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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 and 12 are directed to a diagnostic apparatus and system (i.e., machine) and claims 13 and 14 directed to a diagnostic method and non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., process). Therefore, claims 1 and 12 - 14 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
“A diagnostic apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to:
acquire data for a motor configured to drive a door in a train carriage, in at least one of a case where the door is opened at a second speed lower than a first speed at which a passenger is to get on and off the train carriage, or
a case where the door is closed at the second speed, the data being related to the driving of the door, and
diagnose an abnormality in a traveling resistance of the door, based on the acquired data.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The claimed “circuitry” is being interpreted to be equivalent in function to the human mind. For example, “acquire data for a motor configured to drive a door in a train carriage, in at least one of a case where the door is opened at a second speed lower than a first speed at which a passenger is to get on and off the train carriage, or a case where the door is closed at the second speed, the data being related to the driving of the door, and diagnose an abnormality in a traveling resistance of the door, based on the acquired data” in the context of this claim encompasses that the operator may manually observe the carriage door and estimate a couple of speeds while writing them down. The results can be determined to be abnormal based on the speeds being varied or inconsistent. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows: “…circuitry configured to acquire data for a motor for driving a door in a train carriage.”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of using “circuitry configured to acquire data for a motor for driving a door in a train carriage”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05) of gathering data and merely outputting information. In particular, the processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of gathering information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “circuitry configured to acquire data for a motor for driving a door in a train carriage” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 -11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12-14. Therefore, claim(s) 1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 12 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP2012240470 A, IDS cited reference with corresponding translation) in view of Shikai et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0108987 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a diagnostic (Monitoring for abnormalities in door drive devices ¶ 1) apparatus comprising: circuitry (11, FIG. 1) configured to:
acquire data for a motor configured to drive a door in a train carriage (monitor operating status of various devices installed on the vehicle such as main motor drive unit ¶ 2), in at least one of a case where the door is opened or a case where the door is closed, the data being related to the driving of the door (operate to open and close doors, the thrust for accelerating the doors at a constant rate is concentrated at one time ¶ 17), and
diagnose an abnormality in a traveling resistance of the door (frictional resistance of the door devices ¶ 22), based on the acquired data (“For this reason, if a plurality of door drive devices 16 are operated simultaneously, the power supply capacity of the auxiliary power supply 14 becomes extremely strained, and abnormalities occur in the operation of the door drive devices 16 and other devices.” ¶ 17 abnormality monitoring ¶ 18.
Sato is silent to at least one of a case where the door is opened at a second speed lower than a first speed at which a passenger is to get on and off the train carriage, or
a case where the door is closed at the second speed, the data being related to the driving of the door. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Shikai teaches a sliding door apparatus, similar to the train carriage door, which performs a door closing action of the doors from a normal speed (i.e., first speed) to a lowered than the normal speed (i.e., second speed) based on a failure being detected (¶ 105 and claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cases for the door opening and closing as taught by Sato to where the door is closed at the second speed, the data being related to the driving of the door as taught by Shikai to enhance safety by reliably detecting obstructions that would be caught in a door (¶ 5).
Regarding claim 2, Shikai teaches the diagnostic apparatus, wherein the second speed is a constant speed (¶ 105 the lowered speeds are interpreted to be constant).
It would have been obvious to modify Sato to wherein the second speed is a constant speed as taught by Shikai to enhance safety by reliably detecting obstructions that would be caught in a door (¶ 5).
Regarding claim 12, Sato teaches a diagnostic system comprising:
circuitry (11, FIG. 1) configured to:
perform at least one of opening or closing a door of a train carriage door, at a first speed (operate to open and close doors, the thrust for accelerating the doors at a constant rate is concentrated at one time ¶ 17,
acquire data for a motor that drives a door in a train carriage (monitor operating status of various devices installed on the vehicle such as main motor drive unit ¶ 2), the data being related to the driving of the door (¶ 2), and
diagnose an abnormality in a traveling resistance of the door (frictional resistance of the door devices ¶ 22), based on the acquired data (¶¶ 17, 18).
Sato is silent to perform at least one of opening or closing a door of a train carriage, at a second speed that is lower than a first speed at which a passenger is to get on and off the train carriage, acquire data for a motor that drives a door in a train carriage, in at least one of a case where the door is opened at the second speed, or a case where the door is closed at the second speed. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Shikai teaches a sliding door apparatus, similar to the train carriage door, which performs a door closing action of the doors from a normal speed (i.e., first speed) to a lowered than the normal speed (i.e., second speed) based on a failure being detected (¶ 105 and claim 13). Furthermore, Sato already teaches a general constant acceleration (i.e., first speed) for a door opening/closing for passengers to enter/exit suggesting the combination of references (¶ 17).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cases for the door opening and closing as taught by Sato to where a second speed that is lower than a first speed at which a passenger is to get on and off the train carriage and where the door is closed at the second speed as taught by Shikai to enhance safety by reliably detecting obstructions that would be caught in a door (¶ 5).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Sato teaches a diagnostic method and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the diagnostic method executed by an information processing apparatus (FIGS. 4 and 5), the diagnostic method comprising:
acquiring data for a motor that drives a door in a train carriage (monitor operating status of various devices installed on the vehicle such as main motor drive unit ¶ 2), in at least one of a case where the door is opened and closed, the data relating to the driving of the door (operate to open and close doors, the thrust for accelerating the doors at a constant rate is concentrated at one time ¶ 17), and
diagnosing an abnormality in a traveling resistance of the door (frictional resistance of the door devices ¶ 22), based on the acquired data (¶¶ 17-18).
Sato is silent to at least one of a case where the door is opened at a second speed lower than a first speed at which a passenger is to get on and off the train carriage, or
a case where the door is closed at the second speed, the data being related to the driving of the door. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Shikai teaches a sliding door apparatus, similar to the train carriage door, which performs a door closing action of the doors from a normal speed (i.e., first speed) to a lowered than the normal speed (i.e., second speed) based on a failure being detected (¶ 105 and claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cases for the door opening and closing as taught by Sato to where the door is closed at the second speed, the data being related to the driving of the door as taught by Shikai to enhance safety by reliably detecting obstructions that would be caught in a door (¶ 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663