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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 06/11/2026, claims 1-7 have been amended, and new claim 8 is added. Claims 1-8 are pending and under examination.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-8 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 controlling 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, for controlling a wire saw, that sequentially executes a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode before the cutting in a state where the wire does not contact the workpiece, the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to individually 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 individually 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 individually 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 controlling 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):
sequentially executing a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode before the cutting in a state where the wire does not contact the workpiece, the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to individually 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 individually 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 individually 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 and 8 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)).
Claim 8 recites “a display device that displays a result of the determination by the determiner and a warning message prompting to stop operation of the wire saw when the determiner determines that the abnormality is present” (additional element; receiving or transmitting data over network).
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 and 8) 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 1-8 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 controlling 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, for controlling a wire saw, that sequentially executes a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode before the cutting in a state where the wire does not contact the workpiece, the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to individually 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 individually 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 individually 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 1-8 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 1-8 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 1-8 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 1-8 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 1-8 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-8 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, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami (TW 201801851A), in view of Ichikawa et al. (CN 111376215A, hereinafter Ichikawa) and Wang et al. (CN 109768002B, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Usami discloses an abnormality diagnosis device for controlling 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 (fig. 1, a wire saw device comprises a plurality of processing rollers such as a load cell 5 and a steel wire guide 6. The wire saw device further comprises a steel wire supply shaft 1 [corresponds to the recited feed reel] for supplying wire and a steel wire winding shaft 7 [corresponds to the recited take-up reel] used for winding up steel wire 8. The steel wire 8 is used for cutting a workpiece W; Usami English translation, p. 5:22-32, a vibration sensor is used to determine whether the wire saw device is normal or abnormal. Thus, Usami teaches the recited abnormality diagnosis device),
the diagnosis mode executer for controlling a wire saw executes a diagnosis mode before the cutting in a state where the wire does not contact the workpiece (Usami English translation, p. 7:1-17, a system of a wire saw determines whether the wire saw device is abnormal before the workpiece is in contact with a steel wire array so that before cutting a workpiece), but does not disclose the diagnosis mode executer sequentially executes a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode.
Ichikawa teaches, in an analogous abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor, the diagnosis mode executer sequentially executes a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode (Ichikawa English translation, p. 13:7-39, an electric working machine which can be an electric saw device execute diagnosis processing for detecting abnormality. The diagnosis processing is executed in a predetermined sequence).
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 diagnosis mode executer of Usami to provide the sequential execution of the diagnosis modes as taught by Ichikawa in order to improve efficiency of diagnosis processing of a device having plurality of functions (Ichikawa English translation, p. 3:20-22).
Usami as modified by Ichikawa does not disclose the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to individually 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 individually 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 individually set the take-up reel at a constant third rotational speed.
Usami teaches the device utilizes control chart and control values and a tension mechanism controls tension of the steel wire 8 (Usami English translation, p. 4:18-26, 6:11-15). Thus, Usami teaches controlling of the wire saw components which would include the processing rollers, the fee reel, and the take-up reel by monitoring the wire saw system with diagnostic sensors). Usami as modified by Ichikawa does not explicitly setting the recited rollers at each constant speed. However, in order for the wire saw to have an appropriate tension, each roller including the processing rollers, the feed reel, and the take-up reel must rotate at set speed to synchronize the translation of the wire saw. For example, the processing rollers rotate at a first rotational speed while the feed reel and the take-up reel rotate at different speeds based on the size of the reels. The rotational speed of each roller is determined and adjusted based on each roller’s diameter in order to maintain the tension of the wire. In other words, the different rotational speeds of the processing rollers, the feed reel, and the take-up reel are set in relation to each other.
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 device of Usami as modified by Ichikawa to provide the individual rotational speeds for different diagnosis modes in order to maintain proper steel wire tension for effective cutting of an object.
Usami as modified by Ichikawa teaches 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 (Usami English translation, abstract and p. 4:18-26, the system of Usami detects abnormal condition of vibration and tension. Thus, Usami teaches the abnormality diagnosis device of the wire saw acquires information of the wire saw device in real time).
Usami as modified by Ichikawa 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, Feng, and Usami 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 Usami as modified by Ichikawa 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, Usami discloses an abnormality diagnosis device for controlling 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 (fig. 1, a wire saw device comprises a plurality of processing rollers such as a load cell 5 and a steel wire guide 6. The wire saw device further comprises a steel wire supply shaft 1 [corresponds to the recited feed reel] for supplying wire and a steel wire winding shaft 7 [corresponds to the recited take-up reel] used for winding up steel wire 8. The steel wire 8 is used for cutting a workpiece W; Usami English translation, p. 5:22-32, a vibration sensor is used to determine whether the wire saw device is normal or abnormal. Thus, Usami teaches the recited abnormality diagnosis device),
executing a diagnosis mode before the cutting in a state where the wire does not contact the workpiece (Usami English translation, p. 7:1-17, a system of a wire saw determines whether the wire saw device is abnormal before the workpiece is in contact with a steel wire array so that before cutting a workpiece), but does not disclose the abnormality diagnosis method comprising the steps of: sequentially executing a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode.
Ichikawa teaches, in an analogous abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor, the abnormality diagnosis method comprising the steps of: sequentially executing a first diagnosis mode, a second diagnosis mode, and a third diagnosis mode (Ichikawa English translation, p. 13:7-39, an electric working machine which can be an electric saw device execute diagnosis processing for detecting abnormality. The diagnosis processing is executed in a predetermined sequence).
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 diagnosis method of Usami to provide the sequential execution of the diagnosis modes as taught by Ichikawa in order to improve efficiency of diagnosis processing of a device having plurality of functions (Ichikawa English translation, p. 3:20-22).
Usami as modified by Ichikawa does not disclose the first diagnosis mode being a mode in which the wire saw is caused to operate so as to individually 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 individually 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 individually set the take-up reel at a constant third rotational speed.
Usami teaches the device utilizes control chart and control values and a tension mechanism controls tension of the steel wire 8 (Usami English translation, p. 4:18-26, 6:11-15). Thus, Usami teaches controlling of the wire saw components which would include the processing rollers, the fee reel, and the take-up reel by monitoring the wire saw system with diagnostic sensors). Usami as modified by Ichikawa does not explicitly setting the recited rollers at each constant speed. However, in order for the wire saw to have an appropriate tension, each roller including the processing rollers, the feed reel, and the take-up reel must rotate at set speed to synchronize the translation of the wire saw. For example, the processing rollers rotate at a first rotational speed while the feed reel and the take-up reel rotate at different speeds based on the size of the reels. The rotational speed of each roller is determined and adjusted based on each roller’s diameter in order to maintain the tension of the wire. In other words, the different rotational speeds of the processing rollers, the feed reel, and the take-up reel are set in relation to each other.
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 device of Usami as modified by Ichikawa to provide the individual rotational speeds for different diagnosis modes in order to maintain proper steel wire tension for effective cutting of an object.
Usami as modified by Ichikawa teaches 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 (Usami English translation, abstract and p. 4:18-26, the system of Usami detects abnormal condition of vibration and tension. Thus, Usami teaches the abnormality diagnosis device of the wire saw acquires information of the wire saw device in real time).
Usami as modified by Ichikawa 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, Feng, and Usami 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 Usami as modified by Ichikawa 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).
Regarding claim 8, Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for controlling the wire saw as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising a display device that displays a result of the determination by the determiner and a warning message prompting to stop operation of the wire saw when the determiner determines that the abnormality is present (Wang English translation, p. 14:36-40, when abnormal work occurs, a central server sends a warning message on a display and/or stops operation of the device).
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 Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang to provide the display for displaying the warning message as taught by Wang so that the system can stop operation of the device in order to prevent damage to the device (Wang English translation, p. 14:36-40).
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usami in view of Ichikawa 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, Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for controlling the 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 including vibration characteristics of the processing rollers or the support member of the processing rollers (Usami English translation, p. 3:35-4:2, vibration sensor detects vibration data of the wire saw device and judgement of normal or abnormal device is determined. Thus, Usami teaches acquiring data and comparing them with reference data of the vibration characteristics), but does not disclose the data include a torque load on a motor rotationally driving the processing rollers and temperature of the processing rollers or a support member of the processing rollers.
Pleuger teaches, in an analogous abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem the data include a torque load on a motor rotationally driving the processing rollers and temperature of the processing rollers or a support member of the processing rollers (¶ 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 Usami, Ichikawa, and Wang to teach acquiring the torque and temperature 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 Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang to acquire torque load and temperature 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, Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for controlling the 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, the data group includes a vibrational characteristics of the feed reel or the support member of the reel feed (Usami fig. 1 and Usami English translation, abstract, Usami discloses the wire saw comprising the steel wire supply spool 1 [corresponds to the recited feed reel] and vibration sensor for acquiring data for abnormality detection; 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, Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang teaches a system acquires data of the moving parts of the wire saw including 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 on a motor rotationally driving the feed reel and temperature of the feed reel or a support member of the feed reel.
Pleuger teaches, in an analogous abnormality diagnosis device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the data include a torque load on a motor rotationally driving the feed reel and temperature of the feed reel or a support member of the feed reel (¶ 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 and temperature of a device can be measured of a device. Pleuger is combined with Usami, Ichikawa, and Wang to teach acquiring the torque and temperature 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 Usami as modified by Ichikawa, and Wang to acquire torque load and temperature 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, Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for controlling the 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, the data group includes a vibrational characteristics of the feed reel or the support member of the reel feed (Usami fig. 1 and Usami English translation, abstract, Usami discloses the wire saw comprising the steel wire supply spool 1 [corresponds to the recited feed reel] and vibration sensor for acquiring data for abnormality detection; 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, Usami as modified by Ichikawa 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 on a motor rotationally driving the feed reel and temperature of the feed reel or a support member of the feed reel (¶ 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 and temperature of a device can be measured of a device. Pleuger is combined with Usami, Ichikawa, and Wang to teach acquiring the torque and temperature 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 Usami as modified by Ichikawa 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, Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for controlling the 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 Usami as modified by Ichikawa 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 Usami in view of Ichikawa and Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kubo et al. (US 2019/0086294, hereinafter Kubo).
Regarding claim 5, Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang teaches the abnormality diagnosis device for controlling the 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 Usami as modified by Ichikawa and Wang to provide Mahalanobis distance calculation as taught by Kubo. The Mahalanobis distance method provides improved abnormal detection accuracy (Kubo ¶ 0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection regarding claim 1-7 improper. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts the invention provides a technical improvement and new dependent claim 8 introduces a practical application. Applicant further asserts the invention is not mere data gathering because claim defines a specific machine diagnosis protocol applied to a specific industrial machine rather than a mental process.
Despite the presentation of all components of the wire saw device and the abnormality diagnosis device, the core of invention is determination of presence or absence of an abnormality in the wire saw, and that is observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG. The abstract idea of the instant application is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant asserts the new claim 8, which introduces a display device for displaying result of the determination is the practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Displaying the determination result is an additional element used for receiving data. Stopping the operation could be a practical application, but it claims the display prompts to stop the operation of the wire saw, not actually stopping the operation. The claim can be interpreted that the display provides notification to an operator to stop the device. Specification of the instant application does not state the wire saw device stops the operation by itself when there is an abnormal condition.
Therefore, the $101 rejection is proper.
Applicant argues Takahashi does not teach or suggest the abnormality diagnosis device and individually setting the process rollers, the feed reel, and the take-up reel at constant speeds.
Although Takahashi teaches the control device controls rotations of the processing rollers 20, 21, the first bobbin 11 [corresponds to the recited feed reel], and the second bobbin 12 [corresponds to the recited take-up reel] to synchronize the rotation, Usami is cited to teach the wire saw and diagnosis of the wire saw in response to the claim amendments.
Regarding setting a constant rotational speed of roller at each diagnosis mode, as Examiner discusses in the rejections of claims 1 and 7, the each roller has to rotate at different constant speed in order to maintain tension of the wire saw. Usami teaches controlling the tension of the steel wire (Usami English translation, p. 6:11-15), therefore, it requires each of processing roller, feed reel, and take-up reel rotate at different set speed depending on the size of the roller/reel.
The teaching is combined with Ichikawa that the diagnosis can be done in multiple modes sequentially.
Regarding the amended claim limitations that the execution of the diagnosis modes before cutting in a state where the wire does not contact a workpiece (idling state) is taught by Usami. Although Usami’s wire saw diagnosis system focuses on vibration of the wire saw device, it teaches the diagnosis before a wire contacts a workpiece for cutting (Usami English translation, p. 7:1-17). Therefore, by combining Usami with Feng, the diagnosis system of Feng for the wire saw device can be applied during idling as taught by Usami.
Applicant also argues Wang’s abnormality diagnosis by calculating deviation information is not done for the data acquired in the idling. Prior to the current amendments, the claim recited executing the diagnosis modes before the cutting. It could be interpreted that the data are acquired before the first cutting operation or between the cutting operations where the rotation of the rollers is controlled by the wire saw tension control as taught by Usami, and Usami teaches the diagnosis of the wire saw during idling. Therefore, it can be combined with Wang to teach the deviation calculation for the data acquired during the idling.
In response to the specification objection made in the previous non-final office action dated on 03/19/2026, Application has amended specification. However, the specification objection was about the incorporation of PCT/JP2022/029034, not JP 2021-127332. Applicant may amend specification to avoid the incorporation of PCT/JP2022/029034.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawarai et al. (JP 2000094296A) discloses a wire saw device that displays a warning message in case of a device failure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights