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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a state change detection unit” and “a vibration determination unit” in claim 1; the various units in claims 2; “a parameter change unit” in claim 3; “a diagnostic operation execution unit” and “a sensor data acquisition unit” in claim 4; “a notification unit” in claim 7; and “a vibration prevention operation execution unit” in claim 8, plus their respective recited functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the above identified units plus functions are interpreted to be computer software functions, computer hardware for the functions, or combination thereof; and their equivalents (see specification [0037]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
1. A vibration detection device that detects presence or absence of vibration in an industrial machine, the vibration detection device comprising:
a state change detection unit configured to detect a change in a state of a control device that controls the industrial machine; and
a vibration determination unit configured to determine whether the industrial machine is vibrating,
wherein, when the state change detection unit detects a change in the state of the control device, the vibration determination unit determines presence or absence of vibration in the industrial machine.
The bold-faced limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined above. However, they can be generic computer(s) or processor(s) invoked for their data processing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea Also, it is routine and conventional to invoke a computer for data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 10 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Note that in claim 2, changing the control parameter does not necessarily change the physical operation of the control device because it is recited at a high level of generality that it is not specific as to what is controlled by the control parameter.
On the other hand, claim 8 is eligible because the limitation “automatically avoid the vibration when the vibration determination unit determines that the industrial machine is vibrating” sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two - yes).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekiguchi et al. (US 20140077746 A1; hereinafter “Sekiguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Sekiguchi teaches a vibration detection device that detects presence or absence of vibration in an industrial machine (i.e., “A motor control device… estimates a vibration amplitude value”; see Abstract; “a machining motor for rotating a mechanical machining tool or a workpiece connected thereto like a machine tool”; see [0011]), the vibration detection device comprising:
a state change detection unit (i.e., “an operation determination unit 6”) configured to detect a change in a state of a control device that controls the industrial machine (i.e., “compares an absolute value of the input motor-speed value with a threshold… when the absolute value of the motor speed is equal to or larger than the threshold, the operation determination unit 6 determines that the motor 1 is in an operating state. When the absolute value of the motor speed is smaller than the threshold, the operation determination unit 6 determines that the motor 1 is in a stopped state”; see [0028]); and
a vibration determination unit (i.e., “the amplitude estimation unit 7a”) configured to determine whether the industrial machine is vibrating (i.e., “separately outputs an estimated stopped-time amplitude value and an estimated operated-time amplitude value”; see [0029]; “by monitoring the operated-time amplitude value and the stopped-time amplitude value separately output by the amplitude estimation unit 7a, an occurrence factor of a vibration can be specifically assumed”; see [0038]),
wherein, when the state change detection unit detects a change in the state of the control device, the vibration determination unit determines presence or absence of vibration in the industrial machine (i.e., “by monitoring the operated-time amplitude value and the stopped-time amplitude value separately output by the amplitude estimation unit 7a, an occurrence factor of a vibration can be specifically assumed”; see [0038]; see, also, [0047] regarding using thresholds to determine presence of the types, i.e., occurrence factors, of the vibrations).
Regarding claim 2, Sekiguchi further teaches:
wherein the state change detection unit includes at least one of: a parameter change detection unit configured to detect a change in a control parameter of the control device; a driven body change detection unit configured to detect a change in a jig or workpiece; a tool change detection unit configured to detect a change in a tool; a machining state detection unit configured to detect presence or absence of machining or a type of machining (i.e., “when the absolute value of the motor speed is equal to or larger than the threshold, the operation determination unit 6 determines that the motor 1 is in an operating state. When the absolute value of the motor speed is smaller than the threshold, the operation determination unit 6 determines that the motor 1 is in a stopped state”; see [0028]); a temperature state detection unit configured to detect temperature of the industrial machine or surroundings of the industrial machine; or a lubrication state detection unit configured to detect a state of lubricating oil of a driving unit included in the industrial machine.
Regarding claim 4, Sekiguchi further teaches:
a diagnostic operation execution unit (i.e., “amplitude estimation unit 7a”) configured to command the control device to execute a diagnostic operation when the state change detection unit detects a change in the state of the control device (i.e., “the amplitude estimation unit 7a has the operation determination signal Sm output by the operation determination unit 6 and the torque command T* output by the feedback control unit 4 input thereto, and separately outputs an estimated stopped-time amplitude value and an estimated operated-time amplitude value”; see [0029]); and
a sensor data acquisition unit (i.e., “amplitude estimation unit 7a”) configured to acquire sensor data from the industrial machine and/or the control device (i.e., “he amplitude estimation unit 7a has the operation determination signal Sm output by the operation determination unit 6 and the torque command T* output by the feedback control unit 4 input thereto”; see [0029]),
wherein the vibration determination unit determines presence or absence of vibration in the industrial machine, based on the sensor data acquired by the sensor data acquisition unit (i.e., “The torque command T* is the other input of each of the stopped-time amplitude estimator 10a and the operated-time amplitude estimator 11a via the high-pass filter 8 and the absolute-value computation unit 9”; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Sekiguchi further teaches:
wherein the vibration determination unit determines presence or absence of vibration in the industrial machine when a diagnostic target shaft (i.e., a motor has a shaft; see, also, [0053]) included in the industrial machine is stopped by the control device (i.e., “When the input operation-determination signal Sm indicates a stopped state, the stopped-time amplitude estimator 10a calculates a stopped-time amplitude value by sequential averaging thereof and outputs the stopped-time amplitude value”; see [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Sekiguchi further teaches:
wherein the sensor data acquisition unit acquires control data of the control device or a sensor value detected by an external sensor, as the sensor data (i.e., “the amplitude estimation unit 7a has the operation determination signal Sm output by the operation determination unit 6 and the torque command T* output by the feedback control unit 4 input thereto”; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, Sekiguchi further teaches:
a notification unit configured to, when the vibration determination unit determines that the industrial machine is vibrating, provide a notification to that effect (i.e., “it is possible to provide a user with information useful for assuming whether the vibration occurrence factor is a degradation in stability of a feedback control system or an abnormality such as a damage to a movable part of a mechanical device having the motor connected thereto due to a change over time”; see [0017]; “when the stopped-time amplitude value estimated by the stopped-time amplitude estimator 10a is equal to or smaller than the first threshold and the operated-time amplitude value estimated by the operated-time amplitude estimator 11a exceeds the second threshold, the state diagnosis unit 12a outputs a diagnosis result signal that indicates a damage abnormality of a movable part (a ball screw, a ball bearing, and the like) of a machine as the diagnosis result”; see [0047]; “outputs a diagnosis result signal that notifies a user of an abnormality”; see [0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Sekiguchi further teaches:
wherein the vibration determination unit determines that the industrial machine is vibrating when a statistically processed value of the sensor data acquired by the sensor data acquisition unit is increasing while the diagnostic target shaft included in the industrial machine is stopped (i.e., “The stopped-time amplitude estimator 10a and the operated-time amplitude estimator 11a then sequentially calculate and output an average value of the torque absolute-value signal Tmod, thereby outputting an estimated value of a vibration amplitude”; see [0033]; “When the stopped-time amplitude value exceeds the first threshold, the state diagnosis unit 12a outputs a diagnosis result signal that indicates an abnormality (a degradation in stability) of gain setting of a feedback control system as the diagnosis result”; see [0047]).
Regarding claim 10, Sekiguchi further teaches:
wherein the sensor data acquired by the sensor data acquisition unit is a torque command of the control device (i.e., “he amplitude estimation unit 7a has the operation determination signal Sm output by the operation determination unit 6 and the torque command T* output by the feedback control unit 4 input thereto”; see [0029]).
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.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of TSUNEKI et al. (US 20200326670 A1; hereinafter “TSUNEKI”).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Sekiguchi does not explicitly disclose:
a parameter change unit configured to change the control parameter by machine learning.
But TSUNEKI teaches:
changing the control parameter by machine learning (i.e., “a machine learning device which performs reinforcement learning for optimizing a coefficient of at least one filter that attenuates at least one specific frequency component provided in a servo control device for controlling a motor”; see [0001]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sekiguchi in view of TSUNEKI, by incorporating a parameter change unit configured to change the control parameter by machine learning, as claimed. The rationale would be to help reducing vibrations at a machine end (see TSUNEKI [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Sekiguchi does not explicitly disclose:
a vibration prevention operation execution unit configured to automatically avoid the vibration when the vibration determination unit determines that the industrial machine is vibrating.
But TSUNEKI teaches:
automatically avoiding the vibration when the vibration determination unit determines that the industrial machine is vibrating (i.e., “a machine learning device which performs reinforcement learning for optimizing a coefficient of at least one filter that attenuates at least one specific frequency component provided in a servo control device for controlling a motor”; see [0001]; “A filter such as a notch filter is used, and thus it is possible to reduce the resonance. T”; see [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sekiguchi in view of TSUNEKI, by incorporating a vibration prevention operation execution unit configured to automatically avoid the vibration when the vibration determination unit determines that the industrial machine is vibrating, as claimed. The rationale would be to help reducing vibrations at a machine end (see TSUNEKI [0039]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
XU (US 20180341244 A1) teaches a controller that prevents vibrations at the completion of cutting using machine learning device that learns a feeding amount per unit cycle of a tool when a cutting part of the tool passes through a workpiece.
UEDA (US 20160041533 A1) teaches a motor control device, involving detecting an oscillation amount successively; and adjusting a pressure control if the oscillation amount exceeds an acceptable value, on the basis of the control parameter of the pressure control and the oscillation amount stored during adjustment, such that the oscillation amount is equal to or less than an acceptable value.
Miyaji (US 20140217952 A1) teaches a position control apparatus for full-closed control for controlling the position of a driven member, involving a vibration period and amplitude detector and a constant vibration detector that outputs, as a vibration period of the constant vibration, a vibration period obtained while the driven member is not in an acceleration/deceleration state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857