DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on September 13, 2023.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2023, 03/15/2024 and 12/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Preliminary amendments filed on September 13, 2023 have been entered.
The specification has been amended.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 have been canceled.
Claims 4 and 10-12 have been amended.
Claims 4-5 and 10-12 have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“[0024]”: Language “The arithmetic processing unit 43 includes a bearing failure diagnoser 43a” should read “The arithmetic processing unit 43 includes a bearing damage diagnosis unit 43a” in accordance with the details of Figure 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “an arithmetic processing unit configured to perform frequency analysis on the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The diagnostic system according to claim 4, wherein data, which is obtained by an analog-digital (AD) converter converting the a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) spectrum that has undergone [[the]]an envelope process in which a filtering process, an analyzing process, or both of the filtering process and the analyzing process are altered” in order to define abbreviations and provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The diagnostic system according to claim 11, wherein the diagnostic system is configured to diagnose the diagnosis target provided in each of a plurality of facilities,
the diagnostic system further includes an external terminal device to which management software is installed,
the external terminal device is configured to obtain the
the external terminal device is also configured to:
manage a trend of change in the vibration over time for each of the plurality of facilities;
display the spectral data and the
display the diagnostic result of the diagnostic unit;
display the presence/absence of the abnormality determined by diagnosis of the arithmetic processing unit;
change [[the]] a bearing identification number of the bearing, [[the]]a rotational speed of the inner ring and [[the]]a determination level of bearing damage bearing identification number of the bearing, the changed rotational speed of the inner ring and the changed determination level of bearing damage
set up a route of walk-around check to diagnose the plurality of facilities; and
automatically make a report of the management of the trend of change in the vibration, the determination level of bearing damage .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 10-12 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.
Claim 4 recites:
“a vibration diagnosis device configured to diagnose vibration of a diagnosis target based on an input signal from the information terminal device” which, in light of the specification, refers to receiving a command (input) signal to initiate processing (see specification at [0007], [0032]);
“an arithmetic processing unit configured to perform frequency analysis on the extracted waveform, which is obtained by the filtering unit, to generate spectral data”, which, in light of the specification, refers to performing frequency analysis by the arithmetic processing unit to generate spectral data (see specification at [0022], [0032]-[0033]); and
“the arithmetic processing unit being configured to calculate at least one basic statistic of vibration obtained from the waveform of the signal detected by the vibration sensor and determine presence/absence of an abnormality of the diagnosis target when the arithmetic processing unit does not generate the spectral data in accordance with the input signal”, which is unclear because the arithmetic processing unit already generated the spectral data based on receiving an input signal to initiate the analysis. Similar language is described in the disclosure (see abstract, specification at [0006]) and none of the dependent claims provide clarification for this language.
The specification also describes: “When the diagnostic unit diagnoses an abnormality of the diagnosis target, the information terminal device may transmit, to the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device, an input signal for prohibiting the arithmetic processing unit from diagnosing the presence/absence of an abnormality of the diagnosis target” (see [0009] and [0042]; see also claim 5). In other words, the information terminal device diagnoses the presence/absence of an abnormality of the diagnosis target, not the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device.
Therefore, for examination purposes, the language “determine presence/absence of an abnormality of the diagnosis target when the arithmetic processing unit does not generate the spectral data in accordance with the input signal” is interpreted as the information terminal device diagnosing the presence/absence of an abnormality of the diagnosis target, not the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device.
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 4-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test (see italic text for abstract idea):
the limitation “a filtering unit configured to extract a waveform in a predetermined frequency band from a signal detected by the vibration sensor” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to select data (e.g., filter data; see specification at [0021]-[0022], [0032]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic elements (i.e., a filtering unit, vibration sensor), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to select particular information.
the limitation “an arithmetic processing unit configured to perform frequency analysis on the extracted waveform, which is obtained by the filtering unit, to generate spectral data” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to transform data (e.g., frequency analysis of waveform to generate spectral data; see specification at [0022], [0032]-[0033]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer elements (i.e., an arithmetic processing unit, filtering unit), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to transform data.
the limitation “the arithmetic processing unit being configured to calculate at least one basic statistic of vibration obtained from the waveform of the signal detected by the vibration sensor and determine presence/absence of an abnormality of the diagnosis target when the arithmetic processing unit does not generate the spectral data in accordance with the input signal” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result (i.e., calculate at least one basic statistic of vibration and determine presence/absence of an abnormality; see specification at [0033]-[0035], [0039]-[0042]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer elements (i.e., the arithmetic processing unit), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data and obtain a result.
the limitation “a diagnostic unit that compares a frequency component included in the spectral data transmitted from the vibration diagnosis device with a damage frequency derived from damage of the diagnosis target, and diagnoses the abnormality of the diagnosis target” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to compare data and obtain a result (i.e., compare frequency component with a damage frequency; see specification at [0034]-[0035]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated), the particular technological environment or field of use, and the generic computer elements (i.e., a diagnostic unit, vibration diagnosis device), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to compare data and obtain a result.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“A diagnostic system comprising: an information terminal device; and a vibration diagnosis device” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see specification at [0058]) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) while 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see specification at [0024]) (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“a vibration diagnosis device configured to diagnose vibration of a diagnosis target based on an input signal from the information terminal device” adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see specification at [0007], [0032]) (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“a vibration sensor configured to detect the vibration of the diagnosis target” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a vibration sensor, see specification at [0019]) (see MPEP 2106.05(g));
“a communication unit configured to transmit and receive a signal to and from the vibration diagnosis device” adds 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 computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea (see specification at [0025]) (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“an output unit configured to output a diagnostic result of the diagnostic unit” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data outputting) using elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e., an output unit, diagnostic unit) (see MPEP 2106.05(g));
“a database configured to store the damage frequency derived from the damage of the diagnosis target” which adds 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 computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea (see specification at [0025]-[0027]) (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“a storage unit configured to store the spectral data generated by the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device” which adds 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 computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea (see specification at [0022]) (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“wherein the diagnosis target is a bearing, and the database stores a vibration pulse frequency derived from damage of an inner ring, an outer ring, and a rolling element of the bearing as a bearing damage frequency converted based on a predetermined rotation speed of the bearing, and wherein the diagnostic unit uses the spectral data stored in the storage unit when the diagnostic unit carries out re-diagnosis with at least one of a changed bearing identification number, a changed rotational speed of the inner ring, and a changed determination level of bearing damage” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data to be manipulated) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., frequency analysis for abnormality detection, see specification at [0058]), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering/outputting; selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated) using elements specified at a high level of generality, which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b), section III);
append generic computer components used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (i.e., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f), item 2).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 10 and 12), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering/outputting, using a data type or source), generic computer components and/or field of use (Claims 5 and 10-12), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 4-5 and 10-12 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 4.
Miyasaka (US 20080234964 A1) discloses/teaches:
A diagnostic system (Fig. 1; [0035], [0170]: an abnormality diagnosing apparatus for assessing a bearing (see [0090]) is presented) comprising:
an information terminal device (Fig. 1, items 31 and 80 – “detecting portion” and ‘controller’; [0170]: diagnosing apparatus includes a detecting portion for detecting vibration of a bearing (Fig. 1, item 11) and a controller having a signal processing portion (Fig. 1, item 81) for determining abnormality in the bearing (see also [0056]-[0062])); and
a vibration diagnosis device (Fig. 1, items 31 and 80 – “detecting portion” and ‘controller’) configured to diagnose vibration of a diagnosis target (Fig. 1, item 11 – ‘bearing’; [0170], [0176]-[0177]: diagnosing apparatus includes the controller and the detecting portion for detecting vibration of a bearing (see also [0056]-[0057])) based on an input signal from the information terminal device (examiner submits that analysis must be initiate based on a command signal being transmitted to the equipment, e.g., when turning on the equipment),
the vibration diagnosis device including:
a vibration sensor configured to detect the vibration of the diagnosis target (Fig. 2, item 32 – “vibration sensor”; [0176]-[0177]: a vibration sensor is part of the detecting portion and is used for measuring vibration of the bearing);
a filtering unit (Fig. 2, item 35 – “filter portion”) configured to extract a waveform in a predetermined frequency band from a signal detected by the vibration sensor ([0187]-[0188]: a filter portion is used for sampling a determined frequency band of the measured vibration signal; the filter portion being part of the signal processing portion in the controller); and
an arithmetic processing unit configured to perform frequency analysis on the extracted waveform, which is obtained by the filtering unit, to generate spectral data (Fig. 2, item 38 – “frequency analysis portion”; [0190]: frequency of the waveform is analyzed by a frequency analysis portion, which is part of the signal processing portion in the controller);
the arithmetic processing unit being configured to calculate at least one basic statistic of vibration obtained from the waveform of the signal detected by the vibration sensor and determine presence/absence of an abnormality of the diagnosis target when the arithmetic processing unit does not generate the spectral data in accordance with the input signal ([0182]: average root mean square or peak values are used for determination of abnormality by the controller),
the information terminal device including:
a communication unit (Fig. 2, item 34 – “transmitting unit”) configured to transmit and receive a signal to and from the vibration diagnosis device ([0188]: vibration signal is transmitted to controller using transmitting unit);
a diagnostic unit (Fig. 2, item 42 – “abnormality detection portion”) that compares a frequency component included in the spectral data transmitted from the vibration diagnosis device with a damage frequency derived from damage of the diagnosis target, and diagnoses the abnormality of the diagnosis target ([0191]-[0192]: a calculated value data of a frequency owing to a damage bearing based on measured rotational speed is compared to the measured data in order to determine abnormality);
an output unit (Fig. 2, item 90 – “outputting unit”) configured to output a diagnostic result of the diagnostic unit ([0192]: outputting unit outputs the result of the determination of abnormality);
a database configured to store the diagnostic result ([0192]: result of the determination is stored in a storing portion); and
a storage unit configured to store the spectral data generated by the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device ([0193]: detected signal is stored in memory),
wherein the diagnosis target is a bearing ([0170]: abnormality of bearing is determined).
Miyasaka (US 20080234964 A1) also discloses:
“In this way, according to the embodiment, the frequency components of the measured specter data provided by frequency analysis and the frequency components owing to the rotating parts are compared and checked with variable allowable widths, presence or absence of abnormalities of rotating parts and abnormal portions are determined based on a result of the checking and therefore, presence or absence of abnormalities can be determined and abnormal portions can be specified with excellent accuracy even when the rotational speed data used for calculation is deviated from the actual rotational speed in a case in which the actual rotational speed cannot directly be inputted” ([0247]: abnormalities are detected based on variable allowable widths or thresholds).
Takada (JP 2015114214 A, IDS reference, see translation) discloses:
“A portable terminal use inspection system and inspection method for rotating machine parts according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to FIGS. This inspection method is a method for inspecting an abnormality of the rotating machine component 1, and is a general-purpose portable information terminal 2 such as a smartphone, a dedicated sensor 3 connected thereto, and the portable information terminal 2 such as the Internet. A server 6 connected via a communication network 7 is used. The server 6 is provided with a database 15 that stores data 5 such as data processing software 4 and specifications of the rotating machine component 1. Even if the server 6 is a dedicated server used for the mobile terminal use inspection method for rotating machine parts, it has a function of distributing various application programs and data unrelated to the mobile terminal use inspection method for rotating machine parts” (p. 2, par. 1: a portable terminal use inspection system for inspecting an abnormality of a rotating machine component uses a sensor, a portable information terminal and a server having a database storing specifications of the component).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest (see italic text):
“a database configured to store the damage frequency derived from the damage of the diagnosis target,
the database stores a vibration pulse frequency derived from damage of an inner ring, an outer ring, and a rolling element of the bearing as a bearing damage frequency converted based on a predetermined rotation speed of the bearing, and
wherein the diagnostic unit uses the spectral data stored in the storage unit when the diagnostic unit carries out re-diagnosis with at least one of a changed bearing identification number, a changed rotational speed of the inner ring, and a changed determination level of bearing damage”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that the prior art of record generally uses measured rotational speed to calculate values for comparison with actual vibration data information in order to determine abnormalities of bearing, without storing particular information related to damage of different bearing components and without performing diagnosis again on the same spectral data by changing bearing information).
Regarding claims 5 and 10-12.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
IM; Jong Soon et al., US 20160154406 A1, SIGNAL MEASUREMENT DIAGNOSIS MONITORING SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREFOR, AND METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR APPLYING SAME TO INDIVIDUAL DEVICE
Reference discloses a bearing endurance test monitoring method based on detecting vibration frequencies occurring at test target bearings and applying envelope analysis, while also disclosing storing signals corresponding to failures.
Sahara; Juntaro et al., US 20080033695 A1, Abnormality Diagnosing System For Mechanical Equipment
Reference discloses abnormality diagnosis system using vibration signal and rotation speed, and a combination of filter, envelope, FFT and peak detector analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857