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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 14, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 13-22 are examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections to claims 14, 17, and 21-22 and most of the claim objections to claim 20; therefore, the objections are withdrawn. However, see remaining claim objections regarding claim 20 below.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, 112 (b) rejections, and the specification objection are sustained.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 20, the following are for clarity in reciting to features of “the kneading state detection device … according to claim 13”:
line 4-5 – “a raw material” should read “the raw material”
line 8-9 - “a predetermined frequency region” should read “the predetermined frequency region”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it does not give adequate explanation/discussion to the determination/calculation of “integrated value of power spectrum” and “moving average of the integrated value”. See Further Claim Interpretation section below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“acquisition unit”, “integrated value calculation unit”, “moving average calculation unit”, and “determination unit” in claim 13 and 20.
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.
Regarding the limitation “acquisition unit”, the limitation will be interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0063] as “AE wave acquisition unit acquires the output of the AE sensor” and “the AE wave acquisition unit includes an amplifier and amplifies the detection signal detected by the AE sensor, and converts the effective value of the detection signal as an analog signal into the AE output as a digital signal by the A/D converter”.
Regarding the limitation “integrated value calculation unit”, the limitation will be interpreted as a computer in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0068] as “integrated value calculation unit calculates the integrated value for a predetermined time for the power spectrum in the predetermined frequency range”.
Regarding the limitation “moving average calculation unit”, the limitation will be interpreted as a computer in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0069] as “moving average calculation unit calculates the moving average of the integrated value”.
Regarding the limitation “determination unit”, the limitation will be interpreted as a computer in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0064] as “the kneading state determination unit is an example of a determination unit” and “the kneading state determination unit further includes an integrated value calculation unit, a moving average calculation unit”.
Further Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 13-19, claim 13 recites “a kneading state detection device for an extrusion molding machine” and further “an acoustic emission sensor installed on a housing of the extrusion molding machine”; therefore it is interpreted that “extrusion molding machine” is structurally part of the “kneading state detection device”
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “an integrated value of a power spectrum” is recited in line 6. The “integrated value” is not adequately discussed but is a well-known concept and has been interpreted as an integration of the power spectrum in view of Spectral Analysis of Signals (Stoica). Stoica discusses on pg. 4-7 Section 1.3 Power Spectral Density of Random Signals that power spectral density (PSD, φ(w)) represents the distribution of the (average) signal power over frequencies and is equal to an integrated value of the power spectral density to determine the autocovariance sequence (ACS, r(k)), I.e., “an integrated value of a power spectrum”.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a power spectrum” in line 6-7. The “power spectrum” has been interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0049] as “the power spectrum P(f) of a signal with the frequency f is calculated by equation P(f) = |X(f)|2 = (X(f)*X(f))/n2 In the equation, X(f) is the amplitude (of the AE output M(t)), and n is the number of data points”.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “moving average” is recited in line 8. The “moving average” is not adequately discussed but is a well-known concept and has been interpreted in view of Statical Analysis – 1.7 Method of Moving Averages article (Chou). Chou discusses a moving average may be considered as an artificially constructed time series in which each periodic figure is replaced by the mean of the value of that period and those of a number of the preceding and succeeding periods. The moving average may constitute a satisfactory trend for a series that is basically linear and that is regular in duration and amplitude. It is customary to study the smoothing behavior of the series by applying a moving average.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “temporal change of the integrated value” is recited in line 8-9. The limitation will be interpreted as the change of the integrated value of the power spectrum between two data points over an elapsed time and in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0050] recites “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a temporal change in an integrated value of a power spectrum”.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a change rate of the moving average” is recited in line 11. The “change rate of the moving average” has been interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0057-0058] as “the change rate G(t) is calculated by equation G(t) = dA(t)/dt” where A(t) is the moving average.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “determines … a state where a size of the additive does not change with time is reached” has been interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0092] as “reliably detect whether there is no temporal change in the breaking amount of the glass fiber, that is, whether the breaking (kneading) state of the glass fiber is stabilized”.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “determines … a state where the resin raw material is crushed and melted, and a size of the additive does not change with time is reached” has been interpreted in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0094-0096] as “kneading state detection device observes the AE wave and performs signal processing similar to that described above, thereby determining whether the unmelted resin pellets … are crushed and melted to reach the steady state” and “as described above, … the kneading state determination unit determines that, when the unmelted resin pellets and the glass fiber are fed …, the state where the resin pellets are crushed and melted, and the size of the glass fiber does not change with time is reached, where above in ¶ [0092] discusses “reliably detect whether there is no temporal change in the breaking amount of the glass fiber, that is, whether the breaking (kneading) state of the glass fiber is stabilized”.
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.
STEP 1: TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Claims 13-19 fall into the category of a machine comprising a computer and claims 20-22 fall into the category of a method using a computer.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
STEP 2A: TWO PRONGS
PRONG 1: RECITES ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, NATURAL PHENOMENON
Claim 13-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
“an integrated value calculation unit that is configured to calculate an integrated value over a predetermined time of a power spectrum in a predetermined frequency region of the output of the digital signal acquired by the acquisition unit”
“a moving average calculation unit that is configured to calculate a moving average of a temporal change of the integrated value which is calculated by the integrated value calculation unit”
“a determination unit that is configured to determine a kneading state of the raw material and the additive is stabilized in a case where an absolute value of a change rate of the moving average which is calculated by the moving average calculation unit is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold over a predetermined time”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “integrated value calculation unit”, “moving average calculation unit”, and “determination unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Both mathematical concepts and mental processes are enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 (a). Furthermore, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical concepts, & MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III.C. “Claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process.” For example, but for the “a kneading state detection device,” language:
“calculate” in the context of the claim encompasses the user performing an evaluation of math (integration and average),
“determines” in the context of the claim encompasses the user evaluating by comparing the calculations to come to a conclusion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “units” to perform the “calculating” and “determining” steps. The calculation and determination units in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller performing a generic computer function of “calculating” and “determining”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The device claimed performs the calculations and determination using the recited structures, and data such as the claimed “power spectrum,” however nothing further is done using determined result (whether an absolute value of a change rate of the moving average is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold over a predetermined time) after the final determination after the calculations. Therefore, there is no particular practical application. Furthermore, the “calculating” and “determining” are recited at such a high degree of generality that it is not a particular practical application and just generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites an “acquisition unit” that “acquires an output of an AE sensor”, which is mere data gathering and an insignificant extra solution activity and would not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05 (g). The claim further recites “AE sensor”, acquisition unit”, and “A/D converter” which is well-known and routine and conventional (See US 2023/0242031 A1, US 2010/0058867 A1, and US 2022/0242031 A1), and “integrated value”, “power spectrum”, “temporal change” and “moving average” which are well-known values to calculate (see Further claim interpretation above). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional element of using “integrated value calculation unit”, “moving average calculation unit”, and “determination unit” to perform “calculating” and “determining” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Applicant may overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections by integrating the exception into a practical application, showing that an integration of the exception results in an improvement to the field of use and technological environment or demonstrating that the claim limitations other than the exception amount to significantly more (i.e. are not well understood, routine and conventional within the art).
Claims 14-22 depend on claim 13 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea. The further limitations in claims 14-19 do not integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
claim 14-15 and 17-18 further defines the determination and adds additional parameters to define the determination, but does not further limit the abstract idea into a practical application
claim 16 rearranges the structural components (AE sensor), but does not further limit the abstract idea to amount to significantly more
claim 19 further limits the additive, but does not further limit the abstract idea to amount to significantly more
claim 20 incorporates the integrated value calculation unit, moving average calculation unit, and determination unit, i.e., the generic controller, into a method; but it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception of using a generic computer component does not incorporate the abstract idea into a particular practical application and does not further limit the abstract idea to amount to significantly more
claim 21-22 further defines the determination and adds additional parameters to define the determination, but does not further limit the abstract idea into a practical application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the additive is fed into a molten resin raw material conveyed in the extrusion molding machine” is unclear. Claim 13 recites “a raw material” in line 4, but it is unclear if the limitation in claim 17 is introducing an additional “molten resin raw material” or is reciting to “a raw material” in claim 13. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as reciting to “a raw material” in claim 13 and read as “the raw material is a molten resin raw material and the additive is fed into the raw material conveyed in the extrusion molding machine”, in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0009] reciting “kneading a resin raw material (pellets) by the extrusion molding machine, when resin pellets are a solid material are crushed or when a reinforcing material such as glass fiber … mixed to reinforce the resin raw material” in ¶ [0017, 0023] reciting a “first embodiment” where “the molten resin raw material fed into the twin-screw extrusion molding machine and the glass fiber mixed in the resin raw material”.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “an unmelted resin raw material” is unclear. Claim 13 recites “a raw material” in line 4, but it is unclear if the limitation in claim 18 is introducing an additional “unmelted resin raw material” or is reciting to “a raw material” in claim 13. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as reciting to “a raw material” in claim 13 and read as “the resin raw material is an unmelted resin raw material”, in line with the instant specification in ¶ [0009] reciting “kneading a resin raw material (pellets) by the extrusion molding machine, when resin pellets are a solid material are crushed or when a reinforcing material such as glass fiber … mixed to reinforce the resin raw material” and in ¶ [0094-0095] reciting a “modification of first embodiment” where “it is possible to determine whether, in a state where the unmelted resin pellets and the glass fiber are mixed, the resin pellets are crushed and melted”.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Chikara (JPH08216230A). Chikara discloses a kneading state detection device (¶ [0010] – vibration detection means) for an extrusion molding machine (¶ [0009] – kneading extruder) controlled by a process including circuitry (¶ [0017] – control panel), comprising:
an acoustic emission sensor (¶ [0018] – sound wave detection means 8, 9 composed of sensors 15 consisting of an acoustic emission) installed on a housing of the extrusion molding machine (¶ [0010] – vibration detection means arranged in at least one location of the supply section, the kneading section, and the metering section) that is configured to detect the elastic wave occurred in the extrusion molding machine (¶ [0017] – sound waves detected by 8, 9);
an acquisition unit (¶ [0010] – vibration detection means 8, 9) that, when an extrusion molding machine that kneads a raw material or kneads a raw material and an additive that is fed into the material is in operation (¶ [0010] – operating state of the kneading extruder is monitored by analyzing the waveform of the vibrations; ¶ [0012] – resin is plasticized, melted, and kneaded inside the cylinder 1), is configured to acquire an output of the acoustic emission sensor and after the output of the acoustic emission sensor is amplified, the output is converted into a digital signal by and A/D converter and acquired (¶ [0018] – for converting sound waves into electrical signals);
an integrated value calculation unit (¶ [0019] – waveform analyzer, a memory high coder which can perform waveform analysis by fast Fourier transforming the waveform)
a determination unit that is configured to determine a kneading state of the raw material and the additive (¶ [0013] – the operating conditions such as the kneading state of the resin can be quantitatively monitored) is stabilized (¶ [0009] – constantly monitor operating state, to maintain stable operation).
By analyzing the waveform of vibrations or sound waves detected by the kneading extruder during operation, the operating state can be quantitatively monitored at any time, and
Chikara does not disclose:
an integrated value calculation unit that is configured to calculate an integrated value over a predetermined time of a power spectrum in a predetermined frequency region of the output of the digital signal acquired by the acquisition unit
a moving average calculation unit that is configured to calculate a moving average of a temporal change of the integrated value which is calculated by the integrated value calculation unit; and
a determination unit that is configured to determine a kneading state of the raw material and the additive is stabilized in a case where an absolute value of a change rate of the moving average which is calculated by the moving average calculation unit is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold over a predetermined time.
Ueno (US 2010/0058867 A1) discloses an AE detector having an AE sensor (Abstract), preamplifier, A/D converter, power spectrum density calculating section, and a destruction judging section (¶ [0048-0049]), which judges a warning of destruction when there are a predetermined number of points defined by parameters calculated based on signals of the AE sensor (¶ [0063]). RMS is the effective value and when a certain specified time width is determined and an acoustic emission waveform is expressed by a voltage signal that is a function of time and based on the output of the acoustic emission sensor (¶ [0022]).
Ueno further discloses an integrated value calculation unit that is configured to calculate an integrated value over a predetermined time of a power spectrum (¶ [0022] - RMS obtained by integrating the square of the amplitude of the voltage signal over a time period from a definite time point to a time point subsequent to the definite time point) in a predetermined frequency region of the output (¶ [0048] – frequency domain) of the digital signal acquired by the acquisition unit (¶ [0048-0049] - A/D converter, power spectrum density calculating section).
However, Chikara and Ueno do not disclose:
a moving average calculation unit that is configured to calculate a moving average of a temporal change of the integrated value which is calculated by the integrated value calculation unit; and
a determination unit that is configured to determine a kneading state of the raw material and the additive is stabilized in a case where an absolute value of a change rate of the moving average which is calculated by the moving average calculation unit is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold over a predetermined time.
Analogous art Asai (JP 2015115540) teaches a management apparatus for managing one or more substrate processing apparatuses (¶ [0005]).
Asai further discloses a moving average calculation unit (¶ [0005] - a moving average calculation unit, which calculates the average value of the measurement data over a predetermined period as a moving average value over time) and a determination unit (¶ [0005] – reference value determination unit and abnormality determination unit). A difference calculation unit calculates the difference between each of the measurement data stored over the predetermined period and the moving average value obtained; a reference value determination unit determines whether each value is outside the reference value; and an abnormality determination unit which determines that an abnormality has occurred in the measurement data determined to be outside a predetermined number (¶ [0005]).
However, Chikara, Ueno, Asai, and the prior art do not explicitly disclose:
a moving average calculation unit that is configured to calculate a moving average of a temporal change of the integrated value which is calculated by the integrated value calculation unit; and
a determination unit that is configured to determine a kneading state of the raw material and the additive is stabilized in a case where an absolute value of a change rate of the moving average which is calculated by the moving average calculation unit is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold over a predetermined time.
As such, the prior art whether taken alone or in combination does not disclose nor render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims as amended overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 (b) rejections and specification objection.
A replacement or amended specification is not provided in the reply filed August 14, 2026, therefore the specification objections are sustained. See Specification and Further Claim Interpretation sections.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, see updated 35 U.S.C. 101 section above. Applicant may overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections by integrating the exception into a practical application, showing that an integration of the exception results in an improvement to the field of use and technological environment or demonstrating that the claim limitations other than the exception amount to significantly more (i.e. are not well understood, routine and conventional within the art).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections, the amendments overcome the previous claim objections, but do not overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections. See 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) section above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0050576 A1 discloses an AE-signal detecting device, a preamplifier, transmission circuit portion which AD-converts the output signal, and a grinding-surface state output portion calculates integral values or moving average deviations in a predetermined period
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights