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 .
Response to Arguments
Amendments to claims dated 07/23/2026 are accepted.
Claims 1, 4-18 are pending, Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
Claims 1,5-9,13,15, and 18 are amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as explained in detail below.
Regarding interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
As noted in previous office action (Non Final Rejection dated 05/18/2026),
interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f) is not a formal rejection; invoking 112 (f) is intended to facilitate examination by providing guidance for claim interpretation. 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.
Applicant argues (REMARKS Pg. 10-11), that Claims 1, 5- 9, 13, and 18, have been amended to include language providing structural components which add clarity to limitation, and states intention that these limitations no longer be interpreted using 35 U.S.C. §112 (f) guidelines. Accordingly, Claims 1, 5- 9, 13, and 18 are interpreted herein as written, applying broadest reasonable interpretation and using plain meaning.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112
Claims 6-7, 13, and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting limitations rendering the claims to be indefinite. Applicant has amended claims 6-7, 13, and 18 to clarify language. Examiner notes Applicant’s explanation regarding meaning. Rejection of claims 6-7, 13, and 18 under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-12 and 15-18 were held to be patent in eligible under 35 USC § 101. Applicant has amended independent Claims 1, 15, and 18 to include matter reciting an estimation technique previously recited as Claim 3 (Claim 3 is now cancelled).
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patent eligible because, as currently amended, the independent claims integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that independent claims, as currently amended require further consideration and full step-by-step evaluation under 35 U.S.C. 101, as presented below.
Specifically, Applicant argues (REMARKS, Pg13) that independent claims “do not merely recite estimating an abnormality in the abstract”, and that claims recite a “specific technique”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that additional elements, as identified in previous office action recite necessary data gathering involving well-known and routine methods, and/or acquiring quantitative or qualitative data from a sensor, where obtained values are necessary to carry out the Abstract Idea, where the mathematical concepts result in a qualitative or quantitative result.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, Pg14) that the claimed invention is a technical improvement to the monitoring of valves and actuators. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Examiner identifies additional elements in claim limitations which involve routine generic computer components, necessary data gathering, and/or mathematical manipulations to describe acquired data, with outputting calculated results. The process steps are not defined with technical details that would specify technical relationship between the various steps or details regarding how such processes are specifically implemented, even in view of using specification for guidance, such that claimed technical improvement cannot be ascertained. Examiner relies on recent guidance in evaluation of technical improvement, specifically related to limitations which recite the judicial exception of Abstract Idea in the Mathematical Concepts grouping found in Kim Memorandum (USPTO August 2025).
Examiner notes, as detailed in previous office action, additional elements linking the judicial exception to a to a particular technological environment or field of use. However, merely using a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Upon further consideration of Claims as currently amended, Examiner maintains rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over in view of INOUE (WO 2019235599 A1)* and further in view of AKI (US 20210102561 A1).
Applicant argues (REMARKS, Pg14-15) that references by INOUE and AKI, individually or in combination fail to teach claimed allocation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that because AKI is directed to measurements involving a cylindrical structure, that in combination with INOUE the concept of a degree of abnormality of an actuator is not taught or suggested. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the reference field of endeavor may be considered as different from the claimed invention. However, applying guidance found in MPEP 2141.01(a) I: “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” Examiner has considered the problem faced by the inventor, based on reading of specification in view of claim limitations, and understands the problem as directed to determination of abnormality in an actuator or valve by analysis of angular velocity data. Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill would have reason to consult and apply the teachings found in the disclosure of AKI, involving fault detection for an actuator , based on overlap in detection techniques and problem to be addressed. Thus, AKI is considered to be “reasonably pertinent” to the instant application.” When combined with the teaching of INOUE involving initial, final and intermediate measurements, one of ordinary skill would find reason to include actuator data in that method, as taught by AKI.
Applicant argues that there is no proper rationale apart from impermissible hindsight to combine INOUE with AKI to arrive with a reasonable expectation of success at the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as discussed above. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. (See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971)).
Applicant further argues regarding Claims 13 and 14, directed to a transmission system that cited prior art does not teach or suggest a selective transmission feature. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as discussed below where clarifying explanation has been added to rejection of these claims over prior art of INOUE in view of AKI.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of Claims 1-18 made in previous office action under 35 U.S.C. 103(b) and finds arguments are unpersuasive. With attention to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner notes clarifying explanations included in rejection, presented below, to add clarity.
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, 4-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, with detailed explanation below.
Claim 1, recites (bold emphasis added):
“An information processing system, comprising:
an acquisition unit comprising a processor configured to acquire angular velocity data of a rotation of a rotating shaft, the angular velocity data being detected by an angular velocity sensor, in a valve unit in which the rotating shaft is rotated by an actuator to rotate a valve body of a valve; and
an estimation unit comprising a processor configured to estimate a degree of abnormality of each of the actuator and the valve by referring to the angular velocity data acquired by the acquisition unit wherein
the estimation unit estimates the degree of abnormality of the valve in accordance with numerical values of the angular velocity data at an initial stage of rotation and an end stage of rotation of the valve body and
estimates the degree of abnormality of the actuator in accordance with a numerical value of the angular velocity data in a rotation of the valve body other than at the initial stage of rotation and the end stage of rotation.”
STEP 1 – Determination of statutory category: Claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101, namely Machine/Manufacture (System).
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE: Determination regarding whether claim recites a judicial exception. Limitations in Claim 1 as emphasized above in bold recite a judicial exception of Abstract Idea. Applying under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and relying on guidance from 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the limitation falls into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematics or mental steps. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C) Examiner further interprets the claim as whole to involve at least some use of generic computer components but considers the potential that some process steps may involve mental steps depending.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO: Evaluation of additional elements to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception: Claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes Claim 1 does recite additional elements, including at least “acquire angular velocity data”, reciting necessary data gathering required to provide data for carrying out the judicial exception. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving 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). Further, (1) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use but does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Examiner notes other limitations in Claim 1, including reference to data types, interpreting these additional elements as a particular technological environment or field of use. As noted above, merely using a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
STEP 2B – Consideration of whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea: Examiner notes additional elements, as discussed above, do not amount significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, reciting necessary data gathering, even when linked to a particular data source or a type of data, are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP § 2106.05(g), in view of 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).) Further consideration of the identified additional elements reveals that the limitations do not recite improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Thus, independent Claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception and is held to be patent ineligible.
Evaluation of Claims 15 and 18 under STEP 1 of eligibility analysis finds these claims are in statutory category of Process (Method), and Machine/Manufacture (System), respectively.
Applying broadest reasonable interpretation with the same reasoning and rationale as applied to Claim 1, evaluation of Claims 15 and 18 under STEP 2A-PRONG ONE reveals the claims to recite a judicial exception, as noted in bold below:
Specifically, Claim 15 recites, (similar to Claim 1) “estimating a degree of abnormality” and “referring to the angular velocity data”; Likewise, Claim 18 recites: “estimation unit configured to estimate a degree of abnormality”. Applying broadest reasonable interpretation, as discussed regarding parallel limitations as recited in claim 1, such limitations constitute a judicial exception of Abstract Idea because the limitation falls into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematics or mental steps, as discussed above. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C) While as noted above, while execution of the claimed limitations involve using at least some generic computer components, some of the process steps may involve mental steps. Thus, both Claim 15 and 18 recite a judicial exception of Abstract Idea.
In evaluation of eligibility under STEP 2-PRONG TWO, evaluating whether additional elements of Claims 15 and 18 integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, Examiner finds, as with Claim 1, Claims 15 and 18 do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. As in Claim 1, both Claims 15 and 18 contain additional elements reciting step(s) defining necessary data gathering required to provide data for carrying out the judicial exception and linking the judicial exception to a to a particular technological environment or field of use. As above, merely using a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Thus, Claims 15 and 18 are directed to a judicial exception and are held to be patent ineligible.
Next, Claims 4-12, with dependency to Claim 1, and Claim 16-17, with dependency to Claim 15, are considered.
Claims 4, and 9-10 further recite the abstract idea of mathematical concept or mental processes found in Claim 1, including (Claim 4) “estimates the degree of abnormality”. With additional mathematical concepts or mental steps of: (Claim 4) “comparing the angular velocity data”; (Claim 9) “determine whether to perform”; (Claims 9 and 10) “in accordance with an estimation result”; (Claim 10) “determines whether to collectively perform”.
Claims 4-12 recite additional elements which either further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or that cannot be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, limitations recite additional elements of necessary data gathering required to provide data for carrying out the judicial exception or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Similar reasoning is applied to Claims 16 and 17 with dependency to Claim 15 results in the same conclusion, where limitations either further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or that recite necessary data gathering or linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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.
Claims 1, and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over in view of INOUE (WO 2019235599 A1)* and further in view of AKI (US 20210102561 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, INOUE teaches:
An information processing system, (INOEU is in same technical field, [0001] The present invention relates to a valve state grasping system”, and [0018]: “operating valves (rotary valves) and actuators…detailed and accurate state grasping and diagnosis or failure prediction for the valve or actuator.”; and [0043]: “invention is very suitable for grasping the state of the target also in view of a large amount of data processing such as, in particular, machine learning” (i.e., information processing))
comprising: an acquisition unit comprising a processor configured to acquire angular velocity data of a rotation of a rotating shaft, (INOEU teaches acquisition of angular velocity data, Abstract: “angular velocity data, obtained from the monitoring unit (i.e., “acquisition unit”)”; and teaches use of standard computational components, see [00116]: “realized as information processing…use the hardware resources of a computer”; Examiner interprets “comprising a processor” using BRI and plain meaning to be analogous to reference teaching standard computer components; teaches rotary shaft, see [0015]: “data of the angle sensor which detects the angle of the rotating shaft such as a stem”; and see [00229]: “2 Actuator 3 Ball valve (Rotary valve)… 14 Output shaft (rotary shaft, valve shaft); 15 Stem (rotary shaft, valve shaft)”; and [0021]: “valve stem is a rotating shaft”)
the angular velocity data being detected by an angular velocity sensor, (INOUE teaches angular velocity sensor, see [0025]: “sensor unit fixed to this valve”; and [0026]: “sensor is a gyro sensor which measures, as the measurement data, angular velocity data”)
in a valve unit in which the rotating shaft is rotated by an actuator to rotate a valve body of a valve; (INOUE teaches rotating shaft, see [0021]: “valve stem is a rotating shaft formed of an output shaft and a control shaft of an automatic valve via the actuator”; [0034]: “valve stem of the valve is a portion in conjunction with the valve body and directly receiving its motion, and is thus suitable as a portion for observing the motion of the valve body”; and FIG. 1 with [0052]: “perspective view of an actuator-equipped ball valve…monitoring unit 1 is attached to an actuator”; )
an estimation unit comprising a processor configured to estimate a degree of abnormality of each valve by referring to the angular velocity data acquired by the acquisition unit. (INOUE, as above, teaching processing using standard computer components, see [00116]; and sensor for angular velocity data acquisition, [0028]: “sensor unit and/or the server is provided with first anomaly diagnosing means (i.e., “estimation unit”) configured to grasp the wearing state and conduct an anomaly diagnosis of the valve (i.e., “estimate a degree of abnormality”) …includes specific data generating means which generates…specific feature data based on angular velocity data”)
the estimation unit estimates the degree of abnormality of the valve in accordance with numerical values of the angular velocity data at an initial stage of rotation and an end stage of rotation of the valve body (INOUE teaches estimation unit, as above, [0028], and teaches numerical values, see [00155], Table 2 depicting initial and final stage of rotation (in degrees), with [00159]: “specific way of reading of Table 2 …region in which the valve opening degree is from full close to an opening degree of approximately 10 degrees”, and [0161]: “actual measurement data of the valve with the open/close… “angular velocity”; Examiner interprets “initial stage of rotation” and end stage of rotation” as analogous to reference “valve opening degree is from full close to an opening degree” )
estimates the degree of abnormality of the actuator in accordance with a numerical value of the angular velocity data in a rotation of the valve body other than at the initial stage of rotation and the end stage of rotation. (INOUE teaches monitoring of valves and actuators, see [0006] “necessary to check the operation status (i.e., “estimates the degree of abnormality”) of the actuators”; and see FIG. 1 with [0051]: “FIG. 1…monitoring unit 1 is attached to an actuator 2”; and teaches intermediate angles measured, see, as above, [00155], Table 2, and FIGs.5-9 depicting Valve, measurement data); and see about one rotation from full open to full close measured by the gyro sensor 7)
INOUE does not explicitly teach:
an estimation unit configured to estimate a degree of abnormality of each of the actuator by referring to data acquired by the acquisition unit.
AKI teaches:
an estimation unit configured to estimate a degree of abnormality of each actuator by referring to data acquired by the acquisition unit. (INOUE teaches estimation of abnormality in actuator but not explicitly “each” actuator, as does AKI in same technical field, see [0002]: “relates to an abnormality detecting system and an abnormality detecting method for detecting an abnormality of an actuator” (i.e. “estimation unit”); [0010]: “an abnormality detecting unit that detects (i.e., “acquisition unit”) an abnormality of at least the actuator”; [0028]: “results of sensing obtained by the first sensor 18 and the second sensor 22 and information inputted (i.e., “data acquired”) from outside through the operation and input unit 28…detects whether the actuator 14, the directional control valve 12…has any abnormality”; FIG.3, element S10 “statistical calculation processing” with [0065]: “abnormality detecting unit 60g determines at step S15 whether the motion starting time of the piston 50 is abnormal, i.e., whether or not the motion starting time is equal to or longer than the time upper limit (i.e., “estimate a degree of abnormality”)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify INOUE to include the configuration of the estimation unit to estimate a degree of abnormality of each actuator by referring to data acquired by the acquisition unit of such as that of AKI because this method step would provide a more complete understanding of abnormalities in a system that includes valves with actuators for controlling angular position. Incorporating the step of using information acquired from actuator as taught by AKI with the method/system taught by INOUE, which does teach use of valves and actuators, and data acquisition using angular velocity sensors, would be an obvious improvement, and could be implemented in a system without significant cost or increase in data processing time. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of including analysis of both actuator and valve abnormality. Evaluation of the actuator along with the evaluation of a value, would be logically understood as an obvious combination as a way to improve the overall reliability of the method and to provide additional information regarding the overall function of a valve system that may include multiple values and actuators. Using statistical analysis to provide function information based on or compared with threshold/expected values, as taught by AKI, would add accuracy and efficiency to the system of INOUE to determine potential faults or abnormality in actuators and valves without adding significant additional cost or processing time for evaluation.
With regard to Claim 4, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 1.
INOUE further teaches:
the estimation unit estimates the degree of abnormality (INOUE, as above, [0028])
by referring to comparative angular velocity data acquired by detecting a rotation of the rotating shaft of a normal valve unit by using an angular velocity sensor and comparing the angular velocity data acquired by the acquisition unit with the comparative angular velocity data.(INOUE, see FIG. 33 with [0051]: “data flow diagram depicting an anomaly diagnosis process (normal flow) by fourth anomaly diagnosing means.”; and [0187]: “data is so-called normal data, and needs to be acquired and stored while the valve is operating normally.” (i.e., “comparative angular velocity data acquired by detecting a rotation of the rotating shaft of a normal valve unit”))
With regard to Claim 5, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 1.
INOUE further teaches:
a sensor control unit comprising a processor (INOUE, as above, teaches processing using standard computer components, see [00116]; and see [0025]: “sensor unit (i.e., “sensor control unit”) fixed to this valve, and a server communicably connected to this sensor unit”)
configured to control the angular velocity sensor, wherein the sensor control unit activates the angular velocity sensor in a specific time period. (INOUE teaches timed measurements, see [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data in the control shaft 4 for at least each time or each open/close count.”; and [0071]: “saving state after the state in which the operation of the actuator 2 is not detected continues for a predetermined time.”)
With regard to Claim 6, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 1. INOUE further teaches:
comprising a sensor control unit comprising a processor configured to control the angular velocity sensor, (INOUE teaches, as above, processing using standard computer components, see [00116], and sensor control unit, as above [0025]; and teaches angular velocity sensor, [0020]: “gyro sensor is attachably and detachably fixed…data includes angular velocity data”.)
wherein the acquisition unit further acquires a detection signal of a start of rotation of the rotating shaft from a sensor for detecting rotation of the rotating shaft, (INOUE, see [0071]: “when the operation of the actuator 2 is detected…angular velocity data detected by the gyro sensor 7 may be accumulated in the memory ’ (i.e., “detection of signal at start of rotation”)”, and see Table 2 with [00159] and [00161]);
and the sensor control unit activates the angular velocity sensor in response to the number of times the acquisition unit acquires the detection signal of the start of rotation of the rotating shaft reaching a specific count.(INOUE, as above, [0071]: “when the operation of the actuator 2 is detected, the power saving state may be cleared and at least angular velocity data detected” ; and [0099]: “function for accumulating the measurement…receiving data from the portable terminal a plurality of times, the measurement data is accumulated as a series”; and [0199]: “number of operations is acquired from the valve 3…number of operations (i.e., “number of times”) and output in the form included in the output data…when the monitoring unit 1 (sensor unit 1) is attached to the valve 3 in use, if the information on the number of operations of the valve 3 at that time (the number of opening and closing of the valve 3) is obtained in advance, this operation is performed (i.e., “reaching a specific count”)”)
With regard to Claim 7, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 1.
INOUE further teaches:
a transmission control unit comprising a processor configured to control transmission from the angular velocity sensor to the acquisition unit (INOUE, as above, teaches process carried out using standard computer components, see [00116]; and teaches transmission unit, see FIG. 31, 32, with [0142]: “sensor unit 1…is connected by communication module 10 (i.e., “transmission control unit”) via the Internet 43 to the server box 50” and [0143]: “terminal for checking information regarding the valve 3 to be transmitted from the sensor unit 1, and include display means capable of displaying transmission data”)
configured to control transmission of the angular velocity data (INOUE as above, [0067 “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data”)
wherein the transmission control unit transmits, to the acquisition unit, the angular velocity data in response to one or both of a specific time period (INOUE, as above, see [0142]); and see [0180]: “as for the timing of diagnosis conducted by the above-described first and second anomaly diagnosing means…the timing may be set with a predetermined valve open/close count or at predetermined time intervals.”)
and the number of times the angular velocity sensor detects the angular velocity data of the rotating shaft reaching a specific count. (INOUE, see FIGs. 28-29, with [0051] “FIG. 28 is an example…angular velocity graph acquired…(twenty thousand times)” and “FIG. 29…other example (twenty thousand times”; [0109]: “saving state after the state in which the operation of the actuator 2 is not detected continues for a predetermined time.”; [0154]: “acquiring an angular velocity graph…as well as information regarding the open/close count of the valve…if the number of times of measurements is defined in advance for each specific condition, records of the open/close count can be made uniform”; also, see [0180]: “timing may be set with a predetermined valve open/close count or at predetermined time intervals”)
With regard to Claim 8, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 1. INOUE further teaches:
further comprising a transmission control unit comprising a processor (INOUE, as above, teaches process carried out using standard computer components, see [00116], and transmission unit, FIG. 31, 32, with [0142])
configured to control transmission from the angular velocity sensor to the acquisition unit, (INOUE, as above, [0067])
wherein the transmission control unit transmits, to the acquisition unit, data of a representative value representing a behavior of a certain rotating shaft based on a plurality of angular velocity data (INOUE, as above, [0142], and see Abstract: “angular velocity data acquired from this monitoring unit…rotary valve which opens and closes or controls a flow path by rotating the valve stem, and the valve stem is a rotating shaft”; and see FIGs. 28-29, with [0080] “FIG. 28is an example…angular velocity graph acquired in another example (twenty thousand times)(i.e. “plurality of angular velocity data)”)
detected by the angular velocity sensor configured to detect the angular velocity data of the certain rotating shaft. (INOUE, as above, [0023]: “valve stem is a rotating shaft formed of an output shaft and a control shaft of an automatic valve via the actuator”; [0028]: “gyro sensor which measures, as the measurement data, angular velocity data”, [0036]: “valve stem of the valve is a portion in conjunction with the valve body and directly receiving its motion, and is thus suitable as a portion for observing the motion of the valve body”)
With regard to Claim 9, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 1. INOUE further teaches:
further comprising a determination unit comprising a processor configured to determine (INOUE, as above, teaches process carried out using standard computer components, see [00116], see FIG. 33 with [0208]: “process of determining”)
whether to perform maintenance work of one or both of the valve and the actuator in accordance with an estimation result of the estimation unit. (INOUE, see [0181]: “provided means for transmitting the determination result so that it can be displayed by the terminal application, and means for notifying the determination result to a management server managed by the valve manufacturer (maintenance person).”)
With regard to Claim 10, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 9. INOUE further teaches:
wherein the acquisition unit acquires angular velocity data of each of the rotating
shafts of a group of the valves (INOUE, as above, Abstract: “angular velocity data acquired from this monitoring unit (i.e., “acquisition unit)…rotary valve which opens and closes or controls a flow path by rotating the valve stem, and the valve stem is a rotating shaft”; and teaches multiple valves in system, see [0003]: “monitoring the status of valves and actuators”, suggests plural, and [00204]: “plurality of valves”; Examiner applies BRI and plain meaning to understand “group of the valves” to mean generally two or more valves related in some way, as is taught by reference, such as [0002] relating groups of valves in specific locations, (i.e., “group”)”)
and the determination unit determines whether to collectively perform the maintenance work of individual valves and actuators in one or both of a group of valves and a group of actuators in accordance with the estimation result of the estimation unit corresponding to the angular velocity data of the rotating shafts of the group of valves acquired by the acquisition unit. (INOUE, see Table 3 with [0240]: “reference data corresponding to three-month-before is identified from the use frequency of each of a plurality of valves that are present in the market and, when the measured angular velocity becomes approximately equal to this reference data, a notification indicating three months before failure can be made”; and [0242]: “system where a plurality of valves are disposed on single plumbing, this ball valve failure prediction control is nothing but allowing rational replacement in view of maintenance of the entire system…According to the present example, since a valve with less use frequency has a practical life expectancy longer than that of other valves of the same type and is therefore not required to be replaced until the next maintenance, it is possible to simultaneously achieve reduction in cost regarding component replacement of the plumbing system and shortening of the overall maintenance time of the plumbing system.” (i.e. “determining whether to collectively perform the maintenance work of individual valves”))
With regard to Claim 11, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 1.
INOUE further teaches:
wherein the valve body is a ball valve or a butterfly valve. (INOUE, see FIG.1 with [0051]: “external perspective view of a ball valve equipped with an actuator”)
With regard to Claim 12, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 1.
INOUE further teaches:
wherein the actuator is a pneumatic actuator. (INOUE, see FIGs 1-3 with [0072]: “pneumatic rotary actuator 2”)
With regard to Claim 13, INOUE teaches:
A transmission system configured to transmit, to an external device, (INOUE, see [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data in the control shaft 4 for at least each time or each open/close count. The acquired data is outputted from the gyro sensor 7… accumulated data is transmitted to the portable terminal (i.e. “external device”) via the near-field wireless communication module 10 (i.e., “transmission unit”)”)
angular velocity data of a rotation of a rotating shaft, (INOUE, see [0021]: “valve stem is a rotating shaft formed of an output shaft and a control shaft of an automatic valve via the actuator”; [0034]: “valve stem of the valve is a portion in conjunction with the valve body and directly receiving its motion, and is thus suitable as a portion for observing the motion of the valve body”)
the angular velocity data being detected by an angular velocity sensor (INOUE, as above, [0025], [0026])
in a valve unit in which the rotating shaft is rotated by an actuator to rotate a valve body of a valve in order to estimate a degree of abnormality of each valve by referring to the angular velocity data, (INOUE, see [0028]: “sensor unit and/or the server is provided with first anomaly diagnosing means (i.e., “estimation unit”) configured to grasp the wearing state and conduct an anomaly diagnosis of the valve (i.e., “estimate a degree of abnormality”)…includes specific data generating means which generates…specific feature data based on angular velocity data”)
the degree of abnormality of the valve is estimated in accordance with numerical values of the angular velocity data at an initial stage of rotation and an end stage of rotation of the valve body, (INOUE teaches estimation of abnormality, as above, [0028]: “sensor unit and/or the server is provided with first anomaly diagnosing means”, based on numerical values, see [00155], Table 2 depicting initial and final stage of rotation (in degrees), with [00159]: “specific way of reading of Table 2 …region in which the valve opening degree is from full close to an opening degree of approximately 10 degrees”, and [0161]: “actual measurement data of the valve with the open/close… “angular velocity”; Examiner interprets “initial stage of rotation” and “end stage of rotation” as analogous to reference “valve opening degree is from full close to an opening degree” ))
the degree of abnormality of the actuator is estimated in accordance with a numerical value of the angular velocity data in a rotation of the valve body other than at the initial stage of rotation and the end stage of rotation, (INOUE teaches monitoring of valves and actuators, as above, see [0006] “necessary to check the operation status (i.e., “estimates the degree of abnormality”) of the actuators”; and see FIG. 1 with [0051]: “FIG. 1…monitoring unit 1 is attached to an actuator 2”; and teaches intermediate angles measured, see, as above, [00155], Table 2, and FIGs.5-9 depicting Valve, measurement data); and see about one rotation from full open to full close measured by the gyro sensor 7)
the transmission system comprising a transmission control unit comprising a processor configured to control transmission of the angular velocity data, (INOUE, see [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data…for at least each time or each open/close count…acquired data is outputted from the gyro sensor 7… accumulated data is transmitted to the portable terminal via the near-field wireless communication module 10 (i.e., “transmission unit”)”)
the transmission control unit transmits, of a plurality of the angular velocity data detected by the angular velocity sensor (INOUE, teaches transmission control unit as above, FIG. 31, 32, with [0142], and as above, [0025], [0026], [0028])
only some of angular velocity data to the external device in response to one or both of a specific time period (INOUE teaches time data acquisition, as above, [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data…for at least each time or each open/close count.”, and [0071]: “continues for a predetermined time.”; and teaches selected data transmission, see [00180]: “as for the timing of diagnosis conducted by the above-described first and second anomaly diagnosing means…the timing may be set with a predetermined valve open/close count or at predetermined time intervals.”; and see [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data…acquired data is outputted from the gyro sensor…accumulated in the memory 9 via data processing in the CPU…these pieces of data may be set so as to be accumulated in the memory 9 after at least simple data processing is performed…or predetermined filtering (noise removal)”; and see [00154]: “specific feature amount data means one feature amount data selected in advance from the feature amount data”, and [00184]: “transmits this feature data to the database 42 and causes the feature data to be stored in the database…data control means controls the data accumulating means so that the acquired feature data is stored in the database 42 every time the valve is open and closed until the feature data of a predetermined amount set in advance is accumulated”, and [00197]: “data may not be these pieces of data for 0 degree to 90 degrees, but only feature portions (feature values) of the angular velocity data as described above may be partially used”; Examiner interprets “only some” to be analogous to reference processes of “filtering”, or “feature amount data selected”, or “portions”.)
and the number of times the angular velocity sensor detects the angular velocity data of the rotating shaft reaching a specific count. (INUOE also teaches data transmission based on count, see as above FIGs. 28-29, with [0051] “FIG. 28 is an example…angular velocity graph acquired in another example (twenty thousand times)” and “FIG. 29…other example (twenty thousand times”; [0071]: “saving state after the state in which the operation of the actuator 2 is not detected continues for a predetermined time.”; [0154]: “acquiring an angular velocity graph…as well as information regarding the open/close count of the valve…if the number of times of measurements is defined in advance for each specific condition, records of the open/close count can be made uniform”)
INOUE does not explicitly teach:
estimate a degree of abnormality of each actuator by referring to data acquired by the acquisition unit.
AKI teaches:
estimate a degree of abnormality of each actuator by referring to data acquired by the acquisition unit. (As above, Claim 1. INOUE teaches estimation of abnormality in actuator but not explicitly “each” actuator, as does AKI , see [0002], [0010], [0028], and FIG.3, element S10 with [0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify INOUE to include the configuration of the estimation unit to estimate a degree of abnormality of each actuator by referring to data acquired by the acquisition unit of such as that of AKI because this method step would provide a more complete understanding of abnormalities in a system that includes valves with actuators for controlling angular position. Incorporating the step of using information acquired from actuator as taught by AKI with the method/system taught by INOUE, which does teach use of valves and actuators, and data acquisition using angular velocity sensors, would be an obvious improvement, and could be implemented in a system without significant cost or increase in data processing time. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of including analysis of both actuator and valve abnormality. Evaluation of the actuator along with the evaluation of a value, would be logically understood as an obvious combination as a way to improve the overall reliability of the method and to provide additional information regarding the overall function of a valve system that may include multiple values and actuators. Using statistical analysis to provide function information based on or compared with threshold/expected values, as taught by AKI, would add accuracy and efficiency to the system of INOUE to determine potential faults or abnormality in actuators and valves without adding significant additional cost or processing time for evaluation.
With regard to Claim 14, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 13.
INOUE further teaches:
wherein the transmission control unit transmits, to the external device, (INOUE, see [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data in the control shaft 4 for at least each time or each open/close count…acquired data is outputted from the gyro sensor 7…accumulated data is transmitted to the portable terminal (i.e. “external device”) via the near-field wireless communication module 10 (i.e., “transmission unit”)”)
data of a representative value representing a behavior of a certain rotating shaft (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation, Claim 1, Abstract: “angular velocity data acquired from this monitoring unit (i.e., “acquisition unit”)”; and “rotary valve which opens and closes or controls a flow path by rotating the valve stem, and the valve stem is a rotating shaft”)
based on a plurality of angular velocity data (INOUE, see FIGs. 28-29, with [0051] “FIG. 28is an example…angular velocity graph acquired in another example (twenty thousand times)(i.e. “plurality of angular velocity data)”, )
detected by the angular velocity sensor configured to detect the angular velocity data of the certain rotating shaft. (INOUE, as above, see [0021]: “valve stem is a rotating shaft formed of an output shaft and a control shaft of an automatic valve via the actuator”; [0026]: “gyro sensor which measures, as the measurement data, angular velocity data”, [0034]: “valve stem of the valve is a portion in conjunction with the valve body and directly receiving its motion, and is thus suitable as a portion for observing the motion of the valve body”)
With regard to Claim 15, INOUE teaches:
An information processing method, (INOUE, as above, see Abstract, and see Claim 16 “method”; and as above, [0018]: “operating valves (rotary valves) and actuators…allows detailed and accurate state grasping and diagnosis or failure prediction for the valve or actuator.”; and [0043]: “invention is very suitable for grasping the state of the target also in view of a large amount of data processing such as, in particular, machine learning” (i.e., information processing))
acquiring angular velocity data of a rotation of a rotating shaft, (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation, Claim 1, Abstract: “angular velocity data acquired from this monitoring unit (i.e., “acquisition unit”)”; and “rotary valve which opens and closes or controls a flow path by rotating the valve stem, and the valve stem is a rotating shaft”)
the angular velocity data being detected by an angular velocity sensor, (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation, Claim 1; see [0025], [0026])
in a valve unit in which the rotating shaft is rotated by an actuator to rotate a valve body of a valve (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation Claim 1; [0021], [0034], and FIG. 1 with [0051])
estimating a degree of abnormality of each valve by referring to the angular velocity data acquired by the acquiring. (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation Claim 1, see [0030])
in said estimating, the degree of abnormality of the valve is estimated in accordance with numerical values of the angular velocity data at an initial stage of rotation and an end stage of rotation of the valve body, (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation, Claim 1, see [0028]; teaches numerical values, see [00155], Table 2 depicting initial and final stage of rotation (in degrees), with [00159]: “specific way of reading of Table 2 …region in which the valve opening degree is from full close to an opening degree of approximately 10 degrees”, and [0161]: “actual measurement data of the valve with the open/close… “angular velocity”; Examiner interprets “initial stage of rotation” and end stage of rotation” as analogous to reference “valve opening degree is from full close to an opening degree” )
the degree of abnormality of the actuator is estimated in accordance with a numerical value of the angular velocity data in a rotation of the valve body other than at the initial stage of rotation and the end stage of rotation (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation Claim 1, teaches monitoring of valves and actuators, see [0006] “necessary to check the operation status (i.e., “estimates the degree of abnormality”) of the actuators”; and see FIG. 1 with [0051]: “FIG. 1…monitoring unit 1 is attached to an actuator 2”; and teaches intermediate angles measured, see, as above, [00155], Table 2, and FIGs.5-9 depicting Valve, measurement data); and see about one rotation from full open to full close measured by the gyro sensor 7)
INOUE does not explicitly teach:
estimating a degree of abnormality of each actuator by referring to the data acquired by the acquiring.
AKI teaches, as above:
estimating a degree of abnormality of each actuator by referring to the data acquired by the acquiring. (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation Claim 1, see [0010], FIG.3, element S10 with [0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify INOUE to include estimating a degree of abnormality of the actuator by referring to data acquired by the acquiring as taught by AKI because the step would improve the method of INOUE by allowing for both valve and actuator evaluation for abnormality. This would be motivated by improving the method/system disclosed by INOUE to add the evaluation of the actuator along with the evaluation of a valve, resulting in overall reliability improvement of the method and to providing additional information regarding the overall function of a valve system that may include multiple valves and actuators. Using statistical analysis to provide function information based on or compared with threshold/expected values, as taught by AKI, would add accuracy and efficiency to the system of INOUE to determine potential faults or abnormality in actuators and valves without adding significant additional cost or processing time for evaluation.
With regard to Claim 16, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 15. INOUE further teaches:
determining whether to perform maintenance work of one or both of the valve and the actuator in accordance with an estimation result of the estimating. (INOUE, see [00167]: “actual measurement data of the valve…can be determined that this is the state of the valve along the reference data in Table 2, and the life of the ball seat ends with the open/close count of ten thousand times (i.e., “estimation result of the estimating”), and maintenance can be performed in a planned manner”)
With regard to Claim 17, INOUE in view of AKI teaches limitations of Claim 16. INOUE further teaches:
the acquiring includes acquiring angular velocity data of each of the rotating shafts of a group of the valves, (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation Claim 1, Abstract, [0025], and [0026]; and [0042]: “allowing rational replacement in view of maintenance of the entire system in a plumbing system where a plurality of valves are disposed on single plumbing” (i.e., “group of the valves”))
and the determining includes determining whether to collectively perform the maintenance work of individual valves and actuators in one or both of a group of valves and a group of actuators (INOUE, see Table 3 with [00204]: “reference data corresponding to three-month-before is identified from the use frequency of each of a plurality of valves that are present in the market and, when the measured angular velocity becomes approximately equal to this reference data, a notification indicating three months before failure can be made”, and see [00242]: “system where a plurality of valves are disposed on single plumbing, this ball valve failure prediction control is nothing but allowing rational replacement in view of maintenance of the entire system…According to the present example, since a valve with less use frequency has a practical life expectancy longer than that of other valves of the same type and is therefore not required to be replaced until the next maintenance, it is possible to simultaneously achieve reduction in cost regarding component replacement of the plumbing system and shortening of the overall maintenance time of the plumbing system.” (i.e. “determining whether to collectively perform the maintenance work of individual valves”))
in accordance with the estimation result of the estimating corresponding to the angular velocity data of the rotating shafts of the group of valves acquired by the acquiring. (INOUE as above, [0028]: “sensor unit and/or the server is provided with first anomaly diagnosing means configured to grasp the wearing state and conduct an anomaly diagnosis of the valve includes specific data generating means which generates…specific feature data (i.e., “estimation result) based on angular velocity data”)
With regard to Claim 18, INOUE teaches:
A valve system, (INOUE, as above, see FIGs. 2-3 ) comprising:
a valve unit including a valve configured to open and close a flow path by rotating a valve body (INOUE, as above, parallel limit, Claim 1, see [0021]: “valve is a rotary valve which opens and closes or controls a flow path by rotating the valve stem"; and [0034]: “valve stem of the valve is a portion in conjunction with the valve body and directly receiving its motion, and is thus suitable as a portion for observing the motion of the valve body”; Examiner notes interpretation discussed in Claim 1.)
and an actuator configured to rotate a rotating shaft for rotating the valve body; (INOUE, as above, see [0021]: “valve stem is a rotating shaft formed of an output shaft and a control shaft of an automatic valve via the actuator”; and FIGs. 1-3 with [0073]: “provided inside the main body of the actuator 2 is a converting mechanism 13 which converts a reciprocating motion to a rotational motion”; Examiner asserts one of ordinary skill would infer the mechanism of an actuator connected to a rotary value to rotate value body as describe above, [0021] with [0034].)
one or both of an information processing system and a transmission system (INOUE, as above, see FIGs. 31-32 with [0051]: “flowchart diagram depicting a general outline of an anomaly diagnosis process (i.e., “information processing system”)”; and [0043]: “large amount of data processing such as, in particular, machine learning”; also [0067]: “near-field wireless communication module 10 (i.e., “transmission unit”)”)
the information processing system comprises: an acquisition unit comprising a processor configured to acquire angular velocity data of a rotation of the rotating shaft, (INOUE, as above parallel limitation Claim 1, teaches processing using standard computer components, see [00116], and Abstract: “angular velocity data acquired from this monitoring unit (i.e., “acquisition unit”)”; and “rotary valve which opens and closes or controls a flow path by rotating the valve stem, and the valve stem is a rotating shaft”))
the angular velocity data being detected by an angular velocity sensor, in the valve unit; (INOUE, as above, parallel limitation, Claim 1, [0025]: “sensor unit fixed to this valve”; and [0026]: “sensor is a gyro sensor which measures, as the measurement data, angular velocity data”)
and an estimation unit comprising a processor configured to estimate a degree of abnormality of each of valve by referring to the angular velocity data acquired by the acquisition unit, (INOUE, as above parallel limitation Claim 1, teaches processing using standard computer components, see [00116]; and teaches sensor unit [0028]: “sensor unit and/or the server is provided with first anomaly diagnosing means (i.e., “estimation unit”) configured to grasp the wearing state and conduct an anomaly diagnosis of the valve (i.e., “estimate a degree of abnormality”)…includes specific data generating means which generates…specific feature data based on angular velocity data”)
the estimation unit estimates the degree of abnormality of the valve in accordance with numerical values of the angular velocity data at an initial stage of rotation and an end stage of rotation of the valve body (INOUE teaches estimation unit, as above, [0028], and teaches numerical values, see [00155], Table 2 depicting initial and final stage of rotation (in degrees), with [00159]: “specific way of reading of Table 2 …region in which the valve opening degree is from full close to an opening degree of approximately 10 degrees”, and [0161]: “actual measurement data of the valve with the open/close… “angular velocity”; Examiner interprets “initial stage of rotation” and end stage of rotation” as analogous to reference “valve opening degree is from full close to an opening degree” )
estimates the degree of abnormality of the actuator in accordance with a numerical value of the angular velocity data in a rotation of the valve body other than at the initial stage of rotation and the end stage of rotation, (INOUE teaches monitoring of valves and actuators, see [0006] “necessary to check the operation status (i.e., “estimates the degree of abnormality”) of the actuators”; and see FIG. 1 with [0051]: “FIG. 1…monitoring unit 1 is attached to an actuator 2”; and teaches intermediate angles measured, see, as above, [00155], Table 2, and FIGs.5-9 depicting Valve, measurement data); and see about one rotation from full open to full close measured by the gyro sensor 7)
the transmission system is configured to transmit, to an external device, (INOUE, see [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data in the control shaft 4 for at least each time or each open/close count. The acquired data is outputted from the gyro sensor 7… accumulated data is transmitted to the portable terminal (i.e. “external device”) via the near-field wireless communication module 10 (i.e., “transmission unit”)”)
the angular velocity data of the rotation of the rotating shaft, the angular velocity data being detected by the angular velocity sensor (INOUE, as above, [0021]: “valve stem is a rotating shaft formed of an output shaft and a control shaft of an automatic valve via the actuator”; [0034]: “valve stem of the valve is a portion in conjunction with the valve body and directly receiving its motion, and is thus suitable as a portion for observing the motion of the valve body”; and see [0025], [0026])
in the valve unit in order to estimate a degree of abnormality of each of valve by referring to the angular velocity data, (INOUE, as above, [0028].)
the degree of abnormality of the valve is estimated in accordance with numerical values of the angular velocity data at an initial stage of rotation and an end stage of rotation of the valve body (INOUE, as above, numerical values, see [00155], Table 2, and [0161]; Examiner interprets “initial stage of rotation” and end stage of rotation” as above.)
the degree of abnormality of the actuator is estimated in accordance with a numerical value of the angular velocity data in a rotation of the valve body other than at the initial stage of rotation and the end stage of rotation, (INOUE as above, see [0006], and see FIG. 1 with [0051], and [00155], Table 2, and FIGs.5-9)
the transmission system comprising a transmission control unit comprising a processor (INOUE, as above, see FIG. 31, 32, with [00142]: “ the sensor unit 1…is connected by communication module 10 (i.e., “transmission control unit”) via the Internet 43 to the server box 50” and [0180]: “terminal for checking information regarding the valve 3 to be transmitted from the sensor unit 1, and include display means capable of displaying transmission data”)
configured to control transmission of the angular velocity data (INOUE, as above, [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data),
the transmission control unit transmits of a plurality of the angular velocity data detected by the angular velocity sensor, (INOUE, as above, FIG. 31, 32, with [0142]), [0025], [0026], [0028])
only some of angular velocity data to the external device in response to one or both of a specific time period (INOUE teaches time data acquisition, as above, [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data…for at least each time or each open/close count.”, and [0071]: “continues for a predetermined time.”; and teaches selected data transmission, see [00180]: “as for the timing of diagnosis conducted by the above-described first and second anomaly diagnosing means…the timing may be set with a predetermined valve open/close count or at predetermined time intervals.”; and see [0067]: “data of a measurement target includes angular velocity data…acquired data is outputted from the gyro sensor…accumulated in the memory 9 via data processing in the CPU…these pieces of data may be set so as to be accumulated in the memory 9 after at least simple data processing is performed…or predetermined filtering (noise removal)”; and see [00154]: “specific feature amount data means one feature amount data selected in advance from the feature amount data”, and [00184]: “transmits this feature data to the database 42 and causes the feature data to be stored in the database…data control means controls the data accumulating means so that the acquired feature data is stored in the database 42 every time the valve is open and closed until the feature data of a predetermined amount set in advance is accumulated”, and [00197]: “data may not be these pieces of data for 0 degree to 90 degrees, but only feature portions (feature values) of the angular velocity data as described above may be partially used”; Examiner interprets “only some” to be analogous to reference processes of “filtering”, or “feature amount data selected”, or “portions”.)
and the number of times the angular velocity sensor detects the angular velocity data of the rotating shaft reaching a specific count. (INUOE also teaches data transmission based on count, see as above FIGs. 28-29, with [0051] “FIG. 28 is an example…angular velocity graph acquired in another example (twenty thousand times)” and “FIG. 29…other example (twenty thousand times”; [0071]: “saving state after the state in which the operation of the actuator 2 is not detected continues for a predetermined time.”; [0154]: “acquiring an angular velocity graph…as well as information regarding the open/close count of the valve…if the number of times of measurements is defined in advance for each specific condition, records of the open/close count can be made uniform”)
INOUE does not explicitly teach:
and an estimation unit configured to estimate a degree of abnormality of each of the actuator referring to data acquired by the acquisition unit,
AKI teaches as above:
and an estimation unit configured to estimate a degree of abnormality of each of the actuator referring to data acquired by the acquisition unit, (INOUE as above, parallel limitation Claim 1, teaches estimation of abnormality in actuator but not explicitly “each” actuator, as does AKI in same technical field, see [0002], and see [0010], FIG.3, element S10 “statistical calculation processing” with [0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify INOUE to include the configuration of the estimation unit to estimate a degree of abnormality of each actuator by referring to data acquired by the acquisition unit of such as that of AKI because this method step would improve the method/system of INOUE by allowing for multiple actuator evaluation for abnormality. This would be motivated by improving the method/system disclosed by IOUE, which already discloses use of an actuator in a valve system, to explicitly add evaluation of the actuator along with the evaluation of a value, which would be seen as a way to improve the overall reliability of the method and to provide additional information regarding the overall function of a valve system that may include multiple values and actuators. Using statistical analysis to provide function information based on or compared with threshold/expected values, as taught by AKI, would add accuracy and efficiency to the system of INOUE to determine potential faults or abnormality in actuators and valves without adding significant additional cost or processing time for evaluation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure was included in previous office action.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 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, 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights