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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims and Specification filed 08/06/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending in the application. Claims 7 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every claim objection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection previously set forth in the non-final rejection dated 06/01/2026. Due to amendments to the claims new claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
As noted above the claim objections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims. However, due to amendment to the claims, new claim objections are presented below.
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-6 and 8-9: “the wear diagnosis system for a floating tile of an oil receiver based on industrial Internet” should be corrected to “the wear diagnosis system for [[a]]the floating tile of [[an]]the oil receiver based on industrial Internet”.
Claim 10 line 1: “A wear diagnosis method for a floating tile of an oil receiver based on industrial Internet” should be corrected to “A wear diagnosis method for [[a]]the floating tile of [[an]]the oil receiver based on industrial Internet”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 monitoring subsystem,” “a diagnosis subsystem,” and “a judging subunit” in claim 1; “an encoding module” in claim 3; and “a display module” in claim 9.
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.
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.
A review of the specification as filed shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structures, materials, or acts described in the specification as filed for the following 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) limitations: no corresponding structures or materials were found in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
As noted above the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims. However, due to amendment to the claims, new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are presented below.
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 1-6 and 8-10 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 limitations “a monitoring subsystem,” “a diagnosis subsystem,” and “a judging subunit” in claim 1; “an encoding module” in claim 3; and “a display module” in claim 9 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Second paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is allowable for disclosing:
wherein the diagnosis subsystem comprises a judging subunit and a diagnosis result determining subunit; the judging subunit is configured to judge whether a first fault occurs based on the unit load information and the vibration data in a preset time period;
the judging subunit is further configured to judge whether a second fault occurs based on the unit load information and the swing data in the preset time period;
the judging subunit is further configured to judge whether a third fault occurs based on the start-stop information of the oil pump of the oil collecting device in the preset time period;
the judging subunit is further configured to judge whether a fourth fault occurs based on the oil level of the hub high-level oil tank in the preset time period;
the judging subunit is further configured to judge whether a fifth fault occurs based on the oiling test results, a preset granularity threshold, and a preset fault oil color of each oil tank in the preset time period;
the diagnosis result determining subunit is configured for diagnosing a wear of the floating tile of the oil receiver when the first fault, the second fault, the third fault, the fourth fault and the fifth fault occur simultaneously.
The prior art Huang et al. (Huang, Huade, et al. "The prediction method on the early failure of hydropower units based on Gaussian process regression driven by monitoring data." Applied Sciences 11.1 (2020): 153.) teaches determining the health of different parts of a hydroelectric turbine using vibration and swing of a floating tile (See Table 7 and Page 7). However, Huang either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious “the diagnosis result determining subunit is configured for diagnosing a wear of the floating tile of the oil receiver when the first fault, the second fault, the third fault, the fourth fault and the fifth fault occur simultaneously” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
The prior art Kruger et al. (US 20120148382 A1) teaches diagnosing bearing wear using oil tests and pump information (See para[0004]). However, Kruger either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious “the diagnosis result determining subunit is configured for diagnosing a wear of the floating tile of the oil receiver when the first fault, the second fault, the third fault, the fourth fault and the fifth fault occur simultaneously” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
The prior art Kojima (US 20200355163 A1) teaches diagnosing wear using oil color and granularity (See para[0006] and para[0113]). However, Kojima either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious “the diagnosis result determining subunit is configured for diagnosing a wear of the floating tile of the oil receiver when the first fault, the second fault, the third fault, the fourth fault and the fifth fault occur simultaneously” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
The prior art Yang et al. (Yang, Dingxin, and Xiaorong Liu. "The wear status evaluation of bearing based on online oil parameters and vibration signals." 2021 Global Reliability and Prognostics and Health Management (PHM-Nanjing). IEEE, 2021.) teaches determining wear of a bearing using a combination of oil and vibration features (See Page 1). However, Yang either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious “the diagnosis result determining subunit is configured for diagnosing a wear of the floating tile of the oil receiver when the first fault, the second fault, the third fault, the fourth fault and the fifth fault occur simultaneously” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Thus, these limitations, in combination with the other elements of the claims, are neither anticipated by nor obvious in view of the prior art of record and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 would be allowable for depending from claim.
Conclusion
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 CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 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, 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
