DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-9 is directed to a state monitoring apparatus for a mechanical apparatus, claim 10 is directed a wind power generation apparatus, claims 11-12 is directed to a state monitoring method for a mechanical apparatus, and claims 13-14 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program configured. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 11:
A state monitoring method for a mechanical apparatus including a rolling bearing, the state monitoring method comprising:
a first acquisition step of acquiring vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation;
a second acquisition step of acquiring a rotation speed of the rolling bearing during rotation;
a derivation step of deriving, according to the rotation speed, a timing at which data is sampled from the vibration information or the sound information such that the number of times of sampling per rotation of the rolling bearing is a predetermined value; and
a generation step of generating, based on the timing derived in the derivation step, monitoring data by sampling data from the vibration information or the sound information.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“a first acquisition step of acquiring vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“a second acquisition step of acquiring a rotation speed of the rolling bearing during rotation” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“a derivation step of deriving, according to the rotation speed, a timing at which data is sampled from the vibration information or the sound information such that the number of times of sampling per rotation of the rolling bearing is a predetermined value” is directed to math because the process is fundamentally and extensively rooted in mathematics and is a core component of a specialized engineering field known as order tracking or order analysis. This sophisticated technique is entirely dependent on a variety of mathematical concepts to function accurately and provide meaningful insights for machine condition monitoring. The entire procedure, which involves adjusting the data sampling rate in real-time based on the instantaneous rotational speed of a rolling bearing, is a sophisticated application of applied mathematics. Here are the specific mathematical concepts involved: Calculus and Differential Equations: The rotational speed and angular position are continuously changing (especially in machines that speed up or slow down, which is a key reason for using this method). The instantaneous angular velocity and position are often modeled and tracked using calculus. The relationship between time and angle is a functional one, requiring mathematical transformations to convert signals from the time domain to the angular domain. Fourier Analysis and Transforms: The ultimate goal of order tracking is often to analyze the data in the "order domain" (multiples of the rotational speed, called "orders", instead of absolute frequencies in Hertz). This transformation from the time/angle domain to the order domain is accomplished using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm, a powerful mathematical tool. Generalized Fourier Transforms are used in more advanced implementations to handle the non-stationary (variable speed) nature of the signals effectively. Algebra and Proportions: The core mechanism of deriving the sampling timing relies on a direct mathematical proportion: maintaining a predetermined, constant number of samples per revolution, regardless of how fast the bearing is spinning. If the rotation speed doubles, the sampling rate (samples per second) must also double proportionally. Kinematics and Geometry: To predict the specific frequencies (or orders) at which a healthy or faulty bearing will vibrate, engineers use mathematical models based on the bearing's physical geometry, including dimensions like the pitch diameter, the number of rolling elements, and the contact angles. These kinematic models generate the "bearing characteristic frequencies" (BCFs) or orders that analysts look for in the processed data.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “a derivation step of deriving, according to the rotation speed, a timing at which data is sampled from the vibration information or the sound information such that the number of times of sampling per rotation of the rolling bearing is a predetermined value” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“a first acquisition step of acquiring vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a second acquisition step of acquiring a rotation speed of the rolling bearing during rotation” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a derivation step of deriving, according to the rotation speed, a timing at which data is sampled from the vibration information or the sound information such that the number of times of sampling per rotation of the rolling bearing is a predetermined value” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a generation step of generating, based on the timing derived in the derivation step, monitoring data by sampling data from the vibration information or the sound information” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“a first acquisition step of acquiring vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a second acquisition step of acquiring a rotation speed of the rolling bearing during rotation” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a derivation step of deriving, according to the rotation speed, a timing at which data is sampled from the vibration information or the sound information such that the number of times of sampling per rotation of the rolling bearing is a predetermined value” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a generation step of generating, based on the timing derived in the derivation step, monitoring data by sampling data from the vibration information or the sound information” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is similar to claim 11 but recites a state monitoring apparatus for a mechanical apparatus including a rolling bearing, the state monitoring apparatus comprising: a first acquisition portion configured, a second acquisition portion configured, a derivation portion configured, and a generation portion configured. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 1.
Claim 13 cites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program configured to perform the steps as in claim 11. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 13 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12:
A state monitoring method for a mechanical apparatus including a rolling bearing, the state monitoring method comprising:
an acquisition step of acquiring vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation at constant time intervals;
a conversion step of converting the vibration information or the sound information acquired in the acquisition step into a waveform at a state in which a rotation operation is at a constant angular velocity; and
a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the mechanical apparatus using the vibration information or the sound information converted in the conversion step.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“an acquisition step of acquiring vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation at constant time intervals” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“a conversion step of converting the vibration information or the sound information acquired in the acquisition step into a waveform at a state in which a rotation operation is at a constant angular velocity” is directed to math because the process of converting vibration or sound information into a waveform, especially within the context of rotation at a constant angular velocity, is deeply and fundamentally rooted in mathematics. The entire framework for understanding, measuring, and analyzing these physical phenomena relies heavily on a variety of mathematical concepts and tools, providing a profound connection between the abstract world of mathematics and the physical world of sound and motion (see instant application specification paragraphs [0089]-[0091]: The conversion portion is configured to perform conversion using the following formula 2).
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “a derivation step of deriving, according to the rotation speed, a timing at which data is sampled from the vibration information or the sound information such that the number of times of sampling per rotation of the rolling bearing is a predetermined value” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“an acquisition step of acquiring vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation at constant time intervals” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a conversion step of converting the vibration information or the sound information acquired in the acquisition step into a waveform at a state in which a rotation operation is at a constant angular velocity” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the mechanical apparatus using the vibration information or the sound information converted in the conversion step” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“an acquisition step of acquiring vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation at constant time intervals” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a conversion step of converting the vibration information or the sound information acquired in the acquisition step into a waveform at a state in which a rotation operation is at a constant angular velocity” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a diagnosis step of diagnosing a state of the mechanical apparatus using the vibration information or the sound information converted in the conversion step” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 is similar to claim 12 but recites a state monitoring apparatus for a mechanical apparatus including a rolling bearing, the state monitoring apparatus comprising: an acquisition portion configured, a conversion portion configured, and a diagnosis portion configured. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 5 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 5.
Claim 14 cites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program configured to perform the steps as in claim 12. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 14 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 12.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-10, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-14 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishida (JP 2011252753 A).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 13, Nishida discloses a state monitoring apparatus, method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for a mechanical apparatus including a rolling bearing (claim 1: "A bearing diagnostic apparatus [...] of a bearing portion included in a rotating facility"), the state monitoring apparatus comprising:
a first acquisition portion configured to acquire vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation (claim 1: "a sensor that detects an acceleration of vibration generated from the bearing portion of the rotating faciIity");
a second acquisition portion configured to acquire a rotation speed of the rolling bearing during rotation (claim 1: "a rotation detector that detects rotation speed information of the bearing of the rotating equipment");
a derivation portion configured to derive, according to the rotation speed, a timing at which data is sampled from the vibration information or the sound information such that the number of times of sampling per rotation of the rolling bearing is a predetermined value (claim 1: "a digital signal obtained by sampling the amplified vibration signal with a sampling clock having a period corresponding to the rotation speed information"); and
a generation portion configured to generate, based on the timing derived by the derivation portion, monitoring data by sampling data from the vibration information or the sound information (claim 1: a frequency analysis unit that performs FFT analysis and outputs the frequency spectrum and calculates the amplitude value of the frequency caused by the bearing structure and the rotational speed).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 14, Nishida discloses a state monitoring apparatus, method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program including a rolling bearing (claim 1: "A bearing diagnostic apparatus [...] of a bearing portion included in a rotating facility"), the state monitoring apparatus comprising:
an acquisition portion configured to acquire vibration information or sound information of the rolling bearing during rotation at constant time intervals (claim 1: "a sensor that detects an acceleration of vibration generated from the bearing portion of the rotating facility [...] at a predetermined constant cycle");
a conversion portion configured to convert the vibration information or the sound information acquired by the acquisition portion into a waveform at a state in which a rotation operation is at a constant angular velocity (par. [0022] "the vibration data acquired are corrected so that they can be handled as signal waveforms of a constant rotational speed"; par. [0023]: "conversion of the vibration signal to obtain a time axis waveform for each frequency band" and par. [0025]: "time axis waveform with a constant rotational speed"); and
a diagnosis portion configured to diagnose a state of the mechanical apparatus using the vibration information or the sound information converted by the conversion portion (par. [0018]: comparison operation unit).
Regarding claim 2, Nishida discloses wherein the generation portion is configured to generate the monitoring data by performing an order ratio analysis on the data sampled from the vibration information or the sound information (para. [0014]).
Regarding claim 3, Nishida discloses herein the generation portion is further configured to perform envelope analysis processing or filter processing on the monitoring data (para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, Nishida discloses a diagnosis portion configured to diagnose a state of the rolling bearing using the monitoring data generated by the generation portion (para. [0012]).
Regarding claim 6, Nishida discloses wherein the conversion portion is configured to convert, as the constant angular velocity, an angular velocity at a predetermined timing when the acquisition portion acquires the vibration information or the sound information (para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Nishida discloses a derivation portion configured to derive, based on rotation number during rotation of the rolling bearing, an angular velocity during the rotation, wherein the conversion portion is configured to convert, based on the angular velocity derived by the derivation portion, the vibration information or the sound information acquired by the acquisition portion (para. [0012], [0018], [0019], [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Nishida discloses wherein the conversion portion is configured to perform conversion using the information acquired by the acquisition portion or information obtained by applying envelope processing to the information acquired by the acquisition portion (para. [0002], [0004]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (JP 2011252753 A) in view of Tsutsui (JP 2015031626 A).
Regarding claim 10, Nishida discloses a wind power generation apparatus comprising: the state monitoring apparatus and a rolling bearing.
Tsutsui teaches a wind power generation apparatus comprising: the state monitoring apparatus and a rolling bearing (Fig.6, pages 7-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate a wind power generation apparatus comprising: the state monitoring apparatus and a rolling bearing of Tsutsui with the state monitoring apparatus of Nishida for the purposes of providing a device for monitoring state of a rolling bearing by using analysis results of a vibration analysis method (Tsutsui, abstract).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857