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 1-8 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A detection method for detecting a state of a bearing device including a plurality of rollers and first and second members configuring rolling surfaces of the plurality of rollers, the method comprising:
applying an AC voltage to an electrical circuit configured by the plurality of rollers and the first and second members;
measuring an impedance and a phase angle of the electrical circuit when applying the AC voltage; and
deriving, based on the impedance and the phase angle, an oil film thickness and a metal contact ratio in at least one of between the first member and the plurality of rollers and between the second member and the plurality of rollers, wherein
the oil film thickness and the metal contact ratio are derived using a calculation equation corresponding to an electrical circuit configured by a line contact occurring between a roller and at least one of the first and second members in the bearing device.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed 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 for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type 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 that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
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 claim comprises the following additional elements:
applying an AC voltage to an electrical circuit configured by the plurality of rollers and the first and second members; measuring an impedance and a phase angle of the electrical circuit when applying the AC voltage.
The additional element “applying an AC voltage to an electrical circuit configured by the plurality of rollers and the first and second members” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element “measuring an impedance and a phase angle of the electrical circuit when applying the AC voltage” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, measuring an impedance and a phase angle of the electrical circuit when applying the AC voltage is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., obtaining measurement data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, applying an AC voltage to an electrical circuit configured by the plurality of rollers and the first and second members is disclosed by “Maeda US 20190128866”, Abstract, FIG. 1A and [0007], [0022], [0024], [0048], [00]; and “Maeda JP 2019211317A ”, [0007], [0019], Claims 1.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 7 and 8 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-6 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maeda et al. (US 20190128866, hereinafter Maeda).
As to claims 1, and 7-8, Maeda teaches applying an AC voltage to an electrical circuit configured by the plurality of rollers and the first and second members (FIG. 1A and [0007] disclose applying an alternating voltage to an electric circuit configured by the outer member, the rolling element and the inner member (i.e., FIG. 1A shows the plurality of rollers and the first and second members - emphasis added by Examiner));
measuring, for a bearing device (FIG. 1A, #10), an impedance and a phase angle of the electrical circuit, by an acquisition unit ([0048] discloses LCR meter), when applying the AC voltage ([0007] discloses “measuring an impedance and a phase of the electric circuit when the alternating voltage is applied to the electric circuit”); and
deriving, based on the impedance and the phase angle, an oil film thickness and a metal contact ratio, by a derivation unit ([0048] discloses computer), in at least one of between the first member and the plurality of rollers and between the second member and the plurality of rollers ([0007] discloses “calculating a lubrication film thickness and a metallic contact ratio between the outer member and the rolling element and/or between the inner member and the rolling element, based on a measured impedance and a measured phase.”),
wherein the oil film thickness and the metal contact ratio are derived using a calculation equation corresponding to an electrical circuit configured by a line contact occurring between a roller and at least one of the first and second members in the bearing device ([0019] and [0024] disclose the metallic contact part 7 at which metals are contacted each other has a resistor R2, and as a result, as shown in FIG. 1B, an electric circuit E1 is formed by the outer ring 1 or inner ring 3 and the rolling element 5. When the electric circuit E4 of FIG. 3 is used, the lubrication film thickness h and the metallic contact ratio a are derived by following equations (1) and (2).
Equation (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
148
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Equation (2):
PNG
media_image2.png
133
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
As to claim 6, Maeda teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Maeda teaches wherein the bearing device is diagnosed using the oil film thickness and the metal contact ratio ([0038] discloses “The state diagnosis of the bearing device 10 is performed using the lubrication film thickness h and the metallic contact ratio α obtained from the equations (1) and (2).”).
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 2-5, the most pertinent prior arts are "Maeda US 20190128866", hereinafter Maeda; "Maeda JP 2019211317A", hereinafter Maeda 2; "Discenzo US 7581434B1; "Maki US 6151963A"; "Smith US 5001435A"; “Mol WO 2005033535A1”; “Momono JP 2003214810A”; and “Maruyama JP 2020159754A”. However, “Maruyama JP 2020159754A“ has the same assignee with the present application, and the published dates is later than the present application priority date of 05/28/2021.
As to claim 2, Maeda teaches wherein the electrical circuit configured by the line contact is configured by a resistor formed by the line contact, a first condenser configured by a lubricant positioned within a predetermined range from the line contact (Maeda, [0019] and [0020], FIG. 1B).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “a second condenser configured by a lubricant positioned outside the predetermined range
” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 3-5 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 2.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, claims 2-5 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Phillips US 20030222656” teaches “This invention is directed to a sensing system and method for detecting in real-time oil degradation, water contamination, and fuel dilution in operational engine oils for internal combustion engines. The method of the invention uses an electrochemical impedance analysis technique. The sensing system has a multi-electrode sensor element that can be immersed in the engine oil being monitored. The electrode element has at least two electrodes configured so that it can be directly mounted within the oil reservoir of an internal combustion engine. The sensor configuration with a dielectric lubricant contained between the electrodes defines an electrochemical sensor output-impedance-circuit that produces an indication of the operational oil's quality or deterioration. A sinusoidal voltage waveform is applied across the electrodes of the sensor to produce a frequency dependent current through the oil and electrode system. A low frequency signal is used so that information on the resistance and capacitance of the degraded oil can be utilized to assess the specific condition of the oil being monitored.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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 T 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights