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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a method of indicating an evolution of a microstructural deterioration of a hardened metal object in relation to fatigue load cycles, N, exerted on the hardened metal object, the method comprising: determining the evolution of microstructural deterioration using a relationship between a rate of change in a measurable parameter indicative of the microstructural condition of the hardened metal object and a fatigue damage rate of the hardened metal object, wherein the method is given by the equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
69
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where
b(t) is a time dependent measurable parameter indicative of microstructural condition when time
t
=
N
f
, where N is fatigue exposure in number of load cycles and f is the frequency of the fatigue load cycles (Hz),
bth is a minimum measurable parameter indicative of microstructural condition when
t
=
N
f
→
∞
,
bsd is a measurable parameter indicative of micro structural condition after shake down phase,
γs is plastic strain accumulation,
t0 is a time normalization constant (seconds), and
d is a temperature dependent material exponential coefficient, where d < 1”
The limitation directed to determining the evolution of microstructural deterioration is directed to data manipulation using mathematical concepts and formulas. As currently written, the evolution of microstructural deterioration is determined from a mathematical equation. The claim fails to define specific structure that is able to perform the determination. Therefore, the limitation falls within the “mathematical Concepts” grouping. The claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim fails to recite any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because subject matter directed to a specific structure is not recited. The claim is patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept abstract idea. The dependent claims do not add anything significantly more that would make the claims patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation directed to the calculation of the plastic strain accumulation is directed to data manipulation using mathematical concepts and formulas. As currently written, the plastic strain accumulation is calculated using a formula without reciting any structure that is able to perform the method. Therefore, the limitation falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “measurable parameter indicative of the microstructural condition of the hardened metal object is a Full Width at Half Maximum” which is directed to data manipulation using mathematical concepts and formulas. As currently written recites parameters being Full Width at Half Maximum which is a mathematical concept. Therefore, the limitation falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “obtaining a solution to the equation in claim 1 by integrating the equation over fatigue exposure in load cycles and then calculating the evolution of a Fatigue Damage index…” is directed to data manipulation using mathematical concepts and formulas. As currently written, the claim recites that solution of claim 1 is obtained by integrating and calculating the evolution of an index without defining structure. Therefore, the limitation falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of “measuring”, “calculating”, “calibrating”, and “determining” are directed to data manipulation using mathematical concepts and formulas. As currently written, the claim recites limitations that are directed to measuring and calculating values to determine the expected life without defining structure that is able to perform the claimed method. Therefore, the limitation falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of “calculating” and “subtracting” are directed to data manipulation using mathematical concepts and formulas. As currently written, the claim recites limitations that are directed to calculating the expected life and subtracting the load cycles without reciting limitations defining a structure. Therefore, the limitation falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites limitations directed to “wherein the method is used to determine whether or not to remanufacture the hardened metal object”. As currently written, the claim fails to recite limitations that establish that the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the hardened metal object is a bearing inner ring, a bearing outer ring, or a bearing rolling element”. As currently written, the claim fails to recite limitations that establish that the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept abstract idea.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites limitations directed to a program instructions causing the computer system to perform the method of claim 1. As currently written, the claim fails to recite limitations directed to a structure that is able to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim fails to recite limitations that the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept abstract idea.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program per se. Computer programs are abstract instructions. Therefore, a computer program is not a product nor a process as they are not “acts” being performed. As such, these claims are not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.01. The claims are directed to a non-statutory functional descriptive material. It is noted that computer programs embodied on computer readable medium or other structure would be directed to a product so long as the computer readable medium is not disclosed as non-statutory subject matter per se (signals or carrier waves).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vegter (U.S. 2010/0332153).
Vegter discloses a method of indicating an evolution of a microstructural deterioration of a hardened metal object in relation to fatigue load cycles, N, exerted on the hardened metal object, the method comprising:
determining the evolution of microstructural deterioration ([0017], determination of the microstructural deterioration evolution) using a relationship between a rate of change in a measurable parameter indicative of the microstructural condition of the hardened metal object and a fatigue damage rate of the hardened metal object ([0017], relationship between fatigue damage rate and rate of at which the metal object deteriorates), wherein the method is given by the equation ([0032], equation B):
PNG
media_image1.png
69
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where
b(t) is a time dependent measurable parameter indicative of microstructural condition when time
t
=
N
f
([0033]), where N is fatigue exposure in number of load cycles and f is the frequency of the fatigue load cycles (Equation B; [0032]-[0033]),
bth is a minimum measurable parameter indicative of microstructural ([0019]) condition when
t
=
N
f
→
∞
,
bsd is a measurable parameter indicative of micro structural condition after shake down phase ([0018]),
γs is plastic strain accumulation ([0017]-[0025]),
t0 is a time normalization constant ([0023]), and
d is a temperature dependent material exponential coefficient ([0030]), where d < 1.
Regarding claim 2:
Vegter discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the plastic strain accumulation γs is given by the equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
61
273
media_image2.png
Greyscale
( [0017], equation A)
where
τxz is an orthogonal shear stress ([0018]-[0030]),
τ0 is an activation stress for creep ([0018]-[0030]),
, C is a proportionally constant for the shear stress amplitude ([0018]-[0030]),
c is an exponent for the shear stress amplitude ([0018]-[0030]),
Qeff is an activation energy for creep ([0018]-[0030]),
kb is a Boltzmann constant ([0018]-[0030]),
T is an operating temperature ([0018]-[0030]),
σH is the Hertzian hydrostatic pressure ([0018]-[0030]), and
ΔV is a material activation volume ([0018]-[0030]),
wherein at least one of the material related parameters bth, τ0, d, and/or ΔV are functions of temperature ([0018]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 3:
Vegter discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the measurable parameter indicative of the microstructural condition of the hardened metal object is a Full Width at Half Maximum, FWHM, obtained from a diffraction peak of an X-ray diffraction measurement ([0062]-[0063], FWHM of diffraction peaks), where:
b(t) is a time dependent FWHM peak width when time
t
=
N
f
([0033], equation) where N is fatigue exposure in number of load cycles and f is the frequency of the fatigue load cycles
bth is a minimum FWHM peak width when time
t
=
N
f
→
∞
([0031] and [0080]-[0082], FWHM), and
bsd is a FWHM peak width after shake down phase ([0031] and [0080]-[0082], FWHM shake down).
Regarding claim 4:
Vegter discloses a method of indicating an evolution of a Fatigue Damage Index for the hardened metal object as a function of fatigue load cycles, N, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining a solution to the equation in the method in claim 1 by integrating the equation ([0078]-[0082], integration over time) over fatigue exposure in load cycles ([0078]-[0082], integration over time) and then calculating the evolution of a Fatigue Damage Index by dividing the solution by an original value of the measurable parameter indicative of the microstructural condition of the hardened metal object prior to fatigue exposure ([0086]-[0091], fatigue index).
Regarding claim 5:
Vegter discloses a method of determining the expected life of a hardened metal object in relation to a number of load cycles exerted on the hardened metal object, wherein the method comprises:
measuring an actual value of Fatigue Damage Index for the hardened metal object ([0099], and [0104], actual Fatigue Damage index);
calculating the evolution of Fatigue Damage Index according to the method of claim 4 ([0105], evolution Fatigue damage index);
calibrating the calculated evolution on the basis of the measured value of Fatigue Damage Index ([0105], fitted through actual FDI); and
determining the expected life on the basis of a known critical value of Fatigue Damage Index that leads to material failure ([0106]-[0107], expected life), where the number of fatigue load cycles corresponding to the critical value of the Fatigue Damage Index equals the expected life ([0106]-[0107], fatigue load cycle corresponds to critical FDI).
Regarding claim 6:
Vegter discloses A method of determining the remaining life of a hardened metal object in relation to fatigue load cycles exerted on the hardened metal object, the method comprising:
calculating the expected life of the hardened metal object according to the method in claim 5 ([0106], expected life), and
subtracting an actual number of fatigue load cycles from the expected life of the hardened metal ([0107], subtraction).
Regarding claim 7:
Vetger discloses the method of determining the remaining life according to claim 6, wherein the method is used to determine whether or not to remanufacture the hardened metal object ([0109], better dimension metal objects).
Regarding claim 8:
Vegter discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the hardened metal object is a bearing inner ring, a bearing outer ring, or a bearing rolling element ([0039], bearing).
Regarding claim 9:
Vegter discloses a computer program product ([0044], program) loadable into the internal memory of a computer, comprising software code portions ([0108], processor) for performing the methods of claim 1 (as rejected above) when run on a computer.
Regarding claim 10:
Vegter discloses a non-transient computer readable medium ([0108], processor) containing program instructions for execution on a computer system, which when executed by the computer system ([0108], processor), cause the computer system to perform the methods recited in claim 1 (rejected above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884