 and stored at predetermined intervals, notes that the above feature of “at predetermined intervals” reads on “the claimed respective detection time period is 10%-40% of the duration of a respective pulse” because 10%-40% of the duration of a respective pulse is inherent functional property or obvious variation of predetermined intervals).
Claim 3 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Karlsson (US 2017/0152992 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Karlsson”) (cited in IDS dated June 22, 2023).
Regarding claim 3, Nishimura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition Nishimura teaches that the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) is further configured to estimate lubricant supplied to the lubrication point on the lubrication path based on the detected pulses (para. [0026]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is fed to a storage/calculation unit 17, in which the lubricant pressure is stored as a function of time; para. [0054]: the progressive distributor 15, a lubrication abnormality and its location is determined. In place of the lubricant pressure, the lubricant flow rate may be measured).
Nishimura does not specifically teach an amount of lubricant.
However, Karlsson teaches an amount of lubricant (paras. [0030]-[0031]: amount of lubricant).
Nishimura and Karlsson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of lubricant control system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the amount of lubricant such as is described in Karlsson into Nishimura, in order to provide a lubrication system and a method of lubricating that is more reliable in delivering the lubrication pulses to the lubrication stations in a machine by means of measurements and verification of the delivery of the pulses and size of the pulsed volume (Karlsson, para. [0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Dallmann et at. (US 2015/0349985 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Dallmann”).
Regarding claim 9, Nishimura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Nishimura teaches that the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) and sequence has an extent in time that is predefined in relation to the pulsating flow of lubricant (para. [0044]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals… the stored lubricant pressure is used as reference data).
Nishimura does not specifically teach that after allocating the pulse at the rising edge, skip a sub-sequence of monitoring values in the time sequence in relation to the rising edge, process the time sequence without the sub-sequence for detection of a further rising edge.
However, Dallmann teaches that after allocating the pulse at the rising edge, skip a sub-sequence of monitoring values in the time sequence in relation to the rising edge, process the time sequence without the sub-sequence for detection of a further rising edge (para. [0009]: The second sequence is rejected if a signal edge of the signal which is not allowed with respect to the second Manchester decoding occurs. The first sequence is rejected if a signal edge of the signal which is required with respect to the first Manchester decoding is missing, note that the above feature of second sequence reads on “sub-sequence”).
Nishimura and Dallmann both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using time sequence. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the skipping a sub-sequence such as is described in Dallmann into Nishimura, in order to allow the second sequence to be rejected if a signal edge of the signal which is not allowed with respect to the second Manchester decoding occurs (Dallmann, para. [0009]).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Li et at. (CN 114563759 A, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Nishimura teaches that the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) is configured to perform a data reduction process, in which the pressure signal is processed for detection of characteristic pressure values within non-overlapping and consecutive detection time periods (para. [0026]: detecting abnormality as a function of time; para. [0044]: sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals), wherein the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) is configured to generate an array that defines a time sequence of pressure values and includes the characteristic pressure values at respective time points (para. [0026]: detecting abnormality as a function of time; para. [0044]: sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals), wherein the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) is configured to obtain the time sequence of monitoring values based on the array (para. [0026]: detecting abnormality as a function of time; para. [0044]: sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals).
Nishimura does not specifically teach a sparse array.
However, Li teaches a sparse array (page 4, lines 10-12: the right side of the array element array is a sparse linear array with various array element intervals, and the array element intervals are all larger than 1 time of half wavelength of an incident signal of the sparse array and smaller than or equal to m times of half wavelength of the incident signal of the sparse array).
Nishimura and Li both are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using time sequence. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the skipping a sub-sequence such as is described in Li into Nishimura, in order to allow the distance between adjacent array elements to be larger than half wavelength, the mutual coupling effect between the array elements to be greatly reduced (Li, page 6, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 11, Nishimura in view of Li teaches all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Nishimura teaches that the characteristic pressure values comprise a minimum pressure value and a maximum pressure value of the respective detection time period (para. [0028]: in Fig. 2a-c; pressure of lubricant; para. [0044]: sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals).
Regarding claim 12, Nishimura in view of Li teaches all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Nishimura does not specifically teach that the sparse array comprises characteristic pressure values separated by gaps of non-assigned array elements, wherein the control unit is further configured to generate a dense array from the sparse array, by filling a respective gap bounded by two consecutive characteristic pressure values by adding one of the two characteristic pressure values to one or more of the non-assigned array elements within the respective gap, and wherein the control unit is configured to obtain the time sequence of monitoring values based on the dense array.
However, Li teaches that the sparse array comprises characteristic pressure values separated by gaps of non-assigned array elements, wherein the control unit is further configured to generate a dense array from the sparse array, by filling a respective gap bounded by two consecutive characteristic pressure values by adding one of the two characteristic pressure values to one or more of the non-assigned array elements within the respective gap, and wherein the control unit is configured to obtain the time sequence of monitoring values based on the dense array ( page 4, lines 10-12: the right side of the array element array is a sparse linear array with various array element intervals, and the array element intervals are all larger than 1 time of half wavelength of an incident signal of the sparse array and smaller than or equal to m times of half wavelength of the incident signal of the sparse array; page 4, lines 29-30: according to the array element number M, the optimal array parameters can be directly obtained through a formula, and meanwhile, the array aperture can also be directly calculated; page 12, lines 4-8: a left dense sub-array and a right sparse sub-array, note that the above feature of “smaller than or equal to m times of half wavelength of the incident signal of the sparse array” and “left dense sub-array” reads on “a dense array from the sparse array”).
Nishimura and Li both are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using time sequence. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sparse array such as is described in Li into Nishimura, in order to allow the distance between adjacent array elements to be larger than half wavelength, the mutual coupling effect between the array elements to be greatly reduced (Li, page 6, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 13, Nishimura in view of Li teaches all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Nishimura teaches that the respective detection time period is 1%- 50% of the duration of a respective pulse in the pressure signal (para. [0044]: the lubricant pressure detected by the pressure sensor 16 is sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals after lubrication is started, or in other words, the pump 12 starts to be drive, notes that Nishimura teaches pressure detection at predetermined intervals. Therefore, the respective detection time period that is 1%- 50% of the duration of a respective pulse in the pressure signal would be an inherent functional property or obvious variation of such methods).
Regarding claim 14, Nishimura in view of Li teaches all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Nishimura teaches that the control unit (para. [0026]: the storage/calculation unit 17 and the display/input unit 18 may be provided separately from a controller of the injection molding machine or provided in it) comprises a first calculation device (Fig. 1, calculation unit 17) and a second calculation device (Fig. 1, 18), wherein the first calculation device (Fig. 1, calculation unit 17) is connected to receive the pressure signal from the pressure sensor (para. [0026]: detecting abnormality as a function of time) and configured to perform the data reduction process and transfer the characteristic pressure values to the second calculation device (Fig. 1, 18), wherein the second calculation device (Fig. 1, 18) is configured to receive the characteristic pressure values from the first calculation device (Fig. 1, calculation unit 17) (para. [0026]: detecting abnormality as a function of time) and generate the sample value array (para. [0044]: sampled and stored in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals and these time periods are set through the display/input unit 18, notes that Nishimura teaches sampling and storing in the storage/calculation unit 17 at predetermined intervals and display unit. Therefore, perform the data reduction process and transfer the characteristic pressure values to the second calculation device would be an obvious variation of such methods).
Nishimura does not specifically teach a sparse array.
However, Li teaches a sparse array (page 4, lines 10-12: the right side of the array element array is a sparse linear array with various array element intervals, and the array element intervals are all larger than 1 time of half wavelength of an incident signal of the sparse array and smaller than or equal to m times of half wavelength of the incident signal of the sparse array).
Nishimura and Li both are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using time sequence. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the skipping a sub-sequence such as is described in Li into Nishimura, in order to allow the distance between adjacent array elements to be larger than half wavelength, the mutual coupling effect between the array elements to be greatly reduced (Li, page 6, lines 17-19).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Forsberg et al. (US 2020/0300355 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Forsberg”).
Regarding claim 15, Nishimura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Nishimura teaches further comprising: the open passage is dimensioned so that the pulsating flow is represented by pulses of at least a minimum amplitude in the pressure signal (para. [0026]: a pressure sensor 16 for detecting the pressure of lubricant fed to the parallel distributors 14-1 and 14-2 or the progressive distributor 15; para. [0035]: para. [0035]: If the detected lubricant pressure is not within the reference range, it is determined that there is an abnormality in a lubricant feeding passage of the parallel distributor, note that the above feature of “a pressure sensor 16 for detecting the pressure of lubricant fed to the parallel distributors” in para. [0026] and “If the detected lubricant pressure is not within the reference range, it is determined that there is an abnormality in a lubricant feeding passage” in para. [0035] reads on “open passage is dimensioned so that the pulsating flow is represented by pulses of at least a minimum amplitude in the pressure signal”).
Nishimura does not specifically teach that a restriction device, which is arranged downstream in the lubrication path and configured to define an open passage.
However, Forsberg teaches a restriction device, which is arranged downstream in the lubrication path and configured to define an open passage (Fig. 5 and para. [0037]: the restriction 79 has a lubrication inlet end 77).
Nishimura and Forsberg both are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of pumping a flow of lubricant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the restriction device such as is described in Richter into Nishimura, in order to reduce the pumping effect in a lubrication passage (Forsberg, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Nishimura in view of Forsberg teaches all the limitation of claim 15, in addition, Forsberg teaches that the restriction device is configured for removable installation in the lubrication path, has a fixed size of the open passage and is included in a set of restriction devices (para. [0034]: the flow restrictor 60 can be manually or automatically inserted and removed, as appropriate, from passages 38), wherein the restriction devices in the set differ at least by the fixed size of the open passage and are adapted for use with lubricants of different properties (para. [0039]: the axial position of the flow restrictor 60, the size of the first cross-sectional area A1, the size of the second cross sectional area A2 and the size of the third cross-sectional area A3 may have an influence on the flow of lubricant in the lubrication system).
Nishimura and Forsberg both are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of pumping a flow of lubricant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the restriction device such as is described in Forsberg into Nishimura, in order to reduce the pumping effect in a lubrication passage (Forsberg, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Nishimura in view of Forsberg teaches all the limitation of claim 15, in addition, Forsberg teaches that the restriction device is configured for mechanical adjustment of the open passage by positioning of at least one moveable element in relation of one or more channels that define the open passage in the restriction device (para. [0033]: a flow restrictor 60 may be arranged in the first passage part 38. The axial position of the flow restrictor 60 defines the proportions of lubricant to be directed from the first passage part 38 to the bearings 21; para. [0034]: the flow restrictor 60 can be manually or automatically inserted and removed, as appropriate, from passages 38, note that “passages 38” reads on “on or more channels”).
Nishimura and Forsberg both are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of pumping a flow of lubricant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the restriction device such as is described in Forsberg into Nishimura, in order to reduce the pumping effect in a lubrication passage (Forsberg, para. [0004]).
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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5618. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858