DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 01/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim(s) 3, the limitation states “…according to claim 1…a second registration process section”. It is unclear if this claim should be dependent on claim 1 or claim 2. Although the claim states that it depends on claim 1, claim 2 comprises the registration sections. For examination purposes, it will be assumed this was typographical error and assume claim 3 depends on claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1 recites
collects, at a plurality of times,
state information indicating a state of a machine that changes chronologically,
and
detects the state of the machine
by
processing a plurality of pieces of the state information collected at the plurality of times,
comprises:
a classification process section
that
identifies a plurality of feature amount vectors
having
a type of the state information as a feature amount
by
temporally dividing the plurality of pieces of the state information collected by the collection device,
classifies the identified feature amount vectors into any of a plurality of prescribed sets,
and,
to the feature amount vectors that have been classified,
provides a classification ID identifying the set to which each feature amount vector belongs;
a detection process section
that
detects a damage received by the machine based on the state information,
collected by the collection device,
indicating the state of the machine that chronologically changes;
a tying process section
that
ties an interval in which the damage was detected by the detection process section to the classification ID provided in the interval by the classification process section;
a first recording section
in which
the classification ID identifying a damage state that is the state of the machine in the interval in which the machine received damage is recorded in advance;
a determination process section
that,
when the classification ID tied by the tying process section is not the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, determines that the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID;
and
generate information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 7 recites
collects, at a plurality of times, state information indicating a state of a machine that changes chronologically,
and
detects the state of the machine by processing a plurality of pieces of the state information collected at the plurality of times,
comprises:
a classification process section
that
temporally divides the plurality of pieces of the state information collected by the collection device
to
identify a plurality of feature amount vectors having a type of the state information as a feature amount,
classifies the identified feature amount vectors into any of a plurality of prescribed sets,
and,
to the feature amount vectors that have been classified,
provides a classification ID that identifies the set to which the feature amount vectors belong;
a first recording section
in which
the classification ID
identifying a damage state that is the state of the machine in the interval in which the machine received damage is recorded in advance;
a recognition process section
that,
based on the classification ID provided by the classification process section and the classification ID recorded in the first recording section,
recognizes the damage state identified by the classification ID provided by the classification process section;
and
a determination process section
that,
when the classification ID tied by the tying process section is not the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, determines that the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID;
and
generate information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 7, Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 8 recite(s)
a first registration process section
that
registers the classification ID determined to be the unknown classification ID by the first determination process section in the first recording section.
a second recording section
in which
the feature amount vector and the classification ID are associated with each other
and
recorded in advance;
a second determination process section
that,
based on the feature amount vector identified by the classification process section and the feature amount vector recorded in the second recording section,
determines whether the classification ID that should be provided to the feature amount vector identified by the classification process section is recorded in the second recording section;
a generation process section
that
generates a new classification ID if the classification ID that should be provided to the feature amount vector identified by the classification process section is not recorded in the second recording section;
and
a second registration process section
that
registers the classification ID generated by the generation process section and the feature amount vector to which the classification ID should be provided in the second recording section in association with each other.
an estimation process section
that
estimates a damage amount received by the machine,
wherein:
the detection process section,
based on the state information collected in the interval,
detects an individual damage amount that is a damage amount received by the machine in the interval;
the tying process section
ties the individual damage amount detected by the detection process section to the classification ID provided by the classification process section in the interval in which the individual damage amount was detected;
and
the estimation process section:
calculates an integrated value of the individual damage amount for each classification ID based on the individual damage amount detected by the detection process section and a number of detections of the individual damage amount,
and
accumulates a plurality of the integrated values calculated for each classification ID
to
estimate a cumulative damage amount received by the machine.
an estimation process section
that
estimates a damage amount received by the machine,
and,
in the first recording section,
an individual damage amount that is the damage amount received by the machine in the interval is tied to the classification ID
and
recorded in advance
wherein
the estimation process section:
based on the classification ID identifying the damage state recognized by the recognition process section and the classification ID recorded in the first recording section,
identifies the individual damage amount corresponding to the damage state recognized by the recognition process section;
based on the individual damage amount identified and a number of occurrences of the damage state corresponding to the individual damage amount,
calculates an integrated value of the individual damage amount for each classification ID; and
accumulates a plurality of the integrated values calculated for each classification ID
to
estimate a cumulative damage amount received by the machine.
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. a collection device that; an arithmetic processing device that; a display process section that causes a display device to display information);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. a display process section that causes a display device to display information); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
Examiner advises applicant that amending the independent claim(s) to include the subject matter of claim(s) 4, 6, or 9 would practically apply the identified abstract idea and cure the 101 rejection(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI ET AL. (US 20120317444 A1) (hereinafter “SUZUKI”) in view of UNUMA ET AL. (US 20180024544 A1) (hereinafter “UNUMA1”), UNUMA ET AL. (US 20190171199 A1) (hereinafter “UNUMA2”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, SUZUKI teaches a monitoring and diagnosing device for a working machine and the BRI of:
a collection device (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that
collects, at a plurality of times, state information indicating a state of a machine that changes chronologically (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0086; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2),
and
an arithmetic processing device (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that
detects the state of the machine by processing a plurality of pieces of the state information collected at the plurality of times (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0086; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2),
wherein
the arithmetic processing device comprises:
a classification process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that
identifies a plurality of feature amount vectors having a type of the state information as a feature amount by temporally dividing the plurality of pieces of the state information collected by the collection device (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3-6, 29),
classifies the identified feature amount vectors into any of a plurality of prescribed sets (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3-6, 29),
and,
to the feature amount vectors that have been classified, provides a classification ID identifying the set to which each feature amount vector belongs (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3-6, 29);
a detection process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that
detects an abnormality received by the machine based on the state information, collected by the collection device, indicating the state of the machine that chronologically changes (See, e.g., Fig(s). 27);
and
a tying process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that
ties an interval in which the abnormality was detected by the detection process section to the classification ID provided in the interval by the classification process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 27);
a first recording section
in which
the classification ID identifying an abnormality that is the state of the machine in the interval in which the machine received damage is recorded in advance (See, e.g., Fig(s). 27);
a determination process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
and
a display process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that causes a display device to display information (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9).
However, SUZUKI is lacking the explicit language of:
detects a damage received by the machine;
when the classification ID tied by the tying process section is not the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, determines that the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID;
information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section.
UNUMA1 teaches a damage estimation device and the BRI of:
detects a damage received by the machine (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include detects a damage received by the machine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to estimate damage of a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
UNUMA2 teaches a diagnostic apparatus and the BRI of:
determines whether the classification ID is an unknown classification ID, registers the classification ID determined to be the unknown classification ID, and displays information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section (See, e.g., ¶ 0016, 0114-0116, 0140-0152; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include determines whether the classification ID is an unknown classification ID, registers the classification ID determined to be the unknown classification ID, and displays information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to diagnose a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 7, SUZUKI teaches a monitoring and diagnosing device for a working machine and the BRI of:
a collection device (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that
collects, at a plurality of times, state information indicating a state of a machine that changes chronologically (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0086; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2),
and
an arithmetic processing device (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that
detects the state of the machine by processing a plurality of pieces of the state information collected at the plurality of times (See, e.g., ¶ 0066, 0086; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2),
wherein
the arithmetic processing device
comprises:
a classification process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that
temporally divides the plurality of pieces of the state information collected by the collection device to identify a plurality of feature amount vectors having a type of the state information as a feature amount (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3-6, 29),
classifies the identified feature amount vectors into any of a plurality of prescribed sets (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3-6, 29),
and,
to the feature amount vectors that have been classified, provides a classification ID that identifies the set to which the feature amount vectors belong (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3-6, 29);
a first recording section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
in which
the classification ID
identifying an abnormality state that is the state of the machine in the interval in which the machine received abnormality is recorded in advance section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 27);
and
a recognition process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that,
based on the classification ID provided by the classification process section and the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, recognizes the abnormality state identified by the classification ID provided by the classification process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 27).;
and
a determination process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9);
and
a display process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that causes a display device to display information (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9).
However, SUZUKI is lacking the explicit language of:
identifying a damage state of the machine.
UNUMA1 teaches a damage estimation device and the BRI of:
identifying a damage state of the machine (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15);
when the classification ID tied by the tying process section is not the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, determines that the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID;
information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include identifying a damage state of the machine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to estimate damage of a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
UNUMA2 teaches a diagnostic apparatus and the BRI of:
determines whether the classification ID is an unknown classification ID, registers the classification ID determined to be the unknown classification ID, and displays information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section (See, e.g., ¶ 0016, 0114-0116, 0140-0152; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include determines whether the classification ID is an unknown classification ID, registers the classification ID determined to be the unknown classification ID, and displays information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to diagnose a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, SUZUKI, UNUMA1 teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUZUKI further the BRI of:
the arithmetic processing device.
UNUMA1 teaches the BRI of:
detects a damage received by the machine.
However, SUZUKI is lacking the explicit language of:
a first registration process section that registers the classification ID determined to be the unknown classification ID by the first determination process section in the first recording section.
UNUMA2 further teaches the BRI of:
determines whether the classification ID is an unknown classification ID and registers the classification ID determined to be the unknown classification ID (See, e.g., ¶ 0016, 0114-0116, 0140-0152; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include determines whether the classification ID is an unknown classification ID and registers the classification ID determined to be the unknown classification ID.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to diagnose a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 3, SUZUKI, UNUMA1, UNUMA2, teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
UNUMA2 further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the arithmetic processing device
further comprises:
a second recording section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
in which
the feature amount vector and the classification ID are associated with each other and recorded in advance (See, e.g., ¶ 0016, 0114-0116, 0140-0152; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8);
a second determination process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
that,
based on the feature amount vector identified by the classification process section and the feature amount vector recorded in the second recording section, determines whether the classification ID that should be provided to the feature amount vector identified by the classification process section is recorded in the second recording section (See, e.g., ¶ 0016, 0114-0116, 0140-0152; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8);
a generation process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
that
generates a new classification ID if the classification ID that should be provided to the feature amount vector identified by the classification process section is not recorded in the second recording section (See, e.g., ¶ 0016, 0114-0116, 0140-0152; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8);
and
a second registration process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
that
registers the classification ID generated by the generation process section and the feature amount vector to which the classification ID should be provided in the second recording section in association with each other (See, e.g., ¶ 0016, 0114-0116, 0140-0152; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include wherein the feature amount vector and the classification ID are associated with each other and recorded in advance; based on the feature amount vector identified by the classification process section and the feature amount vector recorded in the second recording section, determines whether the classification ID that should be provided to the feature amount vector identified by the classification process section is recorded in the second recording section; generates a new classification ID if the classification ID that should be provided to the feature amount vector identified by the classification process section is not recorded in the second recording section and registers the classification ID generated by the generation process section and the feature amount vector to which the classification ID should be provided in the second recording section in association with each other.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to diagnose a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 5, SUZUKI, UNUMA1 teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
UNUMA1 further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the arithmetic processing device
further comprises
an estimation process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15)
that
estimates a damage amount received by the machine (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15),
wherein:
the detection process section,
based on the state information collected in the interval, detects an individual damage amount that is a damage amount received by the machine in the interval (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15);
the tying process section
ties the individual damage amount detected by the detection process section to the classification ID provided by the classification process section in the interval in which the individual damage amount was detected (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15);
and
the estimation process section
calculates an integrated value of the individual damage amount for each classification ID based on the individual damage amount detected by the detection process section and a number of detections of the individual damage amount (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15),
and
accumulates a plurality of the integrated values calculated for each classification ID to estimate a cumulative damage amount received by the machine (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, SUZUKI, UNUMA1 teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
UNUMA1 further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the arithmetic processing device
further comprises
an estimation process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that
estimates a damage amount received by the machine (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15),
and,
in the first recording section,
an individual damage amount that is the damage amount received by the machine in the interval is tied to the classification ID and recorded in advance (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15)
wherein
the estimation process section:
based on the classification ID identifying the damage state recognized by the recognition process section and the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, identifies the individual damage amount corresponding to the damage state recognized by the recognition process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15);
based on the individual damage amount identified and a number of occurrences of the damage state corresponding to the individual damage amount, calculates an integrated value of the individual damage amount for each classification ID (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15); and
accumulates a plurality of the integrated values calculated for each classification ID to
estimate a cumulative damage amount received by the machine (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include wherein estimates a damage amount received by the machine, based on the state information collected in the interval, detects an individual damage amount that is a damage amount received by the machine in the interval; ties the individual damage amount detected by the detection process section to the classification ID provided by the classification process section in the interval in which the individual damage amount was detected; calculates an integrated value of the individual damage amount for each classification ID based on the individual damage amount detected by the detection process section and a number of detections of the individual damage amount, and accumulates a plurality of the integrated values calculated for each classification ID to estimate a cumulative damage amount received by the machine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to estimate damage of a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited references of the parent claim(s) in view of UNUMA ET AL. (US 20160320262 A1) (hereinafter “UNUMA3”).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, SUZUKI, UNUMA1 teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUZUKI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the arithmetic processing device
further comprises:
a display process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that causes
a display device to display (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9).
UNUMA1 further teaches the BRI of:
a cutting-out process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
that
cuts out the classification ID provided by the classification process section in a predetermined interval including the interval tied to the classification ID by the tying process section (See, e.g., ¶ 0062).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include cuts out the classification ID provided by the classification process section in a predetermined interval including the interval tied to the classification ID by the tying process section.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to estimate damage of a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
However, SUZUKI is lacking the explicit language of:
a reenactment process section
that
generates a moving image that reenacts the state of the machine in the predetermined interval, based on the classification ID cut out by the cutting-out process section;
display the moving image generated by the reenactment process section.
UNUMA3 teaches displaying material fatigue of machine and the BRI of:
generates a moving image that reenacts the state of the machine in the predetermined interval and display the moving image generated (See, e.g., ¶ 0090; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 13, 16).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include generates a moving image that reenacts the state of the machine in the predetermined interval and display the moving image generated.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to display a bird’s eye view of the machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 6, SUZUKI, UNUMA1teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUZUKI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the arithmetic processing device
further comprises:
a display process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that causes
a display device to display (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9).
UNUMA1 further teaches the BRI of:
a cutting-out process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
that
cuts out the classification ID provided by the classification process section in a predetermined interval including the interval tied to the classification ID by the tying process section (See, e.g., ¶ 0062).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include cuts out the classification ID provided by the classification process section in a predetermined interval including the interval tied to the classification ID by the tying process section.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to estimate damage of a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
However, SUZUKI is lacking the explicit language of:
a reenactment process section
that
generates a moving image that reenacts the state of the machine in the predetermined interval, based on the classification ID cut out by the cutting-out process section;
display the moving image generated by the reenactment process section;
display, together with the moving image, at least one of the chronological change in the state information collected in the predetermined interval, the chronological change in the individual damage amount in the predetermined interval, the cumulative damage amount, the chronological change in the cumulative damage amount, and a prediction result of a life of the machine.
UNUMA3 teaches displaying material fatigue of machine and the BRI of:
generates a moving image that reenacts the state of the machine in the predetermined interval, based on the classification ID cut out by the cutting-out process section, display the moving image generated by the reenactment process section, display, together with the moving image, at least one of the chronological change in the state information collected in the predetermined interval, the chronological change in the individual damage amount in the predetermined interval, the cumulative damage amount, the chronological change in the cumulative damage amount, and a prediction result of a life of the machine (See, e.g., ¶ 0090; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 13, 16).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include generates a moving image that reenacts the state of the machine in the predetermined interval, based on the classification ID cut out by the cutting-out process section, display the moving image generated by the reenactment process section, display, together with the moving image, at least one of the chronological change in the state information collected in the predetermined interval, the chronological change in the individual damage amount in the predetermined interval, the cumulative damage amount, the chronological change in the cumulative damage amount, and a prediction result of a life of the machine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to display a bird’s eye view of the machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 9, SUZUKI, UNUMA1teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
SUZUKI further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the arithmetic processing device
further comprises:
a display process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9)
that causes
a display device to display (See, e.g., Fig(s). 9).
UNUMA1 further teaches the BRI of:
a cutting-out process section (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
that
cuts out the classification ID provided by the classification process section in a predetermined interval (See, e.g., ¶ 0062).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include cuts out the classification ID provided by the classification process section in a predetermined interval.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to estimate damage of a machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
However, SUZUKI is lacking the explicit language of:
a reenactment process section
that
generates a moving image that reenacts the state of the machine in the predetermined interval, based on the classification ID cut out by the cutting-out process section;
display the moving image generated by the reenactment process section;
display, together with the moving image, at least one of the chronological change in the state information collected in the predetermined interval, the chronological change in the individual damage amount in the predetermined interval, the cumulative damage amount, the chronological change in the cumulative damage amount, and a prediction result of a life of the machine.
UNUMA3 teaches displaying material fatigue of machine and the BRI of:
generates a moving image that reenacts the state of the machine in the predetermined interval, based on the classification ID cut out by the cutting-out process section, display the moving image generated by the reenactment process section, display, together with the moving image, at least one of the chronological change in the state information collected in the predetermined interval, the chronological change in the individual damage amount in the predetermined interval, the cumulative damage amount, the chronological change in the cumulative damage amount, and a prediction result of a life of the machine (See, e.g., ¶ 0090; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 13, 16).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SUZUKI to include generates a moving image that reenacts the state of the machine in the predetermined interval, based on the classification ID cut out by the cutting-out process section, display the moving image generated by the reenactment process section, display, together with the moving image, at least one of the chronological change in the state information collected in the predetermined interval, the chronological change in the individual damage amount in the predetermined interval, the cumulative damage amount, the chronological change in the cumulative damage amount, and a prediction result of a life of the machine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify SUZUKI because it would be beneficial to display a bird’s eye view of the machine. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 05/06/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 11, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112
The Examiner has rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
It is submitted that the amendments to the claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
The amendment has not addressed the previous 112 rejection(s) in its entirety.
See updated 112 rejection(s) above necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 12, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant appreciates the Office's indication that the subject matter of claims 4, 6, and 9 is patent-eligible. Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 7 to include a display device and display features in light of the Office's comments. For example, see para. [0072] of the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application (US 2024/0134367). Accordingly, the present claims are patent-eligible and Applicant requests reconsideration of the rejection in view of the amendments.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Merely displaying resulting information of the identified abstract idea is interpreted as ‘Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception’ and not interpreted as a practical application or significantly more utilizing generic computer structure as a tool to perform generic computer functions (e.g., displaying resulting information).
Examiner maintains the suggest language provided in the ‘Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101’ section of the office action.
See updated 101 rejection(s) above necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 12-17, filed 05/06/2026, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. & 103
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (U.S. 20120317444 A1) in view of Unuma et al. (U.S. 20180024544 A1). Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the cited references of the parent claim in view of Unuma et al. (U.S. 20190171199 A1). Claims 4, 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over cited references of the parent claim in view of Unuma.
Applicant requests reconsideration of the rejections in view of the foregoing amendments and for the following reasons.
Amended claim 1 sets forth:
…
Accordingly claim 1 sets forth that, when the classification ID tied by the tying process section is not the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, determines that the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID; and to display information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section. See, e.g., paras. [0067] - [0068], which states:
…”.
-Applicant states
“ The combination of Suzuki and Unuma does not render claim 1 obvious. In Suzuki, the monitoring and diagnosing device for a work machine performs abnormality diagnosis on the working machine by use of the operational data classification information and operational data frequency comparison information, so that it can prevent erroneous determination and perform appropriate diagnosis even when strong similarity appears between input signals under a normal operational state and abnormal operational state. See paras. [0069], [0076], and [0094]. So, while Suzuki detects an abnormality of a machine, Suzuki does not disclose "a detection process section that detects a damage received by the machine based on the state information, collected by the collection device, indicating the state of the machine that chronologically changes," as set forth in claim 1 (as also mentioned on p. 10 of the Office Action.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
The arguments appear to be directed towards the computing functions of:
‘collects, at a plurality of times, state information indicating a state of a machine that changes chronologically’;
and
‘detects a damage received by the machine based on the state information, collected by the collection device, indicating the state of the machine that chronologically changes’
previously rejected in claim 1.
SUZUKI at least teaches:
[Fig. 2] acquiring operational data over a time (chronologically) for monitoring and diagnosing.
[Fig. 23] diagnosing abnormality based on the acquired operation data
[Fig. 27] displaying diagnostic result data generated from the abnormality data.
In combination with SUZKUKI, UNUMA1 at least teaches:
[ABSTRACT] damage estimation.
Therefore, It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that SUZUKI in combination with UNUMA1 teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of structure performing the function of ‘collects, at a plurality of times, state information indicating a state of a machine that changes chronologically’ and ‘detects a damage received by the machine based on the state information, collected by the collection device, indicating the state of the machine that chronologically changes’.
In light of the cited references, Examiner is not persuaded that said limitation(s) is a novel feature.
-Applicant states
“ In Unumal a table is created in which operation recognition results and the damage amounts that the machine will receive when the operations are performed are tied to each other in advance. See Table 2. Then, in operation, the operation performed by the machine is recognized according to an operation recognition technique, and, based on the recognition result, the damage amount corresponding to the operation is referenced to estimate the damage amount. However, Unumal recognizes operations that are preset, and it is not discussed what process will be performed if an operation that is not set is performed. That is, Unumal does not disclose "a determination process section that, when the classification ID tied by the tying process section is not the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, determines that the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID; and a display process section that causes a display device to display information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section," as set forth in claim 1.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
The arguments appear to be directed towards the computing functions of:
‘determines whether, based on the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID’
previously rejected in claim 2.
In combination with SUZKUKI, UNUMA1, UNUMA2 at least teaches
[¶ 0016, 0114-0116, 0140-0152; Fig(s). 8] determining registration status and data creation corresponding to an operation state, vector, and record identification(s).
With respect to the newly claimed computing function of:
‘display information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section’,
In combination with SUZKUKI, UNUMA1, UNUMA2 at least teaches
[Fig(s). 4-6, 8] corresponding display that displaying the registration status, new entries, operation state, vector, and record identification(s), etc.
Therefore, It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that SUZUKI in combination with UNUMA1, UNUMA2 teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of structure performing the function of ‘determines whether, based on the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID’ and ‘display information indicating occurrence of an unknown damage state if the unknown classification ID is determined by the first determination process section’.
In light of the cited references, Examiner is not persuaded that said limitation(s) is a novel feature.
-Applicant states
“ Unuma2 determines whether a device is normal or abnormal by storing sensor values acquired from the device while changing the operation state at a reference time at which whether a device is normal or abnormal is known, acquiring, at a diagnosis time at which it is not known whether the device is normal or abnormal, a sensor value and an operation state, and comparing the acquired sensor value with the sensor value associated with the acquired operation state. See Abstract.
In Unuma3, the interval in which damage (repeated stress) occurred before an anomaly (machine rupture) is caused is detected, and the cause of the reception of the damage is identified using a position/state recognition means. The position/state recognition means used in Unuma3 is for recognizing states that are preset, and it is not discussed what process will be performed if a state that is not set occurs.
However, while the references may disclose techniques similar to the present application, none of them go beyond anomaly detection or damage detection based solely on known operations. None of the references allows detecting a machine state even when an unknown operation is performed like the presently claimed invention. Therefore, none of the prior art of record, whether considered individually or in combination, disclose or suggest "a first recording section in which the classification ID identifying a damage state that is the state of the machine in the interval in which the machine received damage is recorded in advance; [and] a determination process section that, when the classification ID tied by the tying process section is not the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, determines that the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID," as set forth in claim 1”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
The arguments appear to be directed towards the computing functions of:
‘the classification ID identifying a damage state that is the state of the machine in the interval in which the machine received damage is recorded in advance’
and
‘determines whether, based on the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID’
previously rejected in claim 2.
SUZUKI at least teaches:
[ABSTRACT] classifier section
[Fig. 2] acquiring operational data over a time (chronologically) for monitoring and diagnosing.
[Fig. 23] diagnosing abnormality based on the acquired operation data
[Fig. 27] displaying diagnostic result data generated from the abnormality data.
In combination with SUZKUKI, UNUMA1 at least teaches:
[ABSTRACT] damage estimation.
In combination with SUZKUKI, UNUMA1, UNUMA2 at least teaches
[¶ 0016, 0114-0116, 0140-0152; Fig(s). 8] determining registration status and data creation corresponding to an operation state, vector, and record identification(s)
[Fig(s). 4-6, 8] corresponding display that displaying the registration status, new entries, operation state, vector, and record identification(s), etc.
Therefore, It would be obvious to one skilled in the art that SUZUKI in combination with UNUMA1, UNUMA2 teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of structure performing the function of ‘the classification ID identifying a damage state that is the state of the machine in the interval in which the machine received damage is recorded in advance’ and ‘determines whether, based on the classification ID recorded in the first recording section, the classification ID tied by the tying process section is an unknown classification ID’.
In light of the cited references, Examiner is not persuaded that said limitation(s) is a novel feature.
-Applicant states
“ For at least the reasons presented herein, the cited combination of documents does not teach or suggest all of the elements of claim 1. The arguments for patentability of claim 1 also apply to claim 7. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the cited combination of documents does not render independent claims 1 or 7 unpatentable, and respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 7.
The presently pending dependent claims are also allowable over the cited combination of documents at least due to the dependency of these claims from an allowable base claim, as well as for the additional features that each recites. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the §103 rejection of the presently pending dependent claims.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
See response above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights