DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on December 13, 2023. Claims 1-5 are pending, with claim 1 in independent claim form.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 3, recited the limitation of “according to Formula (1)“ is suggested to be replaced with “according to a formula“,
Claim 2 line 6, recited the limitation of “Tmax = TL×(sin/sinL) (1)“ is suggested to be replaced with “Tmax = TL×(sin/sinL)“,
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:
“the detection device being configured to store…calculate…” in claim 1 line 3,
“a drive device driving the electric motor” in claim 5 line 4.
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.
Claim 1 line 3 discloses the limitation “detection device being configured to store…calculate…” has been interpreted under 112(f) because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “configured to store…calculate…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 5 line 4 discloses the limitation “a drive device driving the electric motor” has been interpreted under 112(f) because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “driving the electric motor” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that there is equivalent structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): In para: [0045] lines 1-2, recited “a computer device” therefore the “the detection device” will be interpreted as the equivalent structure of the generic placeholder (device) to perform the function of store…calculate….
A review of the specification shows that there is no equivalent structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): Claim 5 line 4 recited “drive device driving the electric motor”.
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1 is a detection device with no other structure to perform the storing, calculating, comparing and determining is indefinite, it is unclear for a detection device to be capable of storing, calculating, comparing and determining but detecting. Clarity is needed. Same goes for claims 2-5.
Claim 5 in line 4, recited the limitations “a drive device driving the electric motor” is indefinite, it is unclear what structure (equivalent structure) to perform the function of driving the electric motor since the drive device is not defined.
Claim 5 in line 4, recited the limitations “the rotation angle detector successively detecting” is indefinite, it is unclear what additional limitation the language “successively” brought of the claim. Does the rotation angle detector do unsuccessful detection? Clarity is needed.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
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 to 5 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.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1 to 5 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1 to 5 recites at least one step or instruction for collecting and analyzing information, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 5 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites a detection device detecting a presence or absence of a processing material adhered to an interior wall of a drum at a startup of a mill pulverizing a mineral, the detection device (additional element) being configured to:
store an initial torque when a processing material is adhered to the interior wall of the drum, the initial torque being detected at an initial rotation angle of the drum, the initial rotation angle being prescribed (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
calculate a maximum torque at a rotation angle greater than the initial rotation angle when the processing material is adhered to the interior wall of the drum based on the initial torque, the initial rotation angle, and the rotation angle (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
calculate a ratio of a torque detected at the rotation angle divided by the maximum torque (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
compare the ratio and a preset threshold (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
determine that the processing material is not adhered to the interior wall of the drum when the ratio is less than the threshold (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and
determine that the processing material is adhered to the interior wall of the drum when the ratio is equal to the threshold or greater than the threshold after the rotation angle of the drum has reached a first rotation angle at which the processing material can detach and fall from the interior wall of the drum, the first rotation angle being greater than the initial rotation angle (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Further, dependent Claims 2 to 5 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent Claims 2 to 5) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional element of a detection device is a generically recited computer element in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) which does not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor does this above-identified additional element serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional element does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed apparatus merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., detection device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1 to 5 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional element of a detection device, which is simply a generically recited computer element in independent Claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) that enables the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0045] recites
[0045] The detection device 10 of the embodiment is a computer device that executes the steps of the flowchart shown in FIG. 5; and the computer device stores a program including the steps in a storage device or the like, and when necessary, reads the program. The computer device that realizes the detection device 10 may be a programmable logic controller (PLC). The content of the flowchart shown in FIG. 5 may be applied to the control program executed by the PLC.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “detection device” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the detection device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 to 5 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses or systems of Claims 1 to 5 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1 to 5 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 to 5 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected (as best understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smits EP Publication (3,269,453) hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1,
Smits discloses a detection device (4) detecting a presence or absence of a processing material (6) adhered to an interior wall of a drum at a startup of a mill pulverizing a mineral (see pag.1 lines 16-17 and pag.2 lines 1-6), the detection device being configured to:
store an initial torque when a processing material is adhered to the interior wall of the drum, the initial torque being detected at an initial rotation angle of the drum, the initial rotation angle being prescribed (element 4 is capable of storing, see pag.5 line 20);
calculate a maximum torque at a rotation angle greater than the initial rotation angle when the processing material is adhered to the interior wall of the drum based on the initial torque, the initial rotation angle, and the rotation angle (See pag.2 lines 29-37 and the controller carry out the method according to pag.2 lines 38-39);
calculate a ratio of a torque detected at the rotation angle divided by the maximum torque (See pag.2 lines 29-37 and the controller carry out the method according to pag.2 lines 38-39);
compare the ratio and a preset threshold (element 4 is capable of comparing, see pag.5 lines 12-13, the controller carry out the method according to pag.2 lines 38-39);
determine that the processing material is not adhered to the interior wall of the drum when the ratio is less than the threshold (See pag.5 lines 12-19 and the controller carry out the method according to pag.2 lines 38-39); and
determine that the processing material is adhered to the interior wall of the drum when the ratio is equal to the threshold or greater than the threshold after the rotation angle of the drum has reached a first rotation angle at which the processing material can detach and fall from the interior wall of the drum, the first rotation angle being greater than the initial rotation angle (See pag.4 lines 47-48 and pag.5 lines 1-2 and the controller carry out the method according to pag.2 lines 38-39).
Regarding claim 2,
Smits further discloses wherein the calculating of the maximum torque is a calculation according to Formula (1), wherein Tmax is the maximum torque, TL is the initial torque, is the rotation angle, and L is the initial rotation angle: Tmax = TL×(sin/sinL) (1) (See pag.5 lines 20-33, the mathematic formula are considered to be unpatentable abstract Idea or mathematical concept see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Regarding claim 3,
Smits further discloses generating a command (charge release mode) to stop an operation of the mill when it is determined that the processing material is adhered to the interior wall of the drum (See pag.5 lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 4,
Smits further discloses generating a command (charge release mode) to cause an operation of the mill to be the processing material removal operation when it is determined that the processing material is adhered to the interior wall of the drum (See pag.3 lines 28-30).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected (as best understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smits EP Publication (3,269,453) hereinafter Smits in view of Timpe DE publication (3,258,409) hereinafter Timpe.
Regarding claim 5,
Smits further discloses a detection system, comprising: the detection device (4) according to claim 1;
an electric motor (3) driving the drum of the mill (2);
a rotation angle detector (structure detecting the rotation angle, see pag.4 lines 40-46) detecting a rotation angle of the electric motor (3); and
a torque detector (structure detecting the torque, see pag.4 lines 40-46) detecting a torque output,
the mill being one of a ball mill, a SAG mill, or an AG mill (See pag.2 line 20), the rotation angle detector successively detecting the rotation angle and transmitting the rotation angle to the detection device (4, the controller carry out the method according to pag.2 lines 38-39),
the torque detector detecting the initial torque and transmitting the initial torque to the detection device (4), and successively detecting the torque at the rotation angle and transmitting the torque to the detection device (4, the controller carry out the method according to pag.2 lines 38-39),
the detection device (4) calculating the ratio, comparing the ratio and the threshold, and determining a magnitude relationship between the ratio and the threshold each time the detection device receives the torque at the rotation angle (See pag.2 lines 29-37 and the controller carry out the method according to pag.2 lines 38-39) but Smits does not disclose a drive device driving the electric motor.
Smits and Timpe disclose both analogous art in the field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. mill monitoring).
Timpe, in a similar art, teaches a system for monitoring load state in mill device (see title) having a drive device (11,12) driving the electric motor (10)
Timpe teaches the drive device to drive the electric motor to prevent malfunction and destructive errors (See pag.1 lines 14-17), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to add to the monitoring system of Smits, a drive device to drive the electric motor as taught by Timpe, as it would be beneficiary to Smits to be able to prevent malfunction and destructive errors and reduce on maintenance time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith O. BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher L. Templeton can be reached at (571)270 1477. 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.
December 18, 2025
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725