DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on June 2, 2026.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on June 2, 2026 have been entered.
The specification has been amended.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 remain canceled.
Claims 4, 10 and 12 have been amended.
Claim 13 has been added.
Claims 4-5 and 10-13 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 8), filed on 06/02/2026, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the specification addressing the informalities raised in the previous office action, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 8), filed on 06/02/2026, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the claims addressing the informalities raised in the previous office action, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new objections to the claims are presented below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 8-9), filed on 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant submits that During the interview, the Examiner was understood to assert that the specification describes the features of the simple diagnosis mode, or the claimed second mode, in terms of an arithmetic processing unit of only an information terminal device, not of the vibration diagnosis device, of claim 1. And without acquiescing to the merits of those interpretations of the specification, those interpretations are reflected in the present claim amendments.
The examiner submits that according to the specification (see also interview summary mailed on 05/15/2026):
when a “Bearing Damage Diagnosis” (e.g., first mode) is implemented, the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device performs frequency analysis and generates spectrum data, which is transmitted to the information terminal device (see [0032]-[0033]) to perform abnormality diagnosis by the arithmetic processing unit of the information terminal device (see [0034] and Fig. 3, S7), not by the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device (see [0042]); and
when a “Vibration Value Measurement/Simple Diagnosis” (e.g., second mode) is implemented, the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device performs basics statistics (see [0041]) and the abnormality diagnosis is performed by the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device (see [0040]-[0041] and Fig. 4, S11), not by the arithmetic processing unit of the information terminal device.
The examiner suggests applicant to clearly describe what component (vibration diagnosis device or information terminal device) is performing the analysis in accordance with the original disclosure (see rejection below for suggested language).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 9-25), filed on 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are found persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that:
The background of Applicant’s specification describes examples of vibration diagnosis devices and notes technical problems with each in terms of inability to “re-analyze or re-diagnose the bearing by changing the bearing identification number, the rotating speed, the pulse frequency caused by (derived from) the defect, and the analysis condition” and that “since the determination level of the bearing damage analysis cannot be changed, erroneous determination is likely to occur.” And with that background in mind, see how claim 4, for example, regards features such as “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.” These limitations work together to provide a specific technical solution the system stores both damage frequency data in the database and spectral data in the storage unit, enabling the diagnostic unit to perform re-diagnosis with changed parameters without requiring new sensor measurements. As such, it is believed that those criteria of MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) are met in favor of finding the claims patent eligible under 35 USC 101. That is, the specification describes a technical problem and the claims reflect a solution to that problem (p. 17-19);
Under MPEP 2106.05(a), a claim that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 4 reflects such an improvement: it improves vibration diagnosis technology by enabling re-diagnosis of bearings using stored spectral data with one or more of the recited changed parameters (bearing identification number, rotational speed of the inner ring, or bearing damage determination level), thereby achieving the more efficient and more accurate vibration analysis described in the specification (p. 21); and
Under MPEP 2106.05(b), the use of a particular machine that imposes meaningful limits on the claim and plays a significant part in performing the claimed process likewise supports eligibility. Claim 4 recites a specific arrangement of machine elements that together perform the recited diagnosis … These elements are not generic placeholders but are specific, interrelated components that together enable the re-diagnosis functionality that solves the technical problem identified in paragraph [0005] (p. 22).
These arguments are persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “a communication unit configured to transmit and receive a signal to and from the vibration diagnosis device” should read “a communication unit configured to transmit and receive signals to and from the vibration diagnosis device” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis (i.e., claim 4 already recites “a signal” in the limitation “a filtering unit configured to extract a waveform in a predetermined frequency band from a signal detected by the vibration sensor”).
Claim language “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” should read “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” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis (i.e., there is no antecedence basis for “the abnormality”).
Claim language “a second arithmetic processing unit configured to, in at least a second mode, 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” should read “a second arithmetic processing unit configured to, in the first mode, the abnormality of the diagnosis target when the first arithmetic processing unit generates the spectral data in accordance with the input signal” in order to clarify the recited subject matter and provide appropriate antecedence basis (see also Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section).
Claim language “a storage unit configured to store the spectral data generated by the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device” should read “a storage unit configured to store the spectral data generated by the first arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis (i.e., claim 4 recites the vibration diagnosis device comprises a first arithmetic processing unit).
Claim language “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” should read “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 rotational speed of the bearing” in order to provide consistency and clarification in the recited subject matter (i.e., is it rotational speed or rotation speed?).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read:
“The diagnostic system according to claim 4, wherein when the diagnostic unit diagnoses the abnormality of the diagnosis target, the information terminal device transmits, to the first arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device, [[an]]the input signal for prohibiting the first arithmetic processing unit from determining the presence/absence of the abnormality of the diagnosis target” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis (i.e., claim 4 already recites “an input signal” and the vibration diagnosis device comprises “a first arithmetic processing unit”).
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 converting, using an analog-digital (AD) converter, the vibration .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “the external terminal device is configured to obtain the waveform, the spectral data, the diagnostic result of the arithmetic processing unit and the diagnostic result of the diagnostic unit from the information terminal device” should read “the external terminal device is configured to obtain the waveform, the spectral data,
Claim language “display the presence/absence of the abnormality determined by diagnosis of the arithmetic processing unit” should read “display the presence/absence of the abnormality determined by second arithmetic processing unit” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis (i.e., claim 4 recites “a second arithmetic processing unit configured to … determine presence/absence of an abnormality of the diagnosis target …”).
Claim language “automatically make a report of the management of the trend of change in the vibration, the waveform, the diagnostic result, the presence/absence of the abnormality, the bearing identification number, the rotation speed of the inner ring, the determination level of bearing damage, and the route of the walk-around check” should read “automatically make a report of the management of the trend of change in the vibration, the waveform, the diagnostic result, the presence/absence of the abnormality, the bearing identification number, the rotational speed of the inner ring, the determination level of bearing damage, and the route of the walk-around check” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis (i.e., the claim recites “rotational speed”).
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 10-13 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:
“the vibration diagnosis device including: … a first arithmetic processing unit configured to, in a first mode, perform frequency analysis on the waveform, which is obtained by the filtering unit, to generate spectral data”, which, in light of the specification, refers to performing a bearing damage diagnosis (e.g., first mode) in which spectral data is generated by the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device and transmitted to the information terminal device for diagnosing the presence/absence of damage in the bearing (see specification at [0032]-[0034]: “… The frequency spectrum is transmitted as spectrum data from the transmission/reception unit 26 of the vibration diagnosis device 20 to the information terminal device 40 … The spectrum data received by the transmitting/receiving unit 42 of the information terminal device 40 is diagnosed, i.e., the presence/absence of damage to the roiling bearing is checked by the bearing damage diagnosing unit 43a of the arithmetic processing unit 43 as the bearing damage diagnosing unit 43a refers to the bearing information stored in the first internal memory 44 (Step S7)”); and
“the information terminal device including: … a second arithmetic processing unit configured to, in at least a second mode, 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 according to the original disclosure, the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device (not the arithmetic processing unit of the information terminal device) calculates the at least one basic statistic when performing a vibration value measurement/simple diagnosis (e.g., second mode; see specification at [0041]: “As described above, in the vibration value measurement/simple diagnosis mode, the arithmetic processing unit 23 calculates the basic statistic of at least one vibration value obtained from the waveform of the signal detected by the vibration sensor 21, and diagnoses the presence/absence of an abnormality in the diagnosis target (the rolling bearing 11)”).
The dependent claims do not clarify the recited subject matter and therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The examiner submits that according to the specification (see also interview summary mailed on 05/15/2026):
when a “Bearing Damage Diagnosis” (e.g., first mode) is implemented, the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device performs frequency analysis and generates spectrum data, which is transmitted to the information terminal device (see [0032]-[0033]) to perform abnormality diagnosis by the arithmetic processing unit of the information terminal device (see [0034] and Fig. 3, S7), not by the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device (see [0042]); and
when a “Vibration Value Measurement/Simple Diagnosis” (e.g., second mode) is implemented, the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device performs basics statistics (see [0041]) and the abnormality diagnosis is performed in the arithmetic processing unit of the vibration diagnosis device (see [0040]-[0041] and Fig. 4, S11).
For examination purposes, the language “a second arithmetic processing unit configured to, in at least a second mode, 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 interpreted as “a second arithmetic processing unit configured to, in the first mode, the abnormality of the diagnosis target when the first arithmetic processing unit generates the spectral data in accordance with the input signal” as also indicated in the Claim Objections section.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 4-5 and 10-13 were evaluated for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES described in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 “the vibration diagnosis device including: 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., vibration diagnosis device, filtering unit, vibration sensor), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to select particular information.
the limitation “the vibration diagnosis device including: a first arithmetic processing unit configured to, in a first mode, perform frequency analysis on the 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., vibration diagnosis device, first 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 information terminal device including: 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., information terminal device, 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.
the limitation “the information terminal device including: a second arithmetic processing unit configured to, in at least a second mode, 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., information terminal device, second arithmetic processing unit), the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to applying mathematical concepts to manipulate 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, 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));
“the vibration diagnosis device including: 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., vibration diagnosis device including a vibration sensor, see specification at [0019]) (see MPEP 2106.05(g));
“the information terminal device including: 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));
“the information terminal device including: 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., the information terminal device including: an output unit, diagnostic unit) (see MPEP 2106.05(g));
“the information terminal device including: 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));
“the information terminal device including: 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” which, when considering the claim as a whole, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by reflecting an improvement to other technology or technical field (e.g., diagnosing/re-diagnosing bearing components abnormalities based on vibration analysis) (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Therefore, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim, when considered as a whole, is eligible at Prong Two of the Revised Step 2A (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Revised Step 2A, see also MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Regarding the dependent claims 5 and 10-13, they were found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by incorporating the eligible subject matter of their corresponding independent claims.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 4-5 and 10-13 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
a first arithmetic processing unit configured to, in a first mode, perform frequency analysis on the 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 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 ([0192]: result of the determination is stored in a storing portion); and
a second arithmetic processing unit being configured to, in at least a second mode, 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),
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 10-13.
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.
Suzuki; Kota et al., US 20190271974 A1, FAILURE DIAGNOSIS SYSTEM
Reference discloses a failure diagnosis system including sensors in target devices and performing multiple processing modes for failure diagnosis.
UNUMA; Munetoshi et al., US 20190354456 A1, ABNORMALITY DIAGNOSIS SYSTEM
Reference discloses detecting signs of failure of a device by comparing diagnosis procedures and obtaining reconfiguration information.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights