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 Objections
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
“the output side” in lines 2-3,
“the position” in line 9.
There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim uses a definite article “the”, however, the claim 1 does not recite the claim limitations of “an output side”, and “a position”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation “it is automatically checked whether there is an unexpected accumulation of entries in a class in the histogram” and the phrase is indefinite because the boundary of the claim limitation is unclear to the examiner as to what it is automatically checked is.
For a purpose of a compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this limitation as a detection module automatically checks whether there is an unexpected accumulation of entries in a class in the histogram.
Dependent claims 2-16 are also rejected 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 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 1-16 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “Method for detecting wear, gear damage and/or bearing damage to a motor-gearbox unit (10) with a motor (1) and a gearbox (3) coupled to the motor on the output side, in which
a detection module (2) determines an input and/or output torque either directly or indirectly as a measured variable that can be unambiguously correlated with the input and/or output torque when the gearbox (3) is moved by the motor (1), such that a signal curve (21, 22, 31) is respectively generated for such movements, which signal curve reflects the input and/or output torque respectively determined directly or indirectly as a function of a variable correlated with the position of the gearbox (3),
at least some of these signal curves (21, 22, 31) are analyzed automatically, wherein a region of the variable correlated with the position of the gearbox (3) is identified, to which a defined feature characteristic of gearbox damage can be assigned for the respective signal curve (21, 22, 31),
the identified region is automatically assigned to a class of a histogram (51,52), and
it is automatically checked whether there is an unexpected accumulation of entries in a class in the histogram (51,52), such that wear and/or gearbox damage is present.“
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
a detection module (2), which signal curve reflects the input and/or output torque respectively determined directly or indirectly as a function of a variable correlated with the position of the gearbox (3), and the identified region is automatically assigned to a class of a histogram (51,52).
The additional elements “which signal curve reflects the input and/or output torque respectively determined directly or indirectly as a function of a variable correlated with the position of the gearbox (3)”, and “the identified region is automatically assigned to a class of a histogram (51,52)” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
The additional element “a detection module” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, signal reflects the input and/or output torque respectively determined directly or indirectly as a function of a variable correlated with the position of the gearbox is disclosed by “Zheng CN 104776214A”, [00], [00], [00], [00]; and “Henn CN 1818429A”, [0003], [0026], [0055].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-16 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-16, the most pertinent prior arts are “Zheng CN 104776214A”, “Tang CN 100403045C”, “George US 20100158349”, “Hedin US 20140142872”, “Paajarvi US 20130024164”, and " Hubertus DE 102012022661A1".
As to claim 1, Zheng teaches a detection module (2) determines an input and/or output torque either directly or indirectly as a measured variable that can be unambiguously correlated with the input and/or output torque when the gearbox (3) is moved by the motor (1) (Zheng, [0011], [0026], [0049]), such that a signal is respectively generated for such movements, which signal reflects the input and/or output torque respectively determined directly or indirectly as a function of a variable correlated with the position of the gearbox (3) (Zheng, [0022], [0026]);
wherein a region of the variable correlated with the position of the gearbox (3) is identified, to which a defined feature characteristic of gearbox damage can be assigned for the respective signal (Zheng, [0022], [0026], [0048]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “at least some of these signal curves (21, 22, 31) are analyzed automatically, wherein a region of the variable correlated with the position of the gearbox (3) is identified, to which a defined feature characteristic of gearbox damage can be assigned for the respective signal curve (21, 22, 31)”,
“the identified region is automatically assigned to a class of a histogram (51,52)”, and
“it is automatically checked whether there is an unexpected accumulation of entries in a class in the histogram (51,52), such that wear and/or gearbox damage is present” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-16 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Hallman US 20120029838” teaches “A system and method are provided to monitor the health of a wind turbine gearbox. The system includes a plurality of sensors coupled to the wind turbine gearbox and a controller coupled to the plurality of sensors. The controller is configured to acquire vibration information from a vibration sensor, acquire a tachometer signal, convert the tachometer signal and the vibration information into a cycle domain signal, and perform an order analysis on the cycle domain signal, the order analysis providing information that identifies potential and actual damage within the wind turbine gearbox.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857