DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is an apparatus claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms/concepts” or “mental process and concepts performed in the human mind” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of a setting unit that sets a diagnosis target, a rotation speed, and a determination criterion value; a condition determination unit that determines a diagnosis condition based on information on the diagnosis target; an analyzer that subjects inputted data to frequency analysis; and an abnormality determination unit that makes determination as to an abnormality of the diagnosis target based on the determination criterion value. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts or mental processes (i.e. defining data values, e.g. setting a “target” which is a mental opinion), determining a diagnosis condition based on information, performing a frequency analysis on data, and making an abnormality determination based on the set/defined data values which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinions capable of being performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, the “subjecting” input data to a “frequency analysis” is found in light of the specification to be a mathematical calculation using Fast Fourier Transform to determine a frequency spectrum graph, e.g. [0005]: “a graph of a frequency analysis result (frequency spectrum)”, [0046]: “a frequency spectrum which is a result of FFT”, and therefore also falls within the mathematical concepts category of abstract idea.
Under 2A Step 2, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a vibration analysis apparatus, a setting unit, a condition determination unit, an analyzer, and an abnormality determination unit; these elements are found to be merely generic computer hardware and/or software components, e.g. see Fig. 3 and Spec. [0019]-[0020]: “a function performed by application software in portable information terminal 1”, and therefore merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data processing and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “abnormality determination unit that makes determination as to an abnormality of the diagnosis target based on the determination criterion value”), that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the determined abnormality of the diagnosis target.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 2-16 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claim 1, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (US 2020/0158562 A1, hereinafter Hat).
Regarding claim 1, Hat discloses a vibration analysis apparatus that diagnoses a machine state based on detected vibration, the vibration analysis apparatus comprising:
a setting unit that sets a diagnosis target (i.e. prescribed value), a rotation speed, and a determination criterion value (see para. 0020, 0025, 0074);
a condition determination unit that determines a diagnosis condition based on information on the diagnosis target (see para. 0011);
an analyzer that subjects inputted data to frequency analysis (see para. 0011 and 0135); and
an abnormality determination unit that makes determination as to an abnormality of the diagnosis target based on the determination criterion value (see para. 0294 and 0376).
Regarding claim 2, Hat discloses the vibration analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the diagnosis target includes at least one of a bearing, a gear, and a rotation shaft (see para. 0378)
Regarding claim 3, Hat discloses the vibration analysis apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a database unit in which a parameter for the abnormality determination unit to identify a damaged part of the diagnosis target is stored, wherein in the database unit,a rotation speed of the bearing, and a specification of the bearing or a coefficient in a mathematical expression are stored as the parameter, and the mathematical expression calculates based on the rotation speed, a vibration frequency derived from a flaw in an inner ring of the bearing, a vibration frequency derived from a flaw in an outer ring of the bearing, and a vibration frequency derived from a flaw in a rolling element of the bearing (see para. 0119, 0122, 0256 and 0266).
Regarding claim 4, Hat discloses the vibration analysis apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the information is a rotation speed of the diagnosis target and an inner ring damage frequency of the bearing, and the condition determination unit selects a condition corresponding to the information as the diagnosis condition (0074, 0185 and 0256).
Regarding claim 12, Hat discloses the vibration analysis apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a display, wherein the abnormality determination unit causes the display to show in a graph of a frequency spectrum or an envelope spectrum, a range where a first-order frequency peak indicating a damage of the bearing, the gear, or the rotation shaft is expected to appear (see para. 0021 and fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, Hat discloses the vibration analysis apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the abnormality determination unit causes the display to show in the graph, a range where a frequency peak indicating a damage of the bearing, the gear, or the rotation shaft is expected to appear, up to an order equal to or more than a second order (see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 14, Hat discloses the vibration analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality determination unit outputs, in an image data format, a report in which a result of diagnosis and a history of a result of past measurement can be checked (see fig. 11-14).
Regarding claim 15, Hat discloses a vibration analysis system comprising: a measurement instrument that measures vibration of a diagnosis target; and the vibration analysis apparatus according to claim1, wherein the vibration analysis apparatus is implemented by application software that runs on a portable information terminal (see para. 0078).
Regarding claim 16, Hat discloses the vibration analysis system according to claim 15, wherein the portable information terminal and the measurement instrument communicate with each other through wireless or wired communication (see para. 0131).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support to be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, the applicant(s) is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Examiner cites particular paragraph numbers in the reference as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner and the additional related prior arts made of record that are considered pertinent to applicant(s) disclosure to further show the general state of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857