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 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: an input interface configured to receive an instruction; an actuator configured to actuate based on the instruction; control circuitry configured to control an actuation of the actuator based on the instruction; a sensor configured to detect the physical state of the component; and an output interface configured to notify an operator of whether the abnormality is occurring in the component based on the rough state-description data transmitted to the control circuitry in claim 1.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 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.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the input interface and output interface in Claim 1. An interface requires a means of input (button, display, etc.). It is unclear what his means of input is and is therefore indefinite. Further, the limitation discloses an actuator, but fails to disclose what is being actuated. Further the control circuitry is configured to control said actuation, but it is unclear what is being actuated. Claim 16 suffers from the same deficiencies. The 112b rejection can be overcome by clearly establishing the relationship of terms and what is claimed within limitations.
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 1-20 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A machine tool comprising: an input interface configured to receive an instruction; an actuator configured to actuate based on the instruction; control circuitry configured to control an actuation of the actuator based on the instruction; a component having a physical state to be affected by the actuation of the actuator; a sensor configured to detect the physical state of the component; a computer connected to the control circuitry via an external communication interface, the computer being configured to receive a signal from the sensor, generate, based on the signal, rough state-description data relevant to an occurrence of an abnormality in the component, transmit the rough state-description data to the control circuitry, generate detailed state-description data based on the signal, the detailed state-description data being more informative than the rough state-description data such that the detailed state-description data facilitates identifying an abnormal part in the component, and transmit the detailed state-description data to a monitoring computer via a communication network, the monitoring computer being configured to analyze the physical state of the component; and an output interface configured to notify an operator of whether the abnormality is occurring in the component based on the rough state-description data transmitted to the control circuitry.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are 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).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted 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 limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “analyze the physical state of the component” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 16.
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 above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a machining tool, input interface, actuator, control circuitry, component, sensor, computer, external communication interface, output interface; monitoring computer
In Claim 16: a machining tool, actuator, control circuitry, component, computer, external communication interface, communication network; monitoring computer
The additional element of “A sensor and input interface, external communication interface, output interface represents a mere data gathering/outputting step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The machining tool, actuator, control circuitry, component, computer, monitoring computer are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
The additional limitations of: actuate based on the instruction; control an actuation of the actuator based on the instruction; detect the physical state of the component; receive an instruction; receive a signal from the sensor, generate, based on the signal, rough state-description data relevant to an occurrence of an abnormality in the component, transmit the rough state-description data to the control circuitry, generate detailed state-description data based on the signal, the detailed state-description data being more informative than the rough state-description data such that the detailed state-description data facilitates identifying an abnormal part in the component, and transmit the detailed state-description data to a monitoring computer via a communication network;….notify an operator of whether the abnormality is occurring in the component based on the rough state-description data transmitted to the control circuitry, are considered by MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.055(h) as failing to amount to more than mere data gathering/outputting and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-15 and 17-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US20190242787A1, 20-19-08-08) herein referred to as Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a machine tool [0015] comprising: an actuator configured to actuate based on the instruction (rotating shaft., gear and/or motor rotating [0017]); control circuitry configured to control an actuation of the actuator based on the instruction [0018]; a component having a physical state to be affected by the actuation of the actuator[0020]; a sensor configured to detect the physical state of the component [0020]; a computer connected to the control circuitry via an external communication interface, the computer being configured to receive a signal from the sensor, generate, based on the signal, rough state-description data relevant to an occurrence of an abnormality in the component, transmit the rough state-description data to the control circuitry, generate detailed state-description data based on the signal, the detailed state-description data being more informative than the rough state-description data such that the detailed state-description data facilitates identifying an abnormal part in the component, and transmit the detailed state-description data to a monitoring computer via a communication network, the monitoring computer being configured to analyze the physical state of the component [0018-0020]; and an output interface configured to notify an operator of whether the abnormality is occurring in the component based on the rough state-description data transmitted to the control circuitry [0020; 0041-0044].
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki teaches the machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to transmit a first command to the computer to control the computer to generate the rough state-description data based on the signal, and wherein the computer is configured to generate the rough state-description data upon receipt of the first command and to transmit the rough state-description data to the control circuitry [0020].
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki further teaches The machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the monitoring computer is configured to transmit a second command to the computer to control the computer to generate the detailed state-description data based on the signal, and wherein the computer is configured to generate the detailed state-description data upon receipt of the second command and to transmit to the monitoring computer, the detailed state-description data that is generated [0021].
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Suzuki further teaches comprising a communication line connecting the control circuitry and the computer to each other [0028], wherein a gateway (Ethernet, LAN) is provided between the computer and the monitoring computer (Second external device) in the communication network [0028], wherein the first command and the rough state-description data are transmitted via the communication line [0039], wherein the second command and the detailed state-description data are transmitted via the communication network [0040], and wherein communication capacity of the communication line is smaller than communication capacity of the communication network has [0018-0020].
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki further teaches the machine tool according to claim 2, wherein the first command comprises at least one of: a program code instructed to generate the rough state-description data based on the signal [0020]; and an execution command to execute the program code that has been transmitted from the control circuitry to the computer and has been stored in the computer [0027].
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki further teaches the machine tool according to claim 5, wherein the program code comprises a threshold based on which the abnormality in the component is determined, wherein upon execution of the program code, the computer is configured to, based on the plurality of factors and the threshold, determine whether the abnormality is occurring in the component, and wherein the rough state-description data comprises information indicating whether the abnormality is occurring in the component [0035].
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki further teaches a diagnosis system (Abstract) comprising: the machine tool according to claim 3 [0021]; the monitoring computer (Second external device); the communication network connecting the monitoring computer and the computer to each other [0028]; (Fig. 1 and 3); and a gateway provided between the monitoring computer and the computer on the communication network [0028].
Regarding Claim 16, Suzuki teaches a method of diagnosing a machine tool [0015], the method comprising: receiving an input to cause control circuitry of the machine tool to drive an actuator of the machine tool based on the input to change a physical state of a component of the machine tool [0017]; detecting the physical state of the component [0020]; transmitting a signal indicating the physical state detected to a computer of the machine tool to allow the computer to generate rough state-description data and detailed state-description data based on the signal, the rough state-description data being relevant to an occurrence of an abnormality in the component, the detailed state-description data being more informative than the rough state-description data such that the detailed state-description data facilitates identifying an abnormal part in the component [0018-0020]; transmitting the rough state-description data from the computer to the control circuitry via an external communication interface [0018-0020]; transmitting the detailed state-description data from the computer to a monitoring computer via a communication network, the monitoring computer being configured to analyze the physical state of the component; and notifying an operator of whether the abnormality is occurring in the component based on the rough state-description data transmitted to the control circuitry [0020; 0041-0044].
Regarding Claim 17, Suzuki further teaches the machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the component is either a first part of the machine tool which is actuated by the actuator or a second part of the machine tool that supports the first part [0003; 0015; 0017].
Regarding Claim 18, Suzuki further teaches the machine tool according to claim 13, wherein the component is either a first part of the machine tool which is actuated by the actuator or a second part of the machine tool that supports the first part [0003; 0015; 0017].
Regarding Claim 19, Suzuki further teaches the machine tool according to claim 16, wherein the component is either a first part of the machine tool which is actuated by the actuator or a second part of the machine tool that supports the first part [0003; 0015; 0017].
Regarding Claim 20, Suzuki further teaches a diagnosis system (Abstract) comprising: the machine tool according to claim 1 [0021]; the monitoring computer (Second external device); the communication network connecting the monitoring computer and the computer to each other [0028]; (Fig. 1 and 3); and a gateway provided between the monitoring computer and the computer on the communication network [0028].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9-12, 14 and 15 would be allowable if written to overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action and rewritten in independent form to incorporate all the limitations of their base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki, along with all other references fail to teach the machine tool according to claim 5, wherein the program code comprises factor identification information by which a plurality of factors of the signal from the sensor are identified, the plurality of factors being relevant to the abnormality in the component, and synthesis information specifying a synthesis method according to which at least two factors of the plurality of factors are synthesized with each other, and wherein upon execution of the program code, the computer is configured to extract the plurality of factors from the signal and to synthesize the at least two factors with each other according to the synthesis method to obtain a synthesis value. It is for this reason, Claim 6 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki teaches detailed state-description data to be output to the monitoring computer. Suzuki, along with all other references fail to teach wherein a permission instruction to permit the detailed state-description data to be output to the monitoring computer is input via the input interface, and wherein while the detailed state-description data is permitted by the permission instruction to be transmitted to the monitoring computer, the computer is configured to receive the second command and transmit the detailed state-description data to the monitoring computer. It is for this reason, Claim 12 would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki teaches detailed state-description data to be output to the monitoring computer. Suzuki, along with all other references fail to teach the diagnosis system according to claim 13, wherein a permission instruction to permit the detailed state-description data to be output to the monitoring computer is input via the input interface, wherein while the detailed state-description data is permitted by the permission instruction to be transmitted to the monitoring computer, the gateway enables communication between the monitoring computer and the computer such that the computer receives the second command and transmits the detailed state-description data to the monitoring computer, and wherein while the detailed state-description data is disallowed by the permission instruction to be transmitted to the monitoring computer, the gateway blocks communication between the monitoring computer and the computer.
Regarding Claim 15, Suzuki, along with all other references fail to teach further comprising a storage accessible by the monitoring computer via the communication network, wherein the control circuitry is configured to transmit the rough state-description data to the storage, wherein the storage is configured to store sets of the rough state-description data for each of a plurality of the components such that the sets of the rough state-description data are searchable on a time-series basis, and wherein the monitoring computer is configured to obtain the rough state-description data from the storage when the monitoring computer analyzes the detailed state-description data.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Hayashi et al. (PRODUCTION SYSTEM AND PRODUCTION METHOD, 2021-03-25) teaches A machine tool includes a workpiece spindle being rotatable about a rotation axis of the workpiece and configured to hold a workpiece such that the workpiece. A tool holding device is rotatable about a tool rotation axis and configured to hold a turning tool via which turning is performed on the workpiece. A movement mechanism is configured to move the tool holding device such that the turning tool rotates relatively to the workpiece toward an arbitrary direction perpendicular to the rotation axis of the workpiece. Control circuitry is configured to execute a machining program, to perform the turning, which includes an additional code which designates a target cutting direction of the arbitrary cutting direction, and to control the movement mechanism to move the turning tool in the target cutting direction with respect to the workpiece while the control circuitry executes the additional code;
Teshima et al. (DIAGNOSIS DEVICE, DIAGNOSIS SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM, 2020-10-01) teaches A diagnosis device includes a first acquisition unit, a second acquisition unit, and an associating unit. The first acquisition unit is configured to acquire, from a machine tool, context information including at least a monitoring specifying number identifying a machining process. The second acquisition unit is configured to acquire detection information output from a detection unit installed for the machine tool. The associating unit is configured to associate the monitoring specifying number included in the context information acquired by the first acquisition unit and the detection information acquired by the second acquisition unit;
Hattori (DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM, 2004-09-24) teaches s means that has high performance and takes time. <P>SOLUTION: In a diagnostic system, the status information in site facilities 11a, 11b of monitoring objects is diagnosed by a simple diagnosis means 22 on the basis of a reference value database 23, and the status information is diagnosed in detail by the detailed diagnosis means 34 when the diagnostic results obtained by the simple diagnosis means 22 are abnormal. When the simple diagnosis means 22 diagnoses that there is abnormality, and when the detailed diagnosis means 34 diagnoses that there is no abnormality, a new reference value prestored in a reference value master 31 is stored in the reference value database.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2863