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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2024 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 01/16/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to PCT/JP2022/029034 is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 07/27/2022, which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application.
See MPEP 608.01(p) I B: For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date and MPEP 1893.03(b): An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that an international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office as well as:
PCT Article 11(3) - ...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State. The specification amendment filed on 01/16/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to PCT/JP2022/029034.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-6, the preambles need to amended as “The abnormality diagnosis device for [[a]]the wire saw”.
Appropriate correction 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 1-7 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.
Each of Claims 1-7 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim1 recites at least one step or instruction for “calculates deviation information …, and a determiner that determines presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw based on the calculated deviation information”, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG of an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, each of Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
An abnormality diagnosis device for a wire saw which includes a plurality of processing rollers, a wire wound around the plurality of processing rollers, a feed reel that feeds the wire toward the processing rollers, and a take-up reel that takes up the wire sent from the processing rollers, and which performs cutting on a workpiece with the wire, the abnormality diagnosis device comprising (additional element; field of use):
a diagnosis mode executer that executes a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode before the cutting, the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the processing rollers at a constant first rotational speed, the second diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the feed reel at a constant second rotational speed, and the third diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the take-up reel at a constant third rotational speed (additional element; field of use/data gathering);
a data group acquirer that acquires a first data group, a second data group, and a third data group for pluralities of data items indicating operating states of the wire saw, respectively, the first data group being acquirable in the first diagnosis mode, the second data group being acquirable in the second diagnosis mode, and the third data group being acquirable in the third diagnosis mode (additional element; field of use/data gathering; Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982));
a deviation information calculator that calculates deviation information relating to deviations derived by comparing a first reference data group, a second reference data group, and a third reference data group with the first data group, the second data group, and the third data group for the pluralities of data items, respectively, the first reference data group being acquired in the first diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, the second reference data group being acquired in the second diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, and the third reference data group being acquired in the third diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal (additional element; mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/using the computer as a tool to perform a mental process; insignificant extra-solution activity); and
a determiner that determines presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw based on the calculated deviation information (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim7 recites at least one step or instruction for “calculating deviation information …, and determining presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw based on the calculated deviation information”, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG of an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, each of Claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 7 recites
An abnormality diagnosis method for a wire saw which includes a plurality of processing rollers, a wire wound around the plurality of processing rollers, a feed reel that feeds the wire toward the processing rollers, and a take-up reel that takes up the wire sent from the processing rollers, and which performs cutting on a workpiece with the wire, the abnormality diagnosis method comprising the steps of (additional element; field of use):
executing a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode before the cutting, the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the processing rollers at a constant first rotational speed, the second diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the feed reel at a constant second rotational speed, and the third diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the take-up reel at a constant third rotational speed (additional element; field of use/data gathering);
acquiring a first data group, a second data group, and a third data group for pluralities of data items indicating operating states of the wire saw, respectively, the first data group being acquirable in the first diagnosis mode, the second data group being acquirable in the second diagnosis mode, and the third data group being acquirable in the third diagnosis mode (additional element; field of use/data gathering; Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982));
calculating deviation information relating to deviations derived by comparing a first reference data group, a second reference data group, and a third reference data group with the first data group, the second data group, and the third data group for the pluralities of data items, respectively, the first reference data group being acquired in the first diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, the second reference data group being acquired in the second diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, and the third reference data group being acquired in the third diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal (additional element; mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/using the computer as a tool to perform a mental process; insignificant extra-solution activity); and
determining presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw based on the calculated deviation information (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Further, dependent Claims 2-6 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 process steps are performed.
Claim 2 recites “a plurality of data items for acquiring the first data group and the first reference data group includes a torque load on a motor rotationally driving the processing rollers, temperature of the processing rollers or a support member of the processing rollers, and a vibration characteristic of the processing rollers or the support member of the processing rollers” (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 3 recites “a plurality of data items for acquiring the second data group and the second reference data group includes a torque load on a motor rotationally driving the feed reel, temperature of the feed reel or a support member of the feed reel, and a vibration characteristic of the feed reel or the support member of the feed reel” (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 4 recites “a plurality of data items for acquiring the third data group and the third reference data group includes a torque load on a motor rotationally driving the take-up reel, temperature of the take-up reel or a support member of the take-up reel, and a vibration characteristic of the take-up reel or the support member of the take-up reel” (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 5 recites “the deviation information calculator calculates Mahalanobis distances by comparing a first unit space, a second unit space, and a third unit space with a first signal space, a second signal space, and a third signal space, respectively, as the deviation information, the first unit space being formed by the first reference data group, the second unit space being formed by the second reference data group, the third unit space being formed by the third reference data group, the first signal space being formed by the first data group, the second signal space being formed by the second data group, and the third signal space being formed by the third data group” (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 6 recites “a cause estimator … estimates a cause of the abnormality based on a degree of contribution of the plurality of data items to the deviation information” (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG; mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/using the computer as a tool to perform a mental process MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C))
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in independent Claims 1 and 7 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-6) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 7), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and are mere data gathering steps to perform the judicial exception. More specifically, the additional elements of: a wire saw, which includes a plurality of processing rollers, a feed reel, and a take-up reel, a diagnosis mode executer, and a data group acquirer are generically recited components that do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation 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. The machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(b) II.) and its use contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(b) III.)
The deviation information calculator and the determiner are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) and the method of calculating deviation information and determining abnormality based on the calculated deviation information is generically recited computer function in independent Claim 7 which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 7 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., determiner 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. 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. 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 Claims 1 and 7 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 7 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-7 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of:
an abnormality diagnosis device for a wire saw which includes a plurality of processing rollers, a wire wound around the plurality of processing rollers, a feed reel that feeds the wire toward the processing rollers, and a take-up reel that takes up the wire sent from the processing rollers (field of use),
the limitations amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
the abnormality diagnosis device comprising:
a diagnosis mode executer that executes a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode before the cutting, the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the processing rollers at a constant first rotational speed, the second diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the feed reel at a constant second rotational speed, and the third diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the take-up reel at a constant third rotational speed (field of use);
a data group acquirer that acquires a first data group, a second data group, and a third data group for pluralities of data items indicating operating states of the wire saw, respectively, the first data group being acquirable in the first diagnosis mode, the second data group being acquirable in the second diagnosis mode, and the third data group being acquirable in the third diagnosis mode (field of use)
the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See 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) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering),
a deviation information calculator that calculates deviation information relating to deviations derived by comparing a first reference data group, a second reference data group, and a third reference data group with the first data group, the second data group, and the third data group for the pluralities of data items, respectively, the first reference data group being acquired in the first diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, the second reference data group being acquired in the second diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, and the third reference data group being acquired in the third diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable 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, 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, ¶ 0034, the determiner determines the presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw based on the deviation information calculated by the deviation information calculator.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term the determiner 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 computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-7 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 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. 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, 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 apparatus of Claims 1-7 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-7 provides 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.
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 Claims 1 and 7 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, 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. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements remain an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, applying the judicial exception with generic computer components, and insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. 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. Thus, Claims 1-7 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-7 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-7 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (WO 2017037825A1, hereinafter Takahashi), in view of Feng et al. (CN 111283889A, hereinafter Feng) and Wang et al. (CN 109768002B, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a wire saw which includes a plurality of processing rollers, a wire wound around the plurality of processing rollers, a feed reel that feeds the wire toward the processing rollers, and a take-up reel that takes up the wire sent from the processing rollers, and which performs cutting on a workpiece with the wire (Takahashi English translation, p. 3:19-4:26, abstract, and fig. 1, a wire saw comprises processing rollers 20, 21, wherein a wire 10 is formed on outer peripheral surfaces of the processing rollers. The wire saw further comprises a first bobbin 11 [corresponds to the recited feed reel] and a second bobbin 12 [corresponds to the recited take-up reel]. The first bobbin 11 stores a used wire and the second bobbin 12 collects the used wire. The wire 10 is a fixed abrasive wire and is used to cut an object to be processed), but does not disclose the wire saw includes an abnormality diagnosis device.
Feng teaches, in an analogous wire saw apparatus field of endeavor, the wire saw includes an abnormality diagnosis device (Feng English translation, p. 4:33-5:7, a wire saw control system monitors operation information in a processing of cutting to determine a plurality of abnormal states).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wire saw of Takahashi to provide the abnormality diagnosis device as taught by Feng in order to protect the apparatus and effectively improve the cutting efficiency (Feng English translation, abstract).
Takahashi as modified by Feng teaches the abnormality diagnosis device comprising:
a diagnosis mode executer that executes a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode before the cutting, the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the processing rollers at a constant first rotational speed, the second diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the feed reel at a constant second rotational speed, and the third diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the take-up reel at a constant third rotational speed (Takahashi English translation, p. 4:1-4, 6:33-7:2 and fig. 1, a control device 60 controls traveling of the wire 10. The control device drives bobbin motors 13, 15 which rotate the first bobbin 11 [corresponds to the recited feed reel] and the second bobbin 12 [corresponds to the recited take-up reel], traverser motors 26, 27 which rotate traverse rollers 24, 25, dancer arm motors 32, 33 which rotate dancer arm rollers 28, 29, and roller motors 22, 23 which rotate the processing rollers 20, 21 to synchronize them. Thus, Takahashi teaches the control device controls the rotational speed of the processing rollers, the feed reel, and the take-up reel to rotate to be constant before and during the cutting operation);
a data group acquirer that acquires a first data group, a second data group, and a third data group for pluralities of data items indicating operating states of the wire saw, respectively, the first data group being acquirable in the first diagnosis mode, the second data group being acquirable in the second diagnosis mode, and the third data group being acquirable in the third diagnosis mode (Feng English translation, p. 34:1-18, an automatic control of the wire saw system monitors cutting speed, cutting tension, main drive output power and other information in real time. Thus, Feng teaches the abnormality diagnosis device of the wire saw acquires information of the wire saw device in real time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abnormality diagnosis device of Takahashi as modified by Feng to provide the data group acquirer as taught by Feng in order to protect the apparatus, effectively improve the cutting efficiency, and reduce human intervention in the cutting process (Feng English translation, abstract).
Takahashi as modified by Feng still does not disclose a deviation information calculator that calculates deviation information relating to deviations derived by comparing a first reference data group, a second reference data group, and a third reference data group with the first data group, the second data group, and the third data group for the pluralities of data items, respectively, the first reference data group being acquired in the first diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, the second reference data group being acquired in the second diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, and the third reference data group being acquired in the third diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal; and a determiner that determines presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw based on the calculated deviation information.
Wang teaches, in an abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, a deviation information calculator that calculates deviation information relating to deviations derived by comparing a first reference data group, a second reference data group, and a third reference data group with the first data group, the second data group, and the third data group for the pluralities of data items, respectively, the first reference data group being acquired in the first diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, the second reference data group being acquired in the second diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, and the third reference data group being acquired in the third diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal; and a determiner that determines presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw based on the calculated deviation information (Wang English translation, p. 11:38-12:16 and 13:27-33, a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprises an analysis device 10 of various movable parts. A signal processor compares signal spectra measured during the operation and signal spectral under normal operation. When deviation of the spectrum exceeds a threshold value, the signal processor determines that operation is an abnormal event. Wang teaches comparing the measure data with the reference/normal operation data to determine presence or absence of an abnormality. Wang can be combined with Takahashi and Feng to teach the abnormality diagnosis of the wire saw apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abnormality diagnosis device of Takahashi as modified by Feng to provide the deviation information calculator and the determiner as taught by Wang so that the operation of the device can be controlled according to the detected abnormal event (Wang English translation, p. 3:7-14).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi discloses a wire saw which includes a plurality of processing rollers, a wire wound around the plurality of processing rollers, a feed reel that feeds the wire toward the processing rollers, and a take-up reel that takes up the wire sent from the processing rollers, and which performs cutting on a workpiece with the wire (Takahashi English translation, p. 3:19-4:26, abstract, and fig. 1, a wire saw comprises processing rollers 20, 21, wherein a wire 10 is formed on outer peripheral surfaces of the processing rollers. The wire saw further comprises a first bobbin 11 [corresponds to the recited feed reel] and a second bobbin 12 [corresponds to the recited take-up reel]. The first bobbin 11 stores a used wire and the second bobbin 12 collects the used wire. The wire 10 is a fixed abrasive wire and is used to cut an object to be processed), but does not disclose an abnormality diagnosis method for a wire saw.
Feng teaches, in an analogous wire saw apparatus field of endeavor, an abnormality diagnosis method for a wire saw (Feng English translation, p. 4:33-5:7, a wire saw control system monitors operation information in a processing of cutting to determine a plurality of abnormal states).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wire saw of Takahashi to provide the abnormality diagnosis method as taught by Feng in order to protect the apparatus and effectively improve the cutting efficiency (Feng English translation, abstract).
Takahashi as modified by Feng teaches the abnormality diagnosis method comprising the steps of: executing a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode before the cutting, the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the processing rollers at a constant first rotational speed, the second diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the feed reel at a constant second rotational speed, and the third diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to set the take-up reel at a constant third rotational speed (Takahashi English translation, p. 4:1-4, 6:33-7:2 and fig. 1, a control device 60 controls traveling of the wire 10. The control device drives bobbin motors 13, 15 which rotate the first bobbin 11 [corresponds to the recited feed reel] and the second bobbin 12 [corresponds to the recited take-up reel], traverser motors 26, 27 which rotate traverse rollers 24, 25, dancer arm motors 32, 33 which rotate dancer arm rollers 28, 29, and roller motors 22, 23 which rotate the processing rollers 20, 21 to synchronize them. Thus, Takahashi teaches the control device controls the rotational speed of the processing rollers, the feed reel, and the take-up reel to rotate to be constant before and during the cutting operation);
acquiring a first data group, a second data group, and a third data group for pluralities of data items indicating operating states of the wire saw, respectively, the first data group being acquirable in the first diagnosis mode, the second data group being acquirable in the second diagnosis mode, and the third data group being acquirable in the third diagnosis mode (Feng English translation, p. 34:1-18, an automatic control of the wire saw system monitors cutting speed, cutting tension, main drive output power and other information in real time. Thus, Feng teaches the abnormality diagnosis device of the wire saw acquires information of the wire saw device in real time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abnormality diagnosis method of Takahashi as modified by Feng to provide the data group acquiring method as taught by Feng in order to protect the apparatus, effectively improve the cutting efficiency, and reduce human intervention in the cutting process (Feng English translation, abstract).
Takahashi as modified by Feng still does not disclose the abnormality diagnosis method of calculating deviation information relating to deviations derived by comparing a first reference data group, a second reference data group, and a third reference data group with the first data group, the second data group, and the third data group for the pluralities of data items, respectively, the first reference data group being acquired in the first diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, the second reference data group being acquired in the second diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, and the third reference data group being acquired in the third diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal; and determining presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw based on the calculated deviation information.
Wang teaches, in an abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the abnormality diagnosis method of calculating deviation information relating to deviations derived by comparing a first reference data group, a second reference data group, and a third reference data group with the first data group, the second data group, and the third data group for the pluralities of data items, respectively, the first reference data group being acquired in the first diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, the second reference data group being acquired in the second diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal, and the third reference data group being acquired in the third diagnosis mode when the wire saw is normal; and determining presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw based on the calculated deviation information (Wang English translation, p. 11:38-12:16 and 13:27-33, a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprises an analysis device 10 of various movable parts. A signal processor compares signal spectra measured during the operation and signal spectral under normal operation. When deviation of the spectrum exceeds a threshold value, the signal processor determines that operation is an abnormal event. Wang teaches comparing the measure data with the reference/normal operation data to determine presence or absence of an abnormality. Wang can be combined with Takahashi and Feng to teach the abnormality diagnosis of the wire saw apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abnormality diagnosis method of Takahashi as modified by Feng to provide the deviation information calculation method and the determination method as taught by Wang so that the operation of the device can be controlled according to the detected abnormal event (Wang English translation, p. 3:7-14).
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Feng and Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pleuger et al. (US 2022/0305616, hereinafter Pleuger).
Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference (Pleuger, 05/27/2019), it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). These rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for a wire saw as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein a plurality of data items for acquiring the first data group and the first reference data group are for the processing rollers or the support member of the processing rollers, and the motor for driving the processing rollers (Takahashi English translation, p. 4:1-4 and fig. 1, Takahashi discloses the wire saw comprises the processing rollers 20, 21 and motors 22, 23 for rotating the process rollers; Feng English translation, p. 4:33-5:7, a wire saw control system monitors operation information in a processing of cutting to determine a plurality of abnormal states; Wang English translation, p. 11:38-12:16 and 13:27-33, the analysis device 10 of various movable parts includes the signal processor compares signal spectra measured during the operation and signal spectral under normal operation. Therefore, Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang teaches a system acquires data of the moving parts of the wire saw including the processing rollers and the motor for driving the processing rollers. The data includes the operational data [correspond to the recited first data group] and the normal operational data [correspond to the recited first reference data group]), but does not disclose the data include a torque load, temperature, and a vibration characteristic.
Pleuger teaches, in an analogous abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the data include a torque load, temperature, and a vibration characteristic. (¶ 0039-40, a grinder comprises a control device that analyzes measurement data and determines abnormal state information; ¶ 0011, 0012, 0018, 0020, the data are measured by vibration sensors, temperature sensors, and torque sensors. Pleuger teaches the torque load, temperature, and vibration data of a device can be measured of a device. Pleuger is combined with Takahashi, Feng, and Wang to teach acquiring the torque, temperature, and vibration data of the processing rollers and the motor for driving the processing rollers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abnormality diagnosis device of Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang to acquire torque load, temperature, and vibration characteristic as taught by Pleuger. A piece of state information out of the analysis of the data allows understanding a progress of wear, need for maintenance, and need for replacement of parts (Pleuger ¶ 0028).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for a wire saw as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein a plurality of data items for acquiring the second data group and the second reference data group are for the feed reel or the support member of the feed reel, and the motor for driving the feed reel (Takahashi English translation, p. 4:1-4 and fig. 1, Takahashi discloses the wire saw comprises the first bobbin 11 [corresponds to the recited feed reel] and the bobbin motor 13 for rotating the first bobbin 11; Feng English translation, p. 4:33-5:7, a wire saw control system monitors operation information in a processing of cutting to determine a plurality of abnormal states; Wang English translation, p. 11:38-12:16 and 13:27-33, the analysis device 10 of various movable parts includes the signal processor compares signal spectra measured during the operation and signal spectral under normal operation. Therefore, Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang teaches a system acquires data of the moving parts of the wire saw including the feed reel and the motor for driving the feed reel. The data includes the operational data [correspond to the recited first data group] and the normal operational data [correspond to the recited first reference data group]), but does not disclose the data include a torque load, temperature, and a vibration characteristic.
Pleuger teaches, in an analogous abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the data include a torque load, temperature, and a vibration characteristic. (¶ 0039-40, as discussed similarly in claim 2 above, a grinder comprises a control device that analyzes measurement data and determines abnormal state information; ¶ 0011, 0012, 0018, 0020, the data are measured by vibration sensors, temperature sensors, and torque sensors. Pleuger teaches the torque load, temperature, and vibration data of a device can be measured of a device. Pleuger is combined with Takahashi, Feng, and Wang to teach acquiring the torque, temperature, and vibration data of the feed reel and the motor for driving the feed reel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abnormality diagnosis device of Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang to acquire torque load, temperature, and vibration characteristic as taught by Pleuger. A piece of state information out of the analysis of the data allows understanding a progress of wear, need for maintenance, and need for replacement of parts (Pleuger ¶ 0028).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for a wire saw as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein a plurality of data items for acquiring the third data group and the third reference data group are for the take-up reel or the support member of the take-up reel, and the motor for driving the take-up reel (Takahashi English translation, p. 4:1-4 and fig. 1, Takahashi discloses the wire saw comprises the second bobbin 12 [corresponds to the recited take-up reel] and the bobbin motor 15 for rotating the second bobbin 12; Feng English translation, p. 4:33-5:7, a wire saw control system monitors operation information in a processing of cutting to determine a plurality of abnormal states; Wang English translation, p. 11:38-12:16 and 13:27-33, the analysis device 10 of various movable parts includes the signal processor compares signal spectra measured during the operation and signal spectral under normal operation. Therefore, Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang teaches a system acquires data of the moving parts of the wire saw including the take-up reel and the motor for driving the take-up reel. The data includes the operational data [correspond to the recited first data group] and the normal operational data [correspond to the recited first reference data group]), but does not disclose the data include a torque load, temperature, and a vibration characteristic.
Pleuger teaches, in an analogous abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the data include a torque load, temperature, and a vibration characteristic. (¶ 0039-40, as discussed similarly in claim 2 above, a grinder comprises a control device that analyzes measurement data and determines abnormal state information; ¶ 0011, 0012, 0018, 0020, the data are measured by vibration sensors, temperature sensors, and torque sensors. Pleuger teaches the torque load, temperature, and vibration data of a device can be measured of a device. Pleuger is combined with Takahashi, Feng, and Wang to teach acquiring the torque, temperature, and vibration data of the take-up reel and the motor for driving the take-up reel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abnormality diagnosis device of Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang to acquire torque load, temperature, and vibration characteristic as taught by Pleuger. A piece of state information out of the analysis of the data allows understanding a progress of wear, need for maintenance, and need for replacement of parts (Pleuger ¶ 0028).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for a wire saw as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a cause estimator that, if it is determined that an abnormality is present in the wire saw, estimates a cause of the abnormality based on a degree of contribution of the plurality of data items to the deviation information.
Pleuger teaches, in an analogous abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, a cause estimator that, if it is determined that an abnormality is present in the wire saw, estimates a cause of the abnormality based on a degree of contribution of the plurality of data items to the deviation information (¶ 0039-40, a grinder comprises a control device that analyzes measurement data and determines abnormal state information; ¶ 0079, a machine learning system 58 [corresponds to the recited cause estimator] analyzes data to determine state information such as manufacturing defects, operating parameter, incorrect settings of an apparatus, degree of wear of the apparatus, etc. Thus, the machine learning system of Pleuger estimates a cause of the abnormality; Wang English translation, p. 11:38-12:16 and 13:27-33, the signal processor compares signal spectra measured during the operation and signal spectral under normal operation. When deviation of the spectrum deviates from a threshold value, the signal processor determines that operation is an abnormal event. Therefore, Pleuger can be combined with Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang to teach a cause estimator determines the abnormality of the wire saw and estimate a cause of the abnormality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abnormality diagnosis device of Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang to provide the cause estimator as taught by Pleuger. A piece of state information out of the analysis of the data allows understanding a progress of wear, need for maintenance, and need for replacement of parts so that corrective action can be taken for normal operation of the device (Pleuger ¶ 0028).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Feng and Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kubo et al. (US 2019/0086294, hereinafter Kubo).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for a wire saw as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the deviation information calculator calculates Mahalanobis distances by comparing a first unit space, a second unit space, and a third unit space with a first signal space, a second signal space, and a third signal space, respectively, as the deviation information, the first unit space being formed by the first reference data group, the second unit space being formed by the second reference data group, the third unit space being formed by the third reference data group, the first signal space being formed by the first data group, the second signal space being formed by the second data group, and the third signal space being formed by the third data group.
Kubo teaches, in an analogous abnormality diagnosis device and capable of solving primary problem, the deviation information calculator calculates Mahalanobis distances by comparing a first unit space, a second unit space, and a third unit space with a first signal space, a second signal space, and a third signal space, respectively, as the deviation information, the first unit space being formed by the first reference data group, the second unit space being formed by the second reference data group, the third unit space being formed by the third reference data group, the first signal space being formed by the first data group, the second signal space being formed by the second data group, and the third signal space being formed by the third data group (¶ 0023-24, a step of performing abnormality diagnosis includes calculating a Mahalanobis distance of the abnormality diagnosis data with references to a unit space including the plurality of state amounts at a normal time of the device. If the Mahalanobis distance is greater than the threshold, it is determined that the device has an abnormality. The method of Kubo can be combined with the wire saw abnormality diagnosis device of Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang to consider the deviation information in determining the abnormality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abnormality diagnosis device of Takahashi as modified by Feng and Wang to provide Mahalanobis distance calculation as taught by Kubo. The Mahalanobis distance method provides improved abnormal detection accuracy (Kubo ¶ 0003).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (CN 111173511A) discloses a wire saw device comprising a control panel used for monitoring and diagnosis of the device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723