DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 4/8/2026.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-12 are pending. Claims 1, 3 and 8-12 are currently amended, and Claims 4, 5 and 7 are canceled.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim appears to have had subject matter inadvertently deleted from the final clause. For examination purposes, the examiner will consider the subject matter from the final clause of Claim 12 as if it likewise appears in Claim 1, as was likely intended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi, JP 2019/215674 (“Takeshi”), in view of Sanai, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2023/0185289 (“Sanai”).
With regard to Claim 1, Takeshi teaches a data processing system comprising a processor configured to perform operations ([0032]-[0034], abnormality detection system detects abnormalities and includes a setting tool device and a controller; [0115] describes a processor) comprising:
acquiring, as input values, at least one of a control value or a detection value, the control value being used for controlling a servo system including a load, a servo amplifier, and a servomotor that applies power to the load in accordance with control of the servo amplifier, the detection value being output from a sensor that detects a state of the servo system ([0089] describes that the system measures various aspects of machine function, including speed, position, and torque, where values such as torque are detected using a control value such as motor current. [0073] describes other types of events which can be detected, including vibration, noise, and heat generation. [0072] describes that the machine includes a motor, servo motor amplifier, and a load in the form of a screw shaft);
classifying the input values into a plurality of periods in accordance with features of waveforms of the input values to be displayed on a display device ([0035] describes that abnormality information including feature amount designation information is used to specify a period in a sub-frame which is a unit period of a repetitive operation of a machine); and
generating a diagnostic parameter used for deterioration diagnosis of at least one of the load or the servomotor based on extraction processing on the input values ([0073] describes that events are detected related to a failure in relation to various sensor and control values, including an increase in the torque, or particular vibration, heat or noise values detected), wherein
the input values are values that are input for a predetermined period and vary with time ([0100]-[0102] provide examples of how variables in the system are monitored and can change over specified periods of time), and
Takeshi, in view of Sanai teaches receiving a designation signal output from an operating device in accordance with an operation of a user on the operating device; and extracting a value of a period selected from the plurality of periods displayed on the display device, based on the designation signal, as the diagnostic parameter.
Takeshi teaches at [0035] that a feature amount is calculated based on the variable value in a specified period of a sub-frame. [0103]-[0105] describe that the abnormality monitoring unit executes a feature amount calculation program, which acquire values over frames and subframes, and determine abnormalities by observing the feature amount values relative to the subframe time periods. Sanai teaches at [0051]-[0054] that a user selects signals and a time period for display in an interface. [0090]-[0091] describe that an abnormality detection result can be displayed on the one or more signal waveforms for the time periods specified by the user for display and analysis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Sanai with Takeshi. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by allowing for customization of signals and times for analyzing abnormalities, thereby enabling better user control and access to desired data.
Claim 12 recites a data processing method carried out by the data processing system of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Takeshi teaches that the input value includes at least one of a value of a current supplied to the servomotor, a torque of the servomotor, a speed of the servomotor, or a value of a position of the servomotor ([0073], [0089]).
With regard to Claim 3, Takeshi teaches that the generating comprises generating the diagnostic parameter by performing at least one of processing of converting the input value into a statistic and statistical analysis or the extraction processing. [0106] describes an example where the variable torque for the actuator has an average value calculated for determining the sub-frame feature amount.
With regard to Claim 6, Takeshi teaches that the display device displays recommendation information regarding whether or not to recommend a specific period among the plurality of periods. [0108] describes that the calculated average for the torque is used in determining an abnormality. An output abnormality will produce result information specifying the abnormality occurrence when detected for a specific frame or sub-frame.
With regard to Claim 8, Takeshi teaches that the input values include first input values, and second input values, and the extraction processing comprising processing of specifying a feature period in which a predetermined feature appears among the first input values and processing of extracting, as the diagnostic parameter, a value included in the feature period among the second input values. [0102] describes in an exemplary embodiment that a subframe can be defined for a period of a frame for which a velocity is below a threshold value. [0106] describes that the monitoring unit can then calculate the average torque for the sub-frame for detecting the abnormality.
With regard to Claim 9, Takeshi teaches that the generating comprises extracting, as the diagnostic parameter, a value of a partial period of the feature period, in the processing of extracting, as the diagnostic parameter, the value included in the feature period among the second input values. [0106] describes that the average torque is determined for the subframe period.
With regard to Claim 10, Takeshi teaches that the operations further comprise performing deterioration diagnosis of the servo system based on the diagnostic parameter. [0073] describes that a diagnosis of a failure reason can be determined on the basis of a feature variable amount identified, such as diagnosing poor lubrication by identifying an increase in torque.
With regard to Claim 11, Takeshi teaches wherein the operations further comprise outputting a diagnosis result of the deterioration diagnosis to the display. [0107] describes that the abnormality monitoring unit outputs the abnormality determination result by performing determination on the feature amount using the reference information. [0041] describes that processing is carried out using a general purpose computer, which is a presentation device in that a general purpose computer includes a presentation device such as a display, through which a user also specifies abnormality monitoring as described at [0080] et seq.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the rejection under § 102 has been withdrawn, and the newly cited Sanai reference cures any deficiencies in Takeshi teaching or suggesting the elements of the amended claims.
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
6/9/2026
Prosecution Insights