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 statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/18/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(c).
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, and 12 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 11 are amended.
Claims 3, 7, 10 are cancelled. Claim 2 was cancelled previously.
Claim 12 is added.
Applicant’s amendments, submitted 06/16/2026 are accepted.
Applicant’s arguments, submitted 06/16/2026 have been reviewed and fully considered.
Regarding Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Applicant notes on IDS dated March 28, 2023, Examiner indicated reference by OKI, et al., listed in IDS form with title “Big tree others – the output of the frictional electrification sensor which interposed grease between electrodes" with identifying information: “2019, Kansai University state-of-the-art technology symposium lecture collection, 6 pages” was not considered. Examiner did not consider reference in office action dated 09/11/2025 because no translation was provided at that time, and the quality of the document provided was insufficient for machine translation. Search did not yield the reference prior to that office action.
Applicant requests also a signed copy of IDS dated 12/19/2025. Examiner finds IDS was considered for office action dated 03/07/2026, but is missing from the file. The IDS is included with current office action. Signed form includes Applicant’s submission of non-patent literature reference submitted by Applicant on 12/19/2025 which appears to be a translated copy of reference by OKI, with Kansai University affiliation, with title “Output of friction charging sensor with grease interposed between electrodes” as being considered in examination. Signed copy of form PTO/SB/08 is included in present office action.
Regarding rejections of Claims 1 and 3-11 under 35 U.S.C. §101
With regard to rejections of Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §101 in previous office action (Non Final Rejection dated 03/17/2026), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner notes arguments directed to limitations as currently amended involve matter which has not yet been evaluated, necessitating further evaluation of amended claim language. For example Applicant argues (Remarks, P14), “amended claims do not recite an abstract idea because it does not recite steps that could be performed within the human mind or with pen and paper”. Examiner notes that rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 (Non Final Rejection, P 7) states “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”, and goes on to explain that even while processes are interpreted as being performed by computer methods, a mental process may also be possible, depending on complexity of the mathematical process(es) involved. Whether the recited calculations are performed by computational components, including hardware and software, or by pencil and paper and or mental process, the recited limitations are directed to the Abstract Idea, using guidance found in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Specifically, Applicant argues (Remarks, P14), “the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea because it does not recite steps that could be performed within the human mind or with pen and paper. However, even if the amended claims are deemed to recite an abstract idea, the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees based on step by step evaluation of claims as presented and considered in previous office action, and as detailed below, including response to amended limitation language as noted by Applicant (Remarks P14-15). With attention to Applicant arguments (Remarks, P16) regarding improvement to technological field, citing example of CardoNet, LLX v. InfoBionic, Inc, 955 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020), Examiner maintains that fact patterns, as discussed in previous office action, found in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) provides more germane similarity. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument of this example is “misguided”.
Applicant argues (Remarks, P18): “claim 1 as amended is directed to a specific technological method for diagnosing lubricant condition through non-destructive, in-situ frequency-dependent dielectric measurements, curve fitting to specific theoretical formulas, and threshold-based diagnosis of specific physical conditions”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is based on amended claim language which has not yet been considered, and as presented below with further consideration, respectfully disagrees, with detailed rationale and reasoning regarding claim interpretation, and step-by-step evaluation guided by rules found in MPEP 2106 presented below.
Applicant further argues features of amended claims, including limits on context for measurements, i.e., “within a device” and “specific technical implementation” of “performing a curve fitting operation”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In situ measurements, computational fitting of measured, and comparison of derived parameters to threshold values is language which describes either data gathering, field of use, and/or performing mathematical concepts, and which are known and found in the literature, with references specifically directed to measurement and data analysis in the technical field of dielectric material diagnostic methods, in at least:
FRANCK (APN032 Technical Notes, “Dielectric Characterization” TA Instruments.com, 2012), as cited in rejection below;
RYAN (US 20170323700 A1), as cited in rejection below; or
GAO (Gao, et al., “Quantitative Evaluation of Ageing Condition of Oil-paper Insulation Using Frequency Domain Characteristic Extracted from Modified Cole-Cole Model”, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, Vol. 22, No. 5; October 2015), as cited in rejection below; or
GABRIEL (Gabriel, et al., “The dielectric properties of biological tissues: III. Parametric models for the dielectric spectrum of tissues”, Phys Med Biol. 1996 Nov;41(11):2271-93”), listed below as important but not cited in rejection.
Applicant argues further, citing reference to specification, “specification further demonstrates that the Cole-Cole improved type formulas (Math 1-3) provide improved accuracy”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds applicant that the claimed invention must be evaluated based on limitations as recited by claims, with guidance from the specification, but importing claim limitations from the specification is improper (See MPEP 2111.01, II.). Moreover, further search as necessitated by amendments, reveals reference to improvements based on modifications to Cole-Cole method; where Cole-Cole is a well-known empirical approach, based on generalization of the Debye relaxation model of the complex relative permittivity which allows for a distribution of relaxation time (as opposed to a constant value), where improvements to the standard equations incorporate, by direct addition, a term which accounts for DC conductivity, such as that claimed by Applicant. See references, at least, by FRANCK, RYAN, and GAO, among others, as noted above, and discussed in detail below.
Based on the above reasoning and rationale, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 to be unpersuasive. Examiner maintains rejection of pending claims, as presently amended, under 35 U.S.C. §101 based on necessitated further evaluation, with attention to Applicant arguments, Examiner notes, as above, amended claim limitations contain matter than was not considered in previous office action. In consideration of amended limitations, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained and detailed below with new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Regarding rejection under 35 USC § 103 over prior art
With regard to rejection of Claims 1, and 3-11 under 35 USC § 103 over obvious combination of prior art in previous office action, Examiner finds Applicant arguments are not persuasive. Examiner notes amended claim limitations necessitate further search and evaluation, with new grounds of rejection presented below.
Applicant argues (Remarks, P11), that references as cited in previous office action fail to teach or suggest “deriving parameters indicating electrical properties of the lubricant by performing a curve fitting operation to fit the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring to theoretical formulas”, as recited in Claim 1 as presently amended.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations present matter not considered in previous office action. Further search and evaluation, as necessitated by amendments, has revealed prior art which does teach limitations, as detailed below. The method of applying a modified version of Cole-Cole theoretical equations for use in a parameterized fitting method is found in at least GAO, as cited in new grounds of rejection below, as well as GABRIEL, included as pertinent prior art as listed below but not cited in rejection.
Applicant further argues (Remarks, P12-13) cited references do not teach the specific equations recited in Claim 1, the rejection of claims as presented for examination in previous office was not based on proper obvious combination of cited references to arrive at the claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the amended claimed invention using newly discovered prior art Gao, including the term containing the DC-conductivity parameter. Based on further search as necessitated by amended limitations, new grounds of rejection, as noted, is presented below, finding that the claimed invention does not differentiate over prior art.
As presented below, based on further consideration and search as necessitated by amendments, Examiner finds arguments are not persuasive.
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, 4-6, 8-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to Claim 1, and Claim 8 with parallel limitations, is held to be patent ineligible, as explained below. Examiner notes bold emphasis is added.
Claim 1 recites “A condition diagnosis method executable by a condition diagnosis device”; Claim 8 recites “A condition diagnosis device”
Claims 1 and 8 recite:
“measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant within a device
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 performing a curve fitting operation to fit the relative dielectric constant measured in the
measuring to theoretical formulas expressed by:
PNG
media_image1.png
83
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein εr0 is a relative dielectric constant at low-frequency limit,
εr∞ is a relative dielectric constant at high-frequency limit,
εr0 - εr∞ is a relaxation strength,
εr' is an average dielectric constant,
[Symbol font/0x74] is a relaxation time [s],
β is a constant indicating a distribution of relaxation time, and
σ0 is a DC conductivity [S/m]; and
diagnosing a condition of the lubricant by comparing the parameters to preset threshold values,
wherein the parameters include at least one of 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, the distribution of relaxation time, and the DC conductivity,
wherein the condition includes 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, and
wherein the measuring, deriving, and diagnosing are performed without taking the lubricant out of the device so as to not destroy the lubricant being diagnosed.”
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.
Step by step analysis of patent eligibility is detailed in the following:
STEP 1 – Determination of Statutory Category: Claim 1, and similarly Claim 8, recites an eligible statutory category. (MPEP 2106.03), namely, Claim 1 recites Process (Method); Claim 8 recites Machine (Manufacture, “device”).
STEP 2A PRONG 1 – Determination regarding whether claim recites a judicial exception: Applying BRI and using plain meaning to the limitations noted above in bold emphasis recite a judicial exception. (MPEP2106.04) These limitations noted above in bold emphasis recite a method based on mathematical processes as carried out, at least in part, by a computer. This interpretation of is supported by referring to specification as discussed in previous office action.
Such limitations constitute a judicial exception of Abstract Idea because under BRI and using 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the limitations fall into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematics or mental steps. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C)
Claim 1, and similarly Claim 8, recite mathematical processes (emphasized in bold) to be carried out by a diagnosis device to perform a method (process). 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 to comparatively consider resulting numerical values. The interpretation of mathematical process is supported in view of explicit mathematical equations recited directly in the claim limitation, 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 a condition as a numerical result. Examiner notes again, complexity level of equations make mental process (solving in closed form) a possible option, in lieu of computational processes.
Moreover, Claim 1, and similarly Claim 8, perform input of data, data manipulations, evaluations or calculations using a “diagnosis device” to achieve a mathematical result based on a mathematical process(es), namely on explicitly reciting performing “curve fitting” to “theoretical formulas” directly to mathematical analysis to “derive” at least seven parameters recited as numerical values in the recited equations, based on numerical input from measured values.
Thus, Claim 1, and similarly Claim8, recites a judicial exception of
Abstract Idea in the Mathematical and/or Mental Steps grouping.
STEP 2A-PRONG TWO: Evaluation of additional elements to determine whether
the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception: Claim 1, and similarly Claim 8, does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application; there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Claim 1, and similarly Claim 8, as currently amended, do recited additional elements. Specifically, the term “measuring” is associated with a numerical quantity necessary to perform the judicial exception as input data, where 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.” This additional element recites necessary data gathering required to provide data for carrying out the judicial exception as defined in analysis above. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Further, Claim 1, and similarly Claim 8, recites the additional elements of “parameters indicating electrical properties” and “condition”. The terms are interpreted as generic output results of mathematical processes, as would be known and understood by one of ordinary skill. Based on plain meaning, 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” resulting from a mathematical process involving theoretical equations, specifically parameterized curve fitting, and using input values.
Claim 1 also recited additional elements regarding where input data is acquired, and the type of features on which “condition” is based. This limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. As discussed in previous office actions, evidence attesting to identified additional elements/steps as well known, routine and conventional in view of relevant prior art of record cited previously and/or 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 AKIYAMA (US 8421486 B2, with specific theoretical equations disclosed by at least RYAN and GAO, as cited above. Prior art attests the method as specifically applied to the technical field of in situ dielectric matter evaluation. Additional elements such as these are recited in generality as would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art and represent insignificant field of use limitations that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
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).
STEP 2B – Consideration of whether the claim amounts to significantly more
than the abstract idea: Claim 1, and similarly Claim 8 does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Further there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The identified additional elements, as discussed above in STEP 2A-PRONG TWO, do not amount significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, limitations reciting necessary data gathering , even when linked to a particular data source or a type of data, are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. As noted and discussed above, identified additional elements are recited in generality and represent insignificant field of use limitations that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or are considered as necessary data gathering required to perform the abstract, in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP section 2106.05(g))
Individually, or viewed in combination, identified additional elements in Claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, Claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception, with similar reasoning applied to Claim 8.
Further evaluation of statutory patent eligibility includes evaluation of dependent Claims 4-6 and 11-12, with direct or indirect dependency to Claim 1, and Claim 9 with dependency to Claim 8 to determine if these claims recite limitations which could be considered as significantly more than the abstract idea or that limit independent claims to a practical application. In evaluation of limitations recited in these claims, applying
BRI and using plain meaning, it is determined that recite limitations which are further limit performance/execution of the judicial exception and/or additional elements interpreted as insignificant extra solution activity and/or 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, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations found in dependent claim 9, directed to a “computer program product” limiting Claim 8 with generic computer components is interpreted as further limiting performing the judicial exception, with further limitations similar to those discussed above for Claims 1 and 8, reciting insignificant extra solution activity including data gathering and field of use. Other additional elements identified in dependent claims are interpreted as insignificant field of use limitations, including those in Claim 4, 5, and 6. Claim 11 recites additional elements aimed further at performing the judicial exception, with reference to parameter type directed at field of use, while Claim 12 recites limitations relating to “condition” similar to those recited in Claims 1, 8, and 9, interpreted as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h), which do not integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Thus, identified additional elements as recited in dependent claims and discussed above, 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 4-6, 9, and 11-12 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), and further in view of FRANCK (APN032 Technical Notes, “Dielectric Characterization” TA Instruments.com, 2012), and GAO (Gao, et al., “Quantitative Evaluation of Ageing Condition of Oil-paper Insulation Using Frequency Domain Characteristic Extracted from Modified Cole-Cole Model”, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, Vol. 22, No. 5; October 2015)
With regard to Claims 1 and 8, KATAFUCHI teaches:
A condition diagnosis method and system executable by a condition diagnosis device (KATAFUCHI is in same technical field, Abstract: “method of measuring a degree of degradation/alteration (i.e., “condition”) of a lubricating oil,”; KATAFUCHI teaches use of device for determination of degradation, see Title and [0021]: “[0021]: “a device for measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil”)
the method comprising: measuring dielectric constant of a lubricant by applying a voltage to the lubricant while changing a frequency from an AC power source; (KATAFUCHI teaches measurement of dielectric constant, see [0018]:” 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 (i.e., “changing a frequency”); and [0021-22]: “measuring a degree of degradation/alteration of a lubricating oil, including: a pair of electrodes; an AC power source for applying an AC voltage (i.e., “applying a voltage”) between the pair of electrodes under control of a frequency to a region of 100 Hz or less; and an electrostatic capacitance measuring part including an electrostatic capacitance measuring circuit for measuring an electrostatic capacitance…further including a dielectric constant calculating part including a dielectric constant calculating circuit for calculating a dielectric constant based on the electrostatic capacitance obtained in the electrostatic capacitance measuring part”; Examiner asserts one of ordinary skill would know measurement of dielectric constant is not a direct measurement, but typically computed from other electric measurements, such as those taught by reference.)
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties of the lubricant (KATAFUCHI teaches using dielectric constant 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”; See also calculations recited 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 by parameters (KATAFUCHI teaches evaluation of data to determine status of lubricant, [0020]: “determining that the lubricating oil has been degraded/altered (i.e., “diagnosing a condition”) 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.)
parameters include at least one of the relative dielectric constant at low-frequency, the relative dielectric constant at high-frequency (KATAFUCHI teaches at least: low frequency dielectric constant, [0016]: “dielectric constant and an electrostatic capacitance in a particular low frequency region”; and 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 does not explicitly teach:
measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant within a device;
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties by performing a curve fitting operation to fit the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring to theoretical formulas expressed by:
PNG
media_image1.png
83
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein εr0 is a relative dielectric constant at low-frequency limit,
εr∞ is a relative dielectric constant at high-frequency limit,
εr0 - εr∞ is a relaxation strength,
εr' is an average dielectric constant,
[Symbol font/0x74] is a relaxation time [s],
β is a constant indicating a distribution of relaxation time, and
σ0 is a DC conductivity [S/m]; and
diagnosing a condition of the lubricant by comparing the parameters to preset threshold values;
wherein the parameters include at least one of 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, the distribution of relaxation time, and the DC conductivity,
wherein the condition includes 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, and
wherein the measuring, deriving, and diagnosing are performed without taking the lubricant out of the device so as to not destroy the lubricant being diagnosed.
DORR teaches:
measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant within a device; (DORR is in same technical field, teaching method/system similar to KATAFUCHI, [0018]: “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”; Examiner notes as in previous office action, KATAFUCHI does not explicitly recite the term “relative” dielectric constant. However, Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the equivalence of the terminology. One of ordinary skill would 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. To be explicit, as in previous office action, Examiner relies on DORR as pointing explicitly to measurement and mathematical manipulation of “relative” dielectric constant in terms of “relative permittivity” ; 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)”; and see [0013]: “diagnostic system and a diagnosing method are provided which allow the most simple monitoring possible of the operational condition of the lubricant in the lubricant reservoir inside a housing part” (i.e., “within a device”) and [0069]: “”it is ensured that the operational condition of the lubricant may be detected in the normal condition”; Examiner interprets “within a device” using plain meaning as in situ, analogous to reference. )
diagnosing a condition of the lubricant by comparing the parameters to preset threshold values (DORR, [0087]: “may also include a comparison function which compares the detected sensor signals corresponding, depending on the sensor, to a humidity content, a pressure or a temperature, to a limit value or to several limit values, and which generates an output signal indicating that the sensor signal is below a limit value, exceeds a limit value, or is situated between two limit values”; Examiner interprets “comparing…to preset threshold values” using BRI and plain meaning to be analogous to reference comparison with “limit value or to several limit values” to mean generally comparison with a pre-determined quantity.)
wherein the condition includes 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 (DORR, teaches evaluation of grease lubricant, [0010]: “[0010]: “lubricant of the semifluid type (semifluid low-viscosity greases)”, and water content determination, [0022]: “measurement function integrated in the sensor device determines the water content as a function of the equally measured temperature of the lubricant”)
wherein the measuring and diagnosing are performed without taking the lubricant out of the device so as to not destroy the lubricant being diagnosed. (DORR, as above, teaches lubricant evaluation inside a housing during normal operation, see [0013]: “diagnostic system and a diagnosing method are provided which allow the most simple monitoring possible of the operational condition of the lubricant in the lubricant reservoir inside a housing part (i.e., “without taking lubricant out of the device”)” and [0069]: “during operation of the housing or of the housing part 10, the opening or the sensor device is situated in or at a lubricant-filled area in the normal condition”; Examiner asserts that DORR teaching method of in situ measurement during normal operation implicitly teaches non-destructive (i.e., “so as not to destroy”) technique as would be clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.)
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 in the diagnostic method/system with measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant within a device, and a relative dielectric constant, and the step of diagnosing a condition of the lubricant by comparing the parameters to preset threshold values wherein the condition includes 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, and such that the measuring and diagnosing are performed without taking the lubricant out of the device so as to not destroy the lubricant being diagnosed, as taught by DORR because an in situ measurement of relative dielectric constant would be a convenient an efficient way to monitor lubricant quality and avoid unnecessary and costly removal proves. One of ordinary skill would see obvious similarities in the inventions of KATFUCHI and DORR, both directed to using well-known dielectric properties to investigate lubricants in an industrial setting, where DORR explicitly teaches an “in machine” measurement method that could be easily incorporated into the method/system of KATAFUCHI, which would be seen as a significant motivation for combining the two inventions. Though, as noted above, KATAFUCHI does not use the term “relative dielectric constant”, as DORR does, one of ordinary skill would understand the equivalence of the quantity being measured by using time-dependent capacitive or impedance-based probes, and see combination of the two disclosures as a way to arrive at an improved lubricant evaluation method/system to address the problem of the claimed invention.
FRANCK teaches:
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties using theoretical formulas (FRANCK is in same technical field, teaching general methods for dielectric material characterization (technical notes); specifically, see P4,Col2, ¶: “relative permittivity can be expressed…:
PNG
media_image2.png
77
293
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(14)… ε∞ and εo are the permittivities in the 'unrelaxed’ and 'relaxed' state”; Examiner notes this equation would be generally known by one of ordinary skill in the art as Debye model; FRANCK teaches incorporation of conductivity term, “Since dipole orientation and conduction mechanisms can contribute to the dielectric response, a conduction term is often incorporated into the Debye model. Including the conduction term and splitting in real and imaginary components gives the following expressions for the relative permittivity:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”; FRANCK then teaches use of Debye equations as foundation for generalization as attributed to Cole, et al., (included below as pertinent art), “generalization of the Debye model has been proposed by Cole and Cole” and use of Cole-Cole for analysis, P6, COL2: “representation of Z" as a function of Z' is referred as Cole-Cole plot.”; FRANCK teaches general parameter derivation, P10, 5. Conclusions: “Dielectric characterization is a very powerful tool to evaluate structure parameters” (i.e., “derive parameters”); Examiner notes reference in previous office action to WIKIPEDIA, wherein Debye expressions are transformed by mathematical manipulation into equations expressed in terms of hyperbolic trigonometric functions, identical to those in instant application when conduction term is incorporated into the fundamental Debye expression for the relative permittivity (i.e., “dielectric constant”) which is a function of frequency.)
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 deriving parameters indicating electrical properties using theoretical formulas as taught by FRANCK because the theoretical basis, stemming fry Debye theory, for understanding the nature of dielectric materials provide trusted mathematical equations first proposed by Debye, with further developments made by Cole, et al., are well understood and have been successfully used to solve problems in a wide range of materials characterization applications. One of ordinary skill would find motivation and logical reason to consult with technical notes such as those of FRANCK when researching diagnosis of a dielectric material to develop an improved solution to the problem, as proposed in the instant application. FRANCK explicitly teaches incorporation of a dc conductivity term which accounts for low frequency tail in dielectric loss. One of ordinary skill would find logic and motivation to combine the teaching of FRANCK with the measurement method/system of KATAFUCHI as modified by DORR to leverage general and well known fundamental properties dielectric materials, understood to be directly related to DC conduction, to provide a more robust method to leverage measured data to yield a range of characteristic properties of the measured substance. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to seek a comprehensive diagnostic method, as found in prior art, of using DC conductivity as a parameter, because it provides a more direct diagnostic metric for such qualities as moisture contamination, acid buildup, and furthers insight into ionic degradation in a lubricant fluid, providing an advantage in overall characterization of the lubricant.
FRANCK does not explicitly teach:
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties by performing a curve fitting operation to fit the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring to theoretical formulas expressed by:
PNG
media_image1.png
83
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein εr0 is a relative dielectric constant at low-frequency limit,
εr∞ is a relative dielectric constant at high-frequency limit,
εr0 - εr∞ is a relaxation strength,
εr' is an average dielectric constant,
[Symbol font/0x74] is a relaxation time [s],
β is a constant indicating a distribution of relaxation time, and
σ0 is a DC conductivity [S/m]; and
GAO teaches:
theoretical formulas expressed by:
PNG
media_image1.png
83
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(GAO is in same technical field, see Abstract: “modified Cole–Cole model was introduced to describe the frequency domain spectroscopy (FDS) curves based on the classic Debye relaxation model and thereby accurately determined the ageing state of the insulation of a power transformer”; GAO teaches equations as shown with theoretical basis consistent with FRANCK, beginning with Debye complex permittivity and P2694, COL1-1.INTRODUCTION: “OIL immersed power transformers”, and P2695, Col1: “modified Cole–Cole model is first introduced based on the classic Debye relaxation model to extract the characteristic parameters of ageing assessment” and “an empirical equation is established for the quantitative evaluation of the ageing states”; Examiner notes GAO derives relationships for real and imaginary parts of susceptibility rather than permittivity, and asserts one of ordinary skill would understand the straightforward and well-known relationship between the two quantities in the context of dielectric response phenomena, as disclosed explicitly by GAO.; GAO derives modified Cole-Cole equations, P2695, COL1, “2. MODIFIED COLE-COLE MODEL AND CHARACTERISTICS…classical Debye dispersion relation (i.e., dielectric constant)…equation (1), where εs is the static dielectric permittivity (i.e., “εr0”) and εhf is the dielectric permittivity at high frequency (i.e., “εr∞”)
PNG
media_image4.png
60
465
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
and “dielectric susceptibility…
PNG
media_image5.png
31
156
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”; GAO then teaches standard
Cole-Cole model, Eq (2), where shape parameter “n” is included, and teaches consideration of dc conductivity PG2605 COL2: “dc conductivity σdc and hopping conductivity σho of the material are considered…modified Cole-Cole model is expressed as shown in equation
PNG
media_image6.png
105
512
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where [Symbol font/0x7A],[Symbol font/0x67] are both constant parameters, 0<γ<1. From equation (3), the dielectric susceptibility is divided into three effective parts, relaxation, dc conduction, and hopping conduction”; Examiner notes reference misidentifies equation (3), as shown, as equation (4), and further notes equation shown is for a single relaxation process as recited in instant application.; further, continuing “the real and imaginary parts of susceptibility are calculated as
PNG
media_image7.png
272
712
media_image7.png
Greyscale
; Examiner notes the disclosure of GAO includes hopping conductivity to form a comprehensive generalized evaluative tool for dielectric parameterized fitting, but asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand consideration of hopping conductivity in the susceptibility (i.e., “relative dielectric constant”) would be unnecessary in phenomenological analysis, or when using an empirical model in the case of seeking bulk or macroscopic material properties, or when fluid has low intrinsic conductivity. Interpretation is supported by at least specification [0015]. Examiner further notes using only DC conductivity in modified Cole-Cole theoretical approach is also taught by TUNCER (included as pertinent prior art listed below). When hopping conductivity is not considered in Debye formulation, i.e. when Equations (5) above reduce to the more familiar equations recited in instant application. One of ordinary skill would understand using generally known relationship between susceptibility and relative permittivity (i.e., “relative dielectric constant”, and making hyperbolic trigonometric function substitutions and generally well-known trigonometric identities, as shown on Wikipedia Cole-Cole Equation, provided in previous office action.
GAO further teaches:
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties by performing a curve fitting operation to fit the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring:
wherein εr0 is a relative dielectric constant at low-frequency limit,
εr∞ is a relative dielectric constant at high-frequency limit,
εr0 - εr∞ is a relaxation strength,
εr' is an average dielectric constant,
[Symbol font/0x74] is a relaxation time [s],
β is a constant indicating a distribution of relaxation time, and
σ0 is a DC conductivity [S/m]; and
(GAO, P2695, COL2: “When equation (3) is utilized to fit the complex permittivity
curves, seven characteristic parameters (εhf (i.e., “εr∞”), [Symbol font/0x63]sα (i.e., “relative dielectric constant, at low frequency”, when [Symbol font/0x63]sα , the relaxation static susceptibility is rewritten to express εro using relationship as discussed above), [Symbol font/0x74]α (i.e., “relaxation time”), nα i.e, “α”, “distribution of relaxation time”, also known as shape parameter in Cole-Cole generalization of Debye model or “Cole-Cole distribution” parameter), σdc (i.e., “σ0”, DC conductivity), ξ, and γ) are obtained; Examiner notes that while the quantity “relaxation strength” is not explicitly taught as a parameter derived by GAO, one of ordinary skill would understand the well-known and general definition of relaxation strength as the difference between static (low frequency) permittivity and ‘infinite’ (high frequency) permittivity, with both of these parameters explicitly determine in GAO analysis, as well as direct determination of relaxation time; GAO further teaches experimental acquisition of data, P2695, COL2, “3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURES”, with results P2696, COL2, “4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS”, see P2607,FIG 4. “The εr*spectroscopy of oil-impregnated pressboard with different ageing states (i.e., “condition”): (a) εr'; (b) εr".”; and “TABLE 1. Frequency domain characteristic parameters (i.e., “derived parameters”) at different ageing states.”)
wherein the parameters include at least one of 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, the distribution of relaxation time, and the DC conductivity (GAO teaches at least one of the listed parameters, as discussed directly above)
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 the combination of the teachings of FRANCK, as discussed above, and those of GAO, including, use of the equations as claimed (shown above), and to use curve fitting to derive at least one of the parameters listed (shown above) in the parameterized equations (shown above) because the mathematical formalism as disclosed by GAO provides a reliable way to comprehensively evaluate measured data. One of ordinary skill would logically use the expressions as revised to express relative permittivity (i.e., “relative dielectric constant”) rather than susceptibility because in a typical experimental set up, such as that taught by KATFUCHI and DORR, it is the relative permittivity that is measured, an experimental method that would be known. (See literature as included below as pertinent by NIST, for example). This would then be an obvious way to apply well-known theoretical evaluation methods to the experiment, motivating the combination. The list of parameters derived from fitting the modified (“improved”) Cole-Cole equations as taught by GAO, would be obvious advantages in understanding macroscopic fluid properties, as noted by GAO. The incorporation of the theoretical approach as taught by GAO, among others as noted below, would be an obvious and well-motivated approach to arriving at an improved method/system for understanding a condition of a lubricant, particularly with the advantage of using trusted mathematical formulations with the system as taught by KATAFUCHI and DORR of making in situ, non-destructive methods for a rapid assessment of lubricant properties.
With respect to Claim 4, KATAFUCHI, in view of DORR and further in view of FRANCK and GAO, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
KATAFUCH does not teach:
the lubricant is in a bulk state.
DORR further teaches:
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 to be considered “bulk” 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 in combination with DORR, FRANCK, and GAO as taught above, to include measurement of lubricant in a bulk state, such as that explicitly taught DORR because it would provide the advantage of measuring in a broad range of technological applications, and accommodate a range of lubricant containers, consistent with performing in situ measurements, since it would be understood that in real systems, the lubricant would have sufficient volume to perform its purpose. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to consider fluids in bulk to better accommodate sensors and measurement apparatus without concern of adequate sampling volume.
With respect to Claim 5, KATAFUCHI, in view of DORR and further in view of FRANCK and GAO, 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 and further in view of FRANCK and GAO, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
KATAFUCHI does not teach:
wherein the lubricant is grease.
DORR further teaches:
wherein the lubricant is grease (DORR, as above, 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 further modify KATAFUCHI, as modified in combination with DORR, FRANCK, and GAO 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/system to accommodate a broad range of lubricant materials used 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, making the invention more broadly useful.
With respect to Claim 7, KATAFUCHI, in view of DORR and further in view of FRANCK and GAO, teaches the limitations of Claim 6..
KATAFUCHI does not teach:
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, as discussed above,
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, [0010]: “[0010]: “lubricant of the semifluid type (semifluid low-viscosity greases)”, and water content determination, [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 further modify KATAFUCHI, as modified in combination with DORR, FRANCK, and GAO as taught above, to include that 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 these properties would be known as indicative of the functionality of the lubricant. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the specific properties disclosed by DORR in the method/system of KATAFUCHI, as modified by DORR above, in combination with the theoretical formalism for parameter derivation as taught by FRANCK and GAO, to arrive at an effective means of using measured relative dielectric constant to achieve reliable values for these parameters of interest. One of ordinary skill would be motivated by the value of these parameters in quick and reliable information about lubricant function, which would ultimately provide cost and labor savings, reduce damage to mechanical equipment, avoid downtime, and reduce costly repair.
With respect to Claim 11, KATAFUCHI, in view of DORR and further in view of FRANCK and GAO, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
GAO teaches as above,
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. (GAO, as noted above, P2695, COL2: “When equation (3) is utilized to fit the complex permittivity curves, seven characteristic parameters (εhf (i.e., “εr∞”), [Symbol font/0x63]sα (i.e., “relative dielectric constant, at low frequency”, when [Symbol font/0x63]sα , the relaxation static susceptibility is rewritten to express εro using relationship as discussed above), [Symbol font/0x74]α (i.e., “relaxation time”), nα (i.e, “α”, “distribution of relaxation time”, also known as shape parameter in Cole-Cole generalization of Debye model or “Cole-Cole distribution” parameter), σdc (i.e., “σ0”, DC conductivity), ξ, and γ) are obtained; Examiner notes that while the quantity “relaxation strength” is not explicitly taught as a parameter derived by GAO, one of ordinary skill would understand the well-known and general definition of relaxation strength as the difference between static (low frequency) permittivity and ‘infinite’ (high frequency) permittivity, with both of these parameters explicitly determine in GAO analysis, as well as direct determination of relaxation time; GAO further teaches use of experimental average, P2696, COL1: “data consisted of the average of five replications (i.e., “average dielectric constant”)”, as shown in experimental acquisition of data, results P2607, FIG 4. “The εr* spectroscopy of oil-impregnated pressboard with different ageing states”)
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 in combination with DORR, FRANCK, and GAO as taught above, to include calculating the list of parameters as shown above, as taught or suggested by GAO because the noted parameters would provide quantitative analysis markers for determination of internal physical properties that impact specific functionality of the fluid in a particular application or use. For example, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to include the low frequency limit of permittivity (i.e., “dielectric constant”) to provide insight and understanding of ion accumulation in a fluid, which may be caused by moisture content in fluid, while knowledge of the high frequency limit would provide insight regarding polarization status of the fluid. Each parameter listed provides a nuanced view of overall fluid dynamics, purity, degradation status and/or suitability in a specific insulative function for some required voltage. One of ordinary skill would find these parameters as taught by GAO, and in a lesser specificity, by FRANCK, as an obvious way to take advantage of the time-dependent measurement system/method of KATAFUCHI, as modified and taught above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KATAFUCHI, in view of DORR and further in view of FRANCK and GAO, 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 and further in view of FRANCK and GAO, teaches the limitations of Claim 8.
KATAFUCHI, as modified by DORR, FRANCK and GAO teach the parallel limitations recited in Claim 8, and presented in detail above. For full discussion of these limitations, refer to above to rejection recited for Claims 1 and 8.
by employing the condition diagnosis device of claim 8: measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant by applying a voltage to the lubricant while changing a frequency from an AC power source; (KATAFUCHI [0018], [0021-22])
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties of the lubricant (KATAFUCHI [0041], [0066])
diagnosing a condition of the lubricant by parameters (KATAFUCHI, [0020], [0041])
parameters include at least one of the relative dielectric constant at low-frequency, the relative dielectric constant at high-frequency (KATAFUCHI, [0016], [0018])
KATAFUCHI does not explicitly teach:
measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant within a device;
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties by performing a curve fitting operation to fit the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring to theoretical formulas expressed by:
PNG
media_image1.png
83
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein εr0 is a relative dielectric constant at low-frequency limit,
εr∞ is a relative dielectric constant at high-frequency limit,
εr0 - εr∞ is a relaxation strength,
εr' is an average dielectric constant,
[Symbol font/0x74] is a relaxation time [s],
β is a constant indicating a distribution of relaxation time, and
σ0 is a DC conductivity [S/m]; and
diagnosing a condition of the lubricant by comparing the parameters to preset threshold values;
wherein the condition includes 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, and
wherein the measuring, deriving, and diagnosing are performed without taking the lubricant out of the device so as to not destroy the lubricant being diagnosed.
DORR teaches:
measuring relative dielectric constant of a lubricant within a device; (DORR [0018], [0083], [0013], [0069])
diagnosing a condition of the lubricant by comparing the parameters to preset threshold values (DORR, [0087])
wherein the condition includes 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 (DORR, [0010], [0022])
wherein the measuring and diagnosing are performed without taking the lubricant out of the device so as to not destroy the lubricant being diagnosed. (DORR, [0013], [0069])
See rationale and reasoning for obviousness and motivation for combination of KATAFUCHI with DORR, as explained in rejection of Claims 1 and 8 above.
FRANCK teaches, as noted above in parallel limitations found in Claims 1 and 8:
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties using theoretical formulas (FRANCK P4,Col2, P6, COL2, P10, 5. Conclusions)
See rationale and reasoning for obviousness and motivation for combination of KATAFUCHI as modified by DORR, with the disclosure of FRANCK, as explained in rejection of Claims 1 and 8 above.
GAO teaches, as noted above in parallel limitations found in Claims 1 and 8,
theoretical formulas expressed by:
PNG
media_image1.png
83
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(GAO P2694, P2695, Col1, P2695, COL1,
Cole-Cole model, Eq (2), and susceptibility equations, as above)
deriving parameters indicating electrical properties by performing a curve fitting operation to fit the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring:
wherein εr0 is a relative dielectric constant at low-frequency limit,
εr∞ is a relative dielectric constant at high-frequency limit,
εr0 - εr∞ is a relaxation strength,
εr' is an average dielectric constant,
[Symbol font/0x74] is a relaxation time [s],
β is a constant indicating a distribution of relaxation time, and
σ0 is a DC conductivity [S/m]; and
(GAO, P2695, COL2, “3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND
PROCEDURES”, with results P2696, COL2, “4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND
ANALYSIS”, see P2607, FIG 4.)
wherein the parameters include at least one of 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, the distribution of relaxation time, and the DC conductivity (GAO teaches at least one of the listed parameters, as discussed directly above)
See rationale and reasoning for obviousness and motivation for combination of KATAFUCHI as modified by DORR, and FRANCK, combined with GAO as explained in rejection of Claims 1 and 8 above.
KATAFUCHI, as modified by DORR and further modified by FRANCK and GAO 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 explicitly 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 further modified by FRANCK and GAO 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 the most practical means of performing the measurements and analysis as taught by KATAFUCHI, with modifications by DORR and incorporation of formal mathematical analysis methods taught by FRANCK and GAO. While examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill would find it obvious that generic computational components are suggested, and practically assumed in at least the disclosure of FRANCK and GAO for carrying out analysis involving parameterized curve fitting, GILLETTE is relied upon for explicitly teaching the limitations of said components. One of ordinary skill would find the use of components disclosed by GILLETTE to be an obvious addition to the method/system as taught by KATAFUCHI as modified by DORR, particularly in view of the incorporation of the theoretical analysis methods disclosed by FRANCK and GAO as a better way to efficiently collect and analyze data to produce timely evaluation of a lubricant fluid. One of ordinary skill would know the advantage of automated data collection, and programmed analysis processes involving complex calculations and fitting routines, which would be made possible by including the explicit components as taught by GILLETTE.
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, with the following additions herein:
ITSKOVIC (US 20190265382 A1) – teaches application of modified COLE-COLE equations, including fitting data obtained from range of frequencies, and fitting with DC conductivity term; using same method as in instant application.
RYAN (US 20170323700 A1) – teaches deriving parameters indicating electrical properties by performing a curve fitting operation to fit the relative dielectric constant measured in the measuring to theoretical formulas; application in disclosure is toward elastomer composites but uses same theoretical formalism as in claimed invention., and uses measurements based on dielectric relaxation spectroscopy (DRS) experiments were performed over a broad frequency range, with analysis of data performed using modified (“improved”) version of Cole-Cole equations which includes conductivity term and further teaches parameterized fitting to produce characteristic properties of dielectric material
COLE (Cole, et al., “Dispersion and absorption in Dielectrics”, J.Chem.Phys. 9, 341, 1941) - considered the foundational paper for the method used in instant application and a wide range of dielectric material characterization inventions and research.
GABRIEL (Gabriel et al., “The dielectric properties of biological tissues: III. Parametric models for the dielectric spectrum of tissues. Phys Med Biol. 1996 Nov;41(11):2271-93.) – teaches direct method using modified Cole-Cole equations with DC conductivity term to determine dielectric characteristics of material with a biological tissue application. The method is the same as that presented in GAO, and referenced therein.
MAKI (Robin Maki, Master’s Thesis, “Rapid and Robust Fitting of Cole-Cole Models to Electrical Permittivity Spectra”, Luleå University of Technology - Department of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics, 2014) – teaches full theoretical development of the modified (“improved”) Cole-Cole equation used for fitting to determine electrical properties of dielectric materials by deriving various parameters, such as those in claimed invention, by curve fitting modified Cole-Cole model to measurement of frequency dependent permittivity data ; See Equation 2.14, which shows addition of conductivity term as in instant application; See section 4.2 “applying the models to real measurement data; and Appendix A, specific application in the investigation of crude oils.
NIST (JARVIS, et al., “Measuring the Permittivity and Permeability of Lossy Materials: Solids, Liquids, Metals, Building Materials, and Negative-Index Materials”, NIST Technical Note 1536, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, February 2005) – teaches comprehensive foundational theory for electrical property investigation of dielectric materials, including extensive mathematical derivation and results as applied to metrology applications for practical experimental determination of various material parameters; intended as a guide for researchers; See SS2.3 with extensive discussion and mathematical development of DC and AC conductivity influence; See Appendix A, Review of Literature on Dielectric Measurements of Lossy Materials (p136).
TUNCER – (Tuncer, et al., “Electrical properties of filled silicone rubber”, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 12 (2000) 1873–1897) – teaches modified Cole–Cole Equation as a distribution of relaxation times using an empirical parameter α for characterization of dielectric properties in materials containing free charge carriers or mobile ions, including DC conductivity term added directly to the complex susceptibility expression. See Equation (5), for general conductivity that may include hopping conductivity, but when gamma=1 reduces to DC conductivity contribution only. Reference is cited by GAO and others teaching parameterized fitting method for characterization of dielectric materials; Tuncer teaches if the dc conduction, σdc, is taken into account, it is seen that contribution is only observed only in the imaginary part of the susceptibility (and permittivity), with no contribution from DC conductivity to the real component of susceptibility (or permittivity).
WANG (Wang, et al., “Influence of temperature on Cole-Cole dielectric model of oil-immersed bushing”, 2017 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 220, 2017) – teaches application of modified Cole-Cole model with parameterized fitting to find various characteristic parameters of dielectric fluid (oil), with double relaxation model, and as in instant application, includes DC conductivity term (see equations (2) and (3).
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 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 Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights