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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/19/2025 and 01/09/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(c).
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 3-11 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 are amended. Claim 2 is canceled.
With regard to rejections of Claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), the rejection is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments of the claims.
With regard to rejections of Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Claim 1 provides limitations that integrate claimed invention into a practical application, specifically that the claimed invention improves function of a computer or improves a technological field. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues the claimed invention accomplishes the technological improvement of implementing an unconventional solution to a known technical problem of “understanding the condition of the lubricant”, in light of the challenge of “difficult to observe the target …by taking the target out of the device in a non-destructive manner”. (Specification [0002-11]) Applicant provides solution as recited in specification [0091-131], namely performing measurements without removal of lubricant.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. Examiner asserts that the solution as recited in specification [0091-131] is not reflected in claim limitations as examined in previous office action, nor in claims as currently amended. Using plain meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation, the solution of performing measurements without removing lubricant is not claimed. Moreover, as discussed in detail below, the method of measurement without removing a target is known. Examiner points to US 20090315574 A1, with subsequent patent US 8421486 B2 to AKIYAMA in 2013, detailing a system of measuring oil degradation without removing oil or shutting down a mechanical system, as depicted in FIG. 1.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s argument contending similarity to facts in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020). However, in evaluation of eligibility, Examiner considered whether or not the limitations recited more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception with overlap consideration of improvement, using guidance in MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner interprets claim limitations to be more aligned with fact patterns in limitations found in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), with claim to “collecting information, analysing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”, where data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality, which would include the possibility of practically performing such analysis using a mental process (i.e., human mind), which was confirmed to be directed to a judicial exception and held to be patent ineligible. In consideration of amended claim limitations, Examiner maintains rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, discussed in detail below.
With regard to rejection of Claims 1-9 under 35 USC § 103, over obvious combination of prior art, based on further consideration and search as necessitated by amendments, Examiner finds arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Pg. 7) that DORR, individually or in combination with the other cited references, provide no information that would disclose or suggest "wherein the parameters include at least one of relative dielectric constant at low- frequency limit, relative dielectric constant at high-frequency limit, relaxation strength, average dielectric constant, relaxation time, distribution of relaxation time, and DC conductivity," when considered with the other elements of the claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in rejection of Claim 2 (previous office action, dated 9/11/2025), DORR teaches at least the parameter of relative dielectric constant. Examiner asserts an obvious combination of KATAFUCHI and DORR as the two references are directed to the same technical field, evidenced by KATAFUCHI in at least FIG.2.; [0018]: “[1] a method of measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil, including obtaining dielectric constants or electrostatic capacitances at two or more different frequencies and determining a degradation/alteration state of the lubricating oil based on values of the dielectric constants” and DORR in at least [0001]: “relates to a closure device for a lubricant container, a housing part of a lubricant container, a diagnostic system, and a diagnosing method for monitoring the operational condition of a lubricant”. Further, though KATAFUCHI does teach measurement of a dielectric constant, DORR more specifically teaches measurement of relative dielectric constant, in reciting direct measurement of relative permittivity using a capacitance-based device to monitor operational condition of a lubricant. Examiner points to DORR in at least Fig. 4 with [0057]: “schematic representation of the end portion implemented as a capacitor and comprising a planar capacitor” and [0083]: “…in order to determine…a relative permittivity epsilon-r (.epsilon.r)”. Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill would understand measurement of relative permittivity as analogous to measurement of “relative dielectric constant” due to the generally known relationship between the two values. Namely, the relative dielectric constant is simply the ratio of the material permittivity to the vacuum permittivity, where both terms represent a dimensionless quantity that characterizes the how well a particular material can store energy.
Similar reasoning is applied to Applicant’s arguments for Claims 8 and 9 which, as noted, recite features similar to those of Claim 1 as currently amended.
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, 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fall into statutory
categories as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 (See MPEP § 2106.03).
With regard to Claim 1 is held to be patent ineligible, as explained below.
Claim 1 recites (emphasis and line numbers added to facilitate discussion):
A condition diagnosis method executable by a condition diagnosis device, the method comprising:
measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant by applying a voltage to the lubricant while changing a frequency from an AC power source;
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties of the lubricant by applying the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring to a theoretical formula; and
diagnosing a condition of the lubricant using the parameters,
wherein the parameters include at least one of relative dielectric constant at low frequency limit, relative dielectric constant at high-frequency limit, relaxation strength, average dielectric constant, relaxation time, distribution of relaxation time, and DC conductivity.
Claim Interpretation: Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation, with
guidance from specification, such that claim limitations are presumed to have their plain meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2111)
Examiner interprets phrase in line (1) to have plain meaning to recite a method carried out using a “condition diagnosis device”, where “a device” is recited at a high level of generality, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. This interpretation is supported in specification in at least [0009], where “a measurement unit”, and “derivation unit” are recited.
Lines (3) and (4) recite mathematical processes (emphasized in bold) to be carried out by the method. Examiner interprets such processes as being performed by a computer, but also considers that depending on complexity, these processes could be performed via a mental process. This interpretation is supported by specification in at least [0088], reciting use of a computer to execute a program. Examiner also notes [0052] reciting “normality or abnormality may be diagnosed by comparison with a threshold value”, which may be performed by a mental process. The interpretation of mathematical process is supported in view of explicit mathematical equations and relationships found in specification in at least [0016], [0028-31], [0039-43], where mathematical formulas are explicitly recited for use in carrying out the mathematical process of deriving, applying to theoretical formula, and diagnosing, and in Claim 3, where examiner notes complexity level of equations make mental process (solving in closed form) a possible option, in lieu of computational processes.
Referring now to terms in Claim 1 above emphasis with underline, phrase (2) recites “measuring”, as associated with a numerical quantity/quantities of voltage. The term “measuring” is interpreted in plain meaning to as collection of input values to be used in mathematical processes discussed above, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. This interpretation is supported with guidance from specification in at least Examiner interprets this data collection process to be recited at a high level of generality, performed using an automated process involving generic computer components, as supported by specification in at least [0010] or [0103] reciting “causing a computer to execute a measurement step of measuring” or alternatively, facilitated by a user, supported in at least specification [0021]: “Alternatively, the condition diagnosis device 30 and the measurement device 31 may be integrated. Alternatively, the user may be in charge of data input/output between the condition diagnosis device 30 and the measurement device 31.”
Other terms emphasized in underling, including parameters indicating electrical properties, condition, and using the parameters are interpreted as generic output results of mathematical processes. The terms are recited in the limitation at a high level of generality.
Using the above interpretation based on plain meaning of words in Claim 1, the
broadest reasonable interpretation for Claim 1 is a method implemented by a generic computer, where input values for using mathematical calculations to arrive at a qualitative or quantitative result referred to as “condition”.
In evaluation of eligibility, Examiner finds:
STEP 1: Claim 1 recites an eligible statutory category, (MPEP2106.03), namely, a process or method, where method is based on measure input values.
STEP 2A-Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04) Claim 1 described, as interpreted and discussed above, using plain meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation, processes that fall within definition of Abstract Idea in the Mathematical Concept group. As discussed above, Examiner notes the possibility that some of the mathematical processes may be alternatively performed using Mental Process, or thinking that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III) Examiner notes that while Claim 1 does not explicitly recite mathematical relations, formulas, or calculations, these are found in specification, as noted above, and in dependent claim 3. In light of the discussion above, using broadest reasonable interpretation and plain meaning of terms which are
understood to be mathematical process and/or calculations, with support in the specification, including equations, mathematical relationships, and formulas, necessary
for understanding and interpreting claim limitations, Claim 1 sets forth a judicial exception in analysis under STEP 2A-Prong 1.
STEP 2A- Prong 2: Claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception, as discussed above. In consideration of additional elements emphasized in underline, as discussed above, using broadest reasonable interpretation and plain meaning, these terms represent either input values to be used in carrying out the mathematical concept and are considered mere data gathering, or generic output results of carrying out mathematical concept as implemented by a computer, recited at a high level of generality, or by mental process using the human mind or a pencil and paper. Examiner notes the additional elements found in limitation language also merely indicates field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is carried out. (MPEP2106.05(f))
Individually, or when viewed in combination, additional elements as identified in
Claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Thus,
Claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Consideration of additional elements as identified above, either individually or in combination does not reveal an inventive concept to the claim. As discussed in Claim 2, additional elements (emphasized in underline above) are identified, but amount to mere instructions to carry out the judicial exception, or are interpreted as extra-solution activity that is well understood, routine, and conventional, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2106.06(g)) For example, the term “measuring” is interpreted as input, while other terms are interpreted as using numerical input value or use of data in carrying out the judicial exception. As in STEP 2A- Prong 2, even when considered in combination, identified additional elements represent mere instructions to implement the judicial exception, or recited insignificant extra solution activity which do not provide an inventive concept.
As in previous office action, Examiner further notes evidence attesting to identified additional elements/steps as well known, routine and conventional in view of relevant prior art of record cited herein, including, for example: KATAFUCHI (US 20120229151 A1), DORR (US 20120123738 A1), or non-patent literature, for example, TARASOV (“TARASOV, "On the use of the Cole-Cole equations in spectral induced polarization", Geophysical Journal International · July 2013), along with additional reference discussed above, AKIYAMA (US 8421486 B2). Accordingly, additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements to not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the examiner does not view this claim as improving the functioning
of a computer. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments directed to improvement of technology or technical field, but in view of claim interpretation, rationale and reasoning, finds that claim does not recite limitations which improve any other technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05(b)), nor effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). The limit does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
Claim 8, is likewise held to be patent ineligible. Examiner applies interpretation, rationale, and reasoning used to evaluate Claim 1 to parallel limitations as recited in Claim 8, and evaluation using guidance from MPEP sections as above. Claim 8 falls into a statutory category. Claim 8 recites a judicial exception, and in keeping with evaluative analysis as presented above for Claim 1, is directed to the judicial exception of Abstract Idea in the Mathematical Concept grouping (or alternatively Mental process, as explained above). As found for Claim 1, Claim 8 does recited additional elements, but identified additional elements do not amount to significantly more and do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims 3-7 and 10-11 with direct or indirect dependency to Claim 1, and Claim 9 with dependency to Claim 8 recite limitations with additional elements that require further evaluation. Evaluation of these claims in groups is below.
Considering dependent Claims 3-7, 9, and 10-11, examiner finds claims fall into an eligible statutory category and recite limitations which are incorporated into the judicial exception of Abstract Idea in the Mathematical Concept grouping (or alternatively Mental process, as explained above).
Applying evaluation under STEP 2A, Prongs 1 and 2, Examiner finds dependent Claims 3 and 9 contain limitations using terms identified as carrying out the Abstract Idea, including expression of theoretical formulas used in carrying out a Mathematical Concept, including explicitly reciting mathematical equations (Claim 3), and reciting use of a computer, “processor to execute process” (Claim 9). Further identified additional elements found in Claims 4-7 and 10-11 recite limitations for input or output related to field of use or technological environment. Using reasoning and rationale as applied to additional elements recited in Claim 1, the additional elements recited by Claims 3-7, 9, and 10-11 are interpreted to be insignificant extra solution activity, generally known or mere data gathering, necessary to provide numerical values based input of a set of data points, as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art as necessary to carry out mathematical process. Similarly, additional elements are identified that further modify steps performed by a generic computer system, recited at a high level of generality, or input data and output data reciting field of use/technological environment. Additional elements identified in dependent Claims 3-7, 9, and 10-11 not impose meaningful limits on practicing of the Abstract Idea, Mathematical Concept grouping (or Mental Process grouping, as explained above) sufficient to incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application. And, as above, additional elements recited in Claims 12-19 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, identified additional elements as recited in dependent Claims 3-7 and 10-11 with direct or indirect dependency to Claim 1, and Claim 9, with direct dependency to Claim 8, do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims independently or as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
When analyzed independently or in combination, dependent Claims 3-7 and 9-11 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) therein represent additional elements that describe insignificant extra solution activity, additional mathematical calculations, instructions or definitions for calculations, and/or numerical data to be used according to the recitation of the abstract ideas as discussed above for independent Claims 1 and 8.
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, 4-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KATAFUCHI (US 20120229151 A1) in view of DORR (US 20120123738 A1).
With respect to Claims 1 and 8, KATAFUCHI teaches:
A condition diagnosis method executable by a condition diagnosis device (KATAFUCHI is in same technical field, Abstract: “method of measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil,”; KATAFUCHI teaches use of device for determination of degradation, Title, and device components, in at least [0021])
measuring dielectric constant of a lubricant by applying a voltage to the lubricant while changing a frequency from an AC power source; (KATAFUCHI teaches using dielectric constant for analysis of lubricant, [0020] “method of measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil…including: obtaining a dielectric constant”, KATAFUCHI teaches applying voltage with varying AC frequency, [0054]: “device…includes a pair of electrodes 1 and an electrostatic capacitance measuring part 2 having an AC power source 2a for applying an AC voltage between the pair of electrodes, which is capable of controlling the frequency to a region of 100 Hz or less”; KATAFUCHI explicitly teaches measuring dielectric constant, [0018]: “[1] a method of measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil, including obtaining dielectric constants or electrostatic capacitances at two or more different frequencies and determining a degradation/alteration state of the lubricating oil based on values of the dielectric constants”; explicitly teaches use of AC power source, [0021]: “[4] a device for measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil, including: a pair of electrodes; an AC power source for applying an AC voltage between the pair of electrodes”)
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties of the lubricant by
applying the dielectric constant measured in the measuring to a theoretical formula; (KATAFUCHI teaches using dielectric constant in a calculation for evaluation of lubricant electrical properties, [0041]: “degradation/alteration state can be determined as follows…attention to two frequencies of the two or more frequencies…dielectric constant (
∈
1
)…at the frequency (
H
1
) in a range of 1 to 100 Hz and a dielectric constant (
∈
2
)”, and “degradation/alteration state of a lubricating oil is determined based on the value of (
∈
1
)…or the value of (
∈
2
)…and on the rate of a change in dielectric constant with respect to the frequency”; Examiner points also to Abstract: “method of measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil, including obtaining dielectric constants or electrostatic capacitances at two or more different frequencies and determining a degradation/alteration state of the lubricating oil based on values of the dielectric constants or the electrostatic capacitances”, and further mathematical theoretical expressions taught in [0056]: Equation (I), [0063]: Equation (II), and mathematical examples beginning [0066].; Examiner interprets “deriving parameters indicating properties of the lubricant” as analogous to reference teaching “ measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil”.)
diagnosing a condition of the lubricant using the parameters, (KATAFUCHI teaches evaluation of data to determine status of lubricant, [0020]: “determining that the lubricating oil has been degraded/altered when a value of the dielectric constant (
∈
1
)…has reached a set value…predicting a degradation/alteration mechanism of the lubricating oil based on a rate of a change in dielectric constant with respect to the frequency”, and as above, [0041]: “degradation/alteration state of a lubricating oil” followed by mathematical calculations involving measured parameters, as cited above.)
the parameters include at least one of dielectric constant at low frequency limit, dielectric constant at high-frequency limit, relaxation strength, average dielectric constant, relaxation time, distribution of relaxation time, and DC conductivity. (KATAFUCHI teaches at least: low frequency limit for dielectric constant, [0016]: “dielectric constant and an electrostatic capacitance in a particular low frequency region”; and at high frequency, [0018]: “obtaining dielectric constants…one frequency (H1) of the two or more different frequencies is in a range of 1 to 100 Hz, and another frequency (H2) is more than the one frequency (H1) and in a range of 10,000 Hz or less”; Examiner interprets “at least one of” with plain meaning to mean any one or more of the parameters recited in limitation list. Examiner interprets terms “low”, “high”, and “limit” using plain meaning, are recited at a high level of generality, and considers terms analogous to frequency range encompassing four orders of magnitude as taught by reference)
KATAFUCHI teaches measurement of dielectric constant and deriving parameters by applying the dielectric constant, where parameters include at least one of the list shown above, but does not specifically teach measurement and use of relative dielectric constant, thus does not teach:
measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant
applying the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring
DORR teaches:
measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant (DORR is in same technical field, teaching method system similar to KATAFUCHI, for example, [0001]: “a diagnosing method for monitoring the operational condition of a lubricant” and DORR teaches direct measurement of dielectric constant for diagnosing fluid properties, [0018]: “[1] a method of measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil, including obtaining dielectric constants or electrostatic capacitances at two or more different frequencies and determining a degradation/alteration state of the lubricating oil based on values of the dielectric constants”; DORR teaches application of AC voltage for measurement, [0083]: “apply AC voltage to the capacitor parts or to the capacitor plates… capacitor provided in accordance with the invention and having an AC voltage applied thereto is used to measure an amplitude and/or a phase shift and/or an attenuation…in order to determine from this, e.g. in the sensor device or by means of the measurement function, a relative permittivity epsilon-r ([Symbol font/0xCE]r)”; Examiner interprets “relative dielectric constant” to be analogous to “relative permittivity”, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill, where both terms represent a dimensionless quantity. One of ordinary skill would likely recognize “dielectric constant”, relative dielectric constant”, or “relative permittivity” as redundant in describing characteristics of a dielectric substance; historically, terms “relative permittivity” was used interchangeably with term “dielectric constant” to mean permittivity of a substance in ratio with vacuum permittivity. Examiner relies on DORR to point specifically to teaching measurement and use of relative dielectric constant.)
applying the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring (DORR teaches use of relative dielectric constant, to determine properties of lubricant, recited as “relative permittivity” [0018])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KATAFUCHI to include the measuring and using a relative dielectric constant, such as that of DORR because it simplifies mathematical calculations by generating a unitless parameter, without adding additional measurement requirements taught by KATAFUCHI, and using capacitive or impedance based measurement devices. Similarity in method and system of KATAFUCHI and DORR would motivate one of ordinary skill to combine the two disclosures to arrive at an improved lubricant evaluation method/system.
With respect to Claim 4, KATAFUCHI in view of DORR teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
KATAFUCH does not teach:
wherein the lubricant is in a bulk state.
DORR further teaches:
wherein the lubricant is in a bulk state. (DORR teaches evaluation of a bulk lubricant fluid, Fig. 1, with [0054]: “housing part having the form of a lubricant container” Examiner interprets “bulk” to be recited at a high level of generality, with plain meaning to mean lubricant in a macroscopic, 3D volume, as distinguished from a surface or interface, and such that the volume is large enough that physical and chemical properties are independent of size, i.e., not impacted by surface effects. Examiner interprets “bulk” to be analogous to the fluid amount depicted in reference in Fig. 1.to be analogous to reference of enough lubricant as in “lubricant container”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify KATAFUCHI, as modified by DORR and as taught above, to include a lubricant in a bulk state, such as that further disclosed by DORR because it would provide the advantage of measuring in a broad range of technological applications, and accommodate a range of lubricant containers. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a bulk amount of lubricant because it would offer the advantage of better accuracy in measurement fluid properties as compared with a lesser amount of lubricant.
With respect to Claim 5, KATAFUCHI in view of DORR teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
KATAFUCHI further teaches:
wherein the lubricant is lubricating oil. (KATAFUCHI teaches oil lubricant in TITLE, and Abstract: “method of measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil,”)
With respect to Claim 6, KATAFUCHI in view of DORR teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
KATAFUCHI does not teach:
wherein the lubricant is grease.
DORR further teaches:
wherein the lubricant is grease (DORR teaches option for evaluating grease lubricant, [0010]: “lubricant of the semifluid type (semifluid low-viscosity greases)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KATAFUCHI, as modified by DORR and as taught above, to include wherein the lubricant is grease, such as that further disclosed by DORR because it would be understood as a way to broaden the applicability of a method for determination of lubricant condition to include a wider variety of specific lubricant materials in various applications. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to broaden the applicability of the diagnostic method to include grease-type materials which are used in a wide range of technological applications.
With respect to Claim 7, KATAFUCHI in view of DORR teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
KATAFUCHI does not teach:
wherein in the diagnosing, at least one of an amount of thickener, a fiber state of thickener, a deterioration degree of grease, a water content in grease, and an iron powder amount in grease is diagnosed as a condition of the grease.
DORR further teaches:
wherein in the diagnosing, at least one of an amount of thickener, a fiber state of thickener, a deterioration degree of grease, a water content in grease, and an iron powder amount in grease is diagnosed as a condition of the grease. (DORR teaches evaluation of grease lubricant, as above [0010]; DORR teaches at least water content determination in lubricant, [0022]: “measurement function integrated in the sensor device determines the water content as a function of the equally measured temperature of the lubricant”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KATAFUCHI, as modified by DORR as taught above, to include wherein in the diagnosing, at least one of an amount of thickener, a fiber state of thickener, a deterioration degree of grease, a water content in grease, and an iron powder amount in grease is diagnosed as a condition of the grease, such as that further disclosed by DORR because it would be understood as an effective means of ascertaining an early warning to degradation of a lubricant before issues arise in its intended function, and ultimately provide cost and labor savings. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to have access to multiple parameters to have more timely knowledge leading to a more accurate and reliable assessment of lubricant status in order to ultimately reduce damage to mechanical equipment, avoid downtime, and reduce costly repair.
With respect to Claim 11, KATAFUCHI in view of DORR teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
KATAFUCHI further teaches:
the parameters include the relative dielectric constant at low-frequency limit, the relative dielectric constant at high-frequency limit, the relaxation strength, the average dielectric constant, the relaxation time, distribution of relaxation time, and the DC conductivity. (KATAFUCHI teaches at least low frequency limit for dielectric constant, as above, Claim 1, [0016], and also high frequency measurements, [0018]; Examiner interprets “at least one of” as discussed above, along with terms “low”, “high”, and “limit”.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KATAFUCHI (US 20120229151 A1) in view of DORR (US 20120123738 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of WIKIPEDIA (Cole-Cole equation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole-Cole_equation, dated 07/23/2020, as accessed by WAYBACK)
With respect to Claim 3, KATAFUCHI in view of DORR teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
KATAFUCHE does not teach:
theoretical formulas are expressed by:
PNG
media_image1.png
473
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WIKIPEDIA teaches the above mathematical relationships (Examiner interprets equations, 1, 2, and 3 as related to Debye and Cole-Cole theoretical constructs, with interpretation supported by Applicant’s specification in at least [0028]-[0044]. A full disclosure of this theoretical treatment can be found on Wikipedia, with verification using Wayback Machine that material currently found on the Cole-Cole Wikipedia page was accessible prior to the priority deadline for the instant application. Copy of Wikipedia page with complete set of equations was provided in previous office action dated 09/11/2025.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify KATAFUCHI, as modified by DORR, and as taught above, to include mathematical expressions as shown above for calculations of electrical parameters related to the complex dielectric constant, such as that of WIKIPEDIA because these mathematical relationships represent fundamental connections between measured values of capacitance (or impedance) and quantities that would be indicative of the physical, material properties of a lubricant. One of ordinary skill would particularly be motivated to use these explicit equations, as taught on WIKIPEDIA, in combination with the method/system taught aby KATAFUCHI and modified by DORR, since both systems taught therein are frequency based measurements. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would appreciate implementing known mathematical relationships to allow for use of a proven technique for analyses and modeling of frequency dependent electrical properties, and improve outcomes for diagnosing material properties based on sensitivity of the Cole-Cole equations to describe accurately the phenomenon of frequency dependent dielectric relaxation. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantage provided by this specific set of mathematical equations for extracting key features which may provide insight into the internal structure of a material under test, particularly because the Cole-Cole approach offers simplicity as compared with Debye, which may overlook important frequency dependent relaxation processes.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KATAFUCHI (US 20120229151 A1) in view of DORR (US 20120123738 A1) as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of GILLETTE (US 20170102308 A1).
With respect to Claim 9 , KATAFUCHI in view of DORR teaches the limitations of Claim 8.
KATAFUCHI further teaches:
the process comprising: measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant by applying a voltage to the lubricant while changing a frequency from an AC power source;
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties of the lubricant by applying the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring to a theoretical formula; and
diagnosing a condition of the lubricant using the parameters. (These limitations are included in Claims 1 and 8, and taught by the combination of KATAFUCHI with DORR, as discussed above.)
KATAFUCHI does not teach:
A computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute process
GILLETTE teaches:
A computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute process (GILLETTE is in same technical field, Abstract: “fluid monitoring and management device that includes a housing with a fluid passageway…includes property sensor with a sensing element” and [0134]: “device/system 10/120 collects real-time dielectric constant data”; GILETTE teaches implementation using a computer interfaced system [0113]: “Data gathered by the fluid device 10 is stored in a secure server facility and processed by powerful computing platforms…On-processor RAM is used for storing data required for short term computations…PIC microprocessor is equipped with 53 KB of data storage. An On-board SRAM is used for storing all short term data” and [0129]: “computational formulas are embedded in firmware”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify KATAFUCHI as modified by DORR and taught above, to include a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute process, such as that of GILLETTE, because it would be a way to improve the efficiency of data collection and processing to arrive at timely and useful results regarding lubricant status. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the automated interfacing taught by DORR to improve and modernize the system disclosed by KATAFUCHI, as modified by DORR, because such a combination would allow for a significant gain in the ability to not only more quickly acquire data in an automated fashion, but to also perform more and more complex calculations for better understanding the overall condition of a lubricant under test.
Claim 10 is rejected is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KATAFUCHI (US 20120229151 A1) in view of DORR (US 20120123738 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of AKIYAMA (US 20090315574 A1).
With respect to Claim 10, KATAFUCHI in view of DORR teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
KATAFUCHI does not teach:
the condition is diagnosed in a manner that does not destroy the lubricant.
AKIYAMA teaches:
the condition is diagnosed in a manner that does not destroy the lubricant. (AKIYAMA is in same technical field, [0001]: “invention relates to an oil-degradation detecting apparatus”; AKIYAMA teaches implementing diagnosis of fluid in situ, without removal of oil from system, or impacting system operation, [0028]: “ real-time sensing of oil degradation is possible without shutting down of the mechanical system”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify KATAFUCHI as modified by DORR and taught above, to include that the condition is diagnosed in a manner that does not destroy the lubricant, such as that of AKIYAMA, because it provides the advantage of continual monitoring without disruption of a process or function of mechanical equipment. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage avoiding unnecessary shutdown, labor or fluid change work by combining the teaching of non-destructive analysis as explicitly taught by AKIYAMA with the methods/apparatus of KATAFUCHI as modified by DORR. Examiner notes that both KARAFUCHI and DORR suggest diagnostic processes which may be non-destructive but do not explicitly recite that criterion, making the combination of AKIYAMA with KARAFUCHI as modified by DORR obvious and efficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is included in previous office action, and/or has been disclosed by Applicant.
BARDETSKY (US 6449580 B1) – teaches evaluation of oil using dielectric spectroscopy; use of dielectric constant for determination of fluid properties.
KIM (KR 20020040109 A) – teaches method and system for specifically determination of salt content in oil using dielectric sensor with dielectric spectroscopy methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857