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 1-4 are directed to a life determining device, which is considered to be a machine. Claim 5 is directed to a life determining method, which is considered to be a process. Therefore, claims 1-5 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a life determining device comprising “a current estimating unit for estimating a current of the brush motor based on a temperature of the fluid and a pressure of the fluid;
an operation time measuring unit for measuring an operation time of the brush motor at the current estimated by the current estimating unit; and
a life determining unit for determining the life of the brush motor based on the current estimated by the current estimating unit and the operation time measured by the operation time measuring unit” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0036]-[0057] of the instant PGPub, teach the estimating, measuring, and determining data to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the estimating and measuring could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements “a brush motor”, “a supply device”, the structure of a current estimating unit, an operation time measuring unit, and a life determining unit. The additional elements of the brush motor, the supply device, the current estimating unit, the operation time measuring unit, and the life determining unit are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the brush motor and supply device is not considered to be a positively recited part of the claimed system. Even if they were considered to be positively recited, the sensors are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The structure of the current estimating unit, the operation time measuring unit, and the life determining unit are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a brush motor”, “a supply device”, and the structure of a current estimating unit, an operation time measuring unit, and a life determining unit do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the brush motor, the supply device, the current estimating unit, the operation time measuring unit, and the life determining unit are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the brush motor and the supply device are not considered to be a positively recited part of the claimed system. To the degree gathering of data is claimed, the sensor system is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The current estimating unit, the operation time measuring unit, and the life determining unit are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claim 2 recites the further additional element of “a storage unit storing a map for deriving a current using the temperature and the pressure as parameters”. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The current estimating unit, the operation time measuring unit, and the life determining unit are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 2 is not eligible.
Claims 3-4 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claims 1-2 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claims 1-2 above.
Claim 5 is directed to a life determining method for determining a life of a brush motor comprising “a step of estimating a current of the brush motor based on a temperature of the fluid and a pressure of the fluid;
a step of measuring an operation time of the brush motor at the estimated current; and
a step of determining the life of the brush motor based on the estimated current and the measured operation time” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0036]-[0057] of the instant PGPub, teach the estimating, measuring, and determining data to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the estimating and measuring could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 5 further recites the additional elements “a brush motor”, “a supply device”, the structure of a current estimating unit, an operation time measuring unit, and a life determining unit. The additional elements of the brush motor, the supply device, the current estimating unit, the operation time measuring unit, and the life determining unit are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the brush motor and supply device is not considered to be a positively recited part of the claimed system. Even if they were considered to be positively recited, the sensors are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The structure of the current estimating unit, the operation time measuring unit, and the life determining unit are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a brush motor”, “a supply device”, and the structure of a current estimating unit, an operation time measuring unit, and a life determining unit do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the brush motor, the supply device, the current estimating unit, the operation time measuring unit, and the life determining unit are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the brush motor and the supply device are not considered to be a positively recited part of the claimed system. To the degree gathering of data is claimed, the sensor system is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The current estimating unit, the operation time measuring unit, and the life determining unit are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible.
Conclusion
The prior and related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koehl (US PGPub 2008/0131286 A1) and Tanaka et al. (US PGPub 2017/0274723 A1) teach systems with similarities to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853