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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed 04/01/2024. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the recess" in lines 7. Examiner suggests the limitation to be amended as –the at least one recess-- in order to increase clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of copending Application No. 18623427 in view of Mol US2007/0143039A1. Although the claims are not identical, the sole difference is the recitation of a displacement sensor instead of a strain sensor. However Mol disclose monitoring the bearing with rings using a displacement sensor as claimed (see abstract para.001, 0012, 0017, 0026). As such it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Mol in the copending application to reliably assess the bearing defect/deformation with higher accuracy using the displacement sensor as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Interpretation
In regard to claims 1 and 14, limitations set forth in the preamble of the claims have been interpreted as limiting the claim and have been given patentable weight since the preamble limits the structure of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2111.02(I), “[a]ny terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation. See, e.g., Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989).). The preamble in the context of the entire claim recites structural limitations that is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim” and therefore is construed as if in the balance of the claim (see MPEP 2111.02 “If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim”). Therefore, for the reasons discussed above the preamble of claims 1 and 14 have been given patentable weight.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 14-18 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a conditioning means”, “a first determining means”, “a second determining means”, “a solving means”, “a solving means”, “a comparing means”, “detecting means” and “third means” in claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations “a conditioning means configured to determine weighted relative displacement values between the housing and the stationary ring from signals delivered by the displacement sensor, the weighted relative displacement values being caused by rolling element forces on the stationary ring, and to associate each weighted relative displacement value to at least one position parameter value comprising a rolling element position parameter representative of the position of the rolling elements relative to the at least one displacement sensor, a first determining means configured to determine intervals of position parameter values when rolling element position parameter values are associated to a maximum relative displacement value within a predetermined value, the maximum relative displacement value being equal to the maximum value of the weighted relative displacement values, the length of each interval being equal to a predetermined length, a second determining means configured to determine a linear equation between the weighted relative displacement values of the intervals of position parameter values, a carrier function, and cyclostationary contact forces applied on at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements, a solving means configured to solve the linear equation to determine the cyclostationary contact forces applied on said at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements, a comparing means configured to compare the determined cyclostationary contact forces to a detection threshold, a detecting means configured to detect a surface defect on said at least the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements if the value of the cyclostationary contact forces is smaller than the detection threshold, and a third determining means configured to determine the size of the surface defect from the intervals of position parameter from the position parameter values associated with cyclostationary contact forces smaller than the detection threshold, the size of the surface defect comprising the depth of the said defect, the depth being determined from the minimal value of the cyclostationary contact forces”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function because at least one of the following applies:(i) the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, (ii) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, and/or (iii) no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
Therefore the limitations as discussed above, lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as inadequate support for the claimed limitation in the original disclosure of the invention to perform the claimed functions interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Furthermore an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 14 from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The recitation "in particular" appears to be an example of possible values/alternatives for the parameter claimed and do not clearly define the metes and bounds of what is required by the scope of the claim. Clarification and correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the size" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the displacement sensor weighted relative displacement values" in lines 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the weighted relative displacement values of the intervals of position parameter values" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the depth" in lines 28-29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the parameterized equation" in lines 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 the recitation of “at least one position parameter” in line 5-6 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear form the claim as to which “at least one position parameter” is referring to as claim 1 only recites “one position parameter” in lines 8-9 of the claim. It is unclear to ascertain the scope the recited “at least one” is trying to encompass in order to ascertain what the term “at least one” position parameter is referring to, as the embodiment claimed by claim 1 only requires one position parameter. It is unclear from the claim as to how the linear equation is parameterized with basis functions and the “at least one position parameter” as only one position parameter is required by the scope of independent claim 1 from which dependent claim 2 depends. Clarification and correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the basis coefficients" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the basis coefficients" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the angular positions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the angular positions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the angular positions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the propagation of the detected surface defect" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the angular positions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the circumferential spacing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the angular positions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the angular positions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the angular positions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the propagation of the detected surface defect" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the weighted relative displacement values of the intervals of position parameter values" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the depth" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “a housing comprising at least one recess in which is disposed a displacement sensor secured in the said recess, a bearing disposed inside the housing, the bearing including a stationary ring surrounded by the housing, a rotating ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to one another, rolling elements interposed between the stationary and rotating rings, and at least one cage to maintain the circumferential spacing of the rolling elements, and a device according to claim 14 connected to the displacement sensor.”. It is unclear whether the recited housing and bearing is the same or different from the housing and bearing as described by independent claim 14. The claimed “a housing comprising at least one recess in which is disposed a displacement sensor secured in the said recess, a bearing disposed inside the housing, the bearing including a stationary ring surrounded by the housing, a rotating ring capable of rotating concentrically relative to one another, rolling elements interposed between the stationary and rotating rings and a device according to claim 14 connected to the displacement sensor” appears to fail to further limit the recited housing and bearing disclosed by claim 14. Clarification and correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the width" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification and correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the length of the recess” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis issues for this limitation on the claim. Clarification and correction is required.
For examination on the merits the claims 1-18 are rejected as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections above.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations: “a conditioning means configured to determine weighted relative displacement values between the housing and the stationary ring from signals delivered by the displacement sensor, the weighted relative displacement values being caused by rolling element forces on the stationary ring, and to associate each weighted relative displacement value to at least one position parameter value comprising a rolling element position parameter representative of the position of the rolling elements relative to the at least one displacement sensor, a first determining means configured to determine intervals of position parameter values when rolling element position parameter values are associated to a maximum relative displacement value within a predetermined value, the maximum relative displacement value being equal to the maximum value of the weighted relative displacement values, the length of each interval being equal to a predetermined length, a second determining means configured to determine a linear equation between the weighted relative displacement values of the intervals of position parameter values, a carrier function, and cyclostationary contact forces applied on at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements, a solving means configured to solve the linear equation to determine the cyclostationary contact forces applied on said at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements, a comparing means configured to compare the determined cyclostationary contact forces to a detection threshold, a detecting means configured to detect a surface defect on said at least the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements if the value of the cyclostationary contact forces is smaller than the detection threshold, and a third determining means configured to determine the size of the surface defect from the intervals of position parameter from the position parameter values associated with cyclostationary contact forces smaller than the detection threshold, the size of the surface defect comprising the depth of the said defect, the depth being determined from the minimal value of the cyclostationary contact forces”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function because at least one of the following applies:(i) the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, (ii) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, and/or (iii) no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For examination on the merits the claims 14-18 will be interpreted as best understood in light of the 35 USC 11(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections above.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category, namely a method. Similarly claim 14, belongs to a statutory category, namely a system (i.e. device).
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1-14 recite(s) concepts related to at least one category of abstract idea in which the recited judicial exception falls. Claim 1 recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for:
“a method for estimating the size of a surface defect of a bearing…comprising: determining intervals of position parameter values when rolling element position parameter values are associated to a maximum relative displacement value within a predetermined value, the maximum relative displacement value being equal to the maximum value of the weighted relative displacement values, the length of each interval being equal to a predetermined length, determining a linear equation between the weighted relative displacement values of the intervals of position parameter values, a carrier function, and cyclostationary contact forces applied on at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements, solving the linear equation to determine the cyclostationary contact forces applied on said at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements, comparing the determined cyclostationary contact forces to a detection threshold, detecting a surface defect on said at least the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements if the value of the cyclostationary contact forces is smaller than the detection threshold, and determining the size of the surface defect from the intervals of position parameter from the position parameter values associated with cyclostationary contact forces smaller than the detection threshold, the size of the surface defect comprising the depth of the said defect, the depth being determined from the minimal value of the cyclostationary contact forces”, which are concepts related to mathematical calculations, mental processes that can be performed by pen and paper; and to mere characterization of the data acquired (i.e. “displacement values”, “length of each interval being equal to a predetermined length”, “weighted relative displacement values of the intervals of position parameter values”, “contact forces applied on said at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements”) and applied to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “a conditioning means configured to determine weighted relative displacement values between the housing and the stationary ring from signals delivered by the displacement sensor, the weighted relative displacement values being caused by rolling element forces on the stationary ring, and to associate each weighted relative displacement value to at least one position parameter value comprising a rolling element position parameter representative of the position of the rolling elements relative to the at least one displacement sensor, a first determining means configured to determine intervals of position parameter values when rolling element position parameter values are associated to a maximum relative displacement value within a predetermined value, the maximum relative displacement value being equal to the maximum value of the weighted relative displacement values, the length of each interval being equal to a predetermined length, a second determining means configured to determine a linear equation between the weighted relative displacement values of the intervals of position parameter values, a carrier function, and cyclostationary contact forces applied on at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements, a solving means configured to solve the linear equation to determine the cyclostationary contact forces applied on said at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements, a comparing means configured to compare the determined cyclostationary contact forces to a detection threshold, a detecting means configured to detect a surface defect on said at least the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements if the value of the cyclostationary contact forces is smaller than the detection threshold, and a third determining means configured to determine the size of the surface defect from the intervals of position parameter from the position parameter values associated with cyclostationary contact forces smaller than the detection threshold, the size of the surface defect comprising the depth of the said defect, the depth being determined from the minimal value of the cyclostationary contact forces”, which are concepts related to mathematical calculations, mental processes that can be performed by pen and paper; and to mere characterization of the data acquired (i.e. “displacement values”, “length of each interval being equal to a predetermined length”, “weighted relative displacement values of the intervals of position parameter values”, “contact forces applied on said at least one of the stationary ring, the rotating ring or rolling elements”) and applied to implement the abstract idea.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the and the “measuring, with the displacement sensor weighted relative displacement values”, amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. bearing disposed inside a housing…) or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity, and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality (i.e. “measuring, with the displacement sensor weighted relative displacement values”) and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)(3); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
The additional element of claims 1 and 14 recite a bearing disposed inside a housing which is field of use as discussed above. The additional element of a bearing as recited by claims 1 and 14, is descriptive of the bearing structure and as such it is describing the machine on which the abstract idea is used on, and which is field of use of the judicial exception since it is noted that the machine is not being affected by the abstract idea recited by the claims. Furthermore the use of this device is well understood routine and conventional as evidenced by Mol US 20070143039 A1 (see abstract, para. 0001, 0005, 0017-0019, Figs. 1-4), Mol et al. US 20070074587 A1 (see abstract, para. 0001, 0005, 0026, 0030, 0033, Fig.1) and Mol et al. WO 2005008204 A1 (see abstract, page 1, ll. 1-10; page 5, ll. 7-27, Figs. 1-2). Therefore, the bearing recited by claims 1 and 14 is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-13 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-13 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13 do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
With respect to claim 2, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. determining the linear equation and solving the linear equation comprises: modelling the weighted relative displacement values with basis functions and basis function coefficients to obtain the carrier function, for each interval, parametrizing the linear equation with basis functions and the at least one position parameter, solving the parametrized equation to determine the basis coefficients, and determining the cyclostationary contact forces from the basis coefficients and the weighted relative displacement values of each interval) and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 3, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “determining a stabilizing equation to constraint the magnitude of cyclostationary contact forces and the inverse of the carrier function, solving the linear equation taking into account the stabilizing equation to determine the basis coefficients of the cyclostationary contact forces and the inverse of the carrier function, and determining the cyclostationary contact forces from the basis coefficients and the weighted relative displacement values of each interval”) and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 4, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the basis functions are B-splines or other functions having a local support”) and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 5, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “determining the cyclostationary contact forces applied on the rotating ring”) and further data characterization (i.e. “the position parameter further comprises the angular positions of the stationary and rotating rings relative to the rolling elements”) and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 6, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “determining the cyclostationary contact forces applied on rolling elements”) and further data characterization (i.e. “the position parameter further comprises the angular positions of the cage relative to the stationary ring”), and introduces the additional element of “at least one cage to maintain the circumferential spacing of the rolling elements” which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 7, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “determining the cyclostationary contact forces applied on the stationary ring”) and further data characterization (i.e. “the position parameter further comprises the angular positions of the rolling elements relative to the stationary ring”), and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 8, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “predicting the propagation of the detected surface defect from the cyclostationary contact forces, the size of the surface defect, and a prediction model”) and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 9, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “wherein the basis functions are B-splines or other functions having a local support”) and further data characterization and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 10, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “determining the cyclostationary contact forces applied on the rotating ring”) and further data characterization (i.e. “position parameter further comprises the angular positions of the stationary and rotating rings relative to the rolling elements”), and is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 11, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “determining the cyclostationary contact forces applied on rolling elements”) and further data characterization (i.e. “wherein the position parameter further comprises the angular positions of the cage relative to the stationary ring”), and introduces the additional element of “at least one cage to maintain the circumferential spacing of the rolling elements” which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 12, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “determining the cyclostationary contact forces applied on the stationary ring”) and further data characterization (i.e. “the position parameter further comprises the angular positions of the rolling elements relative to the stationary ring”), and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 13, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “predicting the propagation of the detected surface defect from the cyclostationary contact forces, the size of the surface defect, and a prediction model.”) and further data characterization (i.e. “the position parameter further comprises the angular positions of the rolling elements relative to the stationary ring”), and introduces the additional element of “at least one cage to maintain the circumferential spacing of the rolling elements” which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The additional element of claims 15-18 narrow the structure of the recited a bearing structure in which the abstract idea is applied and as such is descriptive of the machine on which the abstract idea is used on, and which is field of use of the judicial exception as discussed above as the machine is not being affected by the abstract idea. Furthermore the use of this device is well understood routine and conventional as evidenced by Mol US 20070143039 A1 (see abstract, para. 0001, 0005, 0017-0019, Figs. 1-4), Mol et al. US 20070074587 A1 (see abstract, para. 0001, 0005, 0026, 0030, 0033, Fig.1) and Mol et al. WO 2005008204 A1 (see abstract, page 1, ll. 1-10; page 5, ll. 7-27, Figs. 1-2). Therefore, the bearing recited by claims 1 and 14-18 is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Discussion of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mol US 20070143039 A1 disclose a sensor arrangement for determining a load vector acting on a rolling element bearing (1) in operation. A plurality of N sensors (8) are provided which measure displacement and/or strain for determining displacement and/or strain in one of the elements (5, 6, 7) of the rolling element bearing (1) (abstract, para. 0001, 0005) and a rolling element bearing 1, e.g. a ball bearing or roller bearing. The rolling element bearing 1 comprises an outer ring 5, an inner ring 6 and a number of rolling elements 7, such as balls or rollers (the number of rolling elements 7 being eight in the drawing). The outer ring 5 of the rolling element bearing 1 is fixed in a sensor holder 2, which forms the fixed world for the rolling element bearing 1. In the sensor holder 2 eight sensors 8 are provided at locations facing the bearing outer ring 5 with (angular) spacing corresponding to the angular spacing of the rolling elements 7 of the bearing 1. The sensors 8 may e.g. be displacement sensors or vibration sensors, known as such to the person skilled in the art (see para. 0009, 0017-0018, Figs. 1-4).
Mol et al. US 20070074587 A1 disclose method an arrangement for determining a contact force vector acting on a rolling element bearing in operation. The system comprises a rolling element bearing 1, e.g. a ball bearing or roller bearing. The rolling element bearing 1 comprises an outer ring 5, an inner ring 6 and a number of rolling elements 7 (the number of rolling elements 8 being eight in the drawing). The outer ring 5 of the rolling element bearing 1 is fixed in a sensor holder 2, which forms the fixed world for the rolling element bearing 1. In the sensor holder 2 eight sensors 8 are provided at locations facing the bearing outer ring 5 with (angular) spacing corresponding to the angular spacing of the rolling elements 7 of the bearing 1. The sensors 8 may e.g. be displacement sensors or vibration sensors, known as such to the person skilled in the art (see abstract, para. 0001, 0005, 0026, 0030, 0033, Fig.1).
Mol et al. WO 2005008204 A1 disclose a method and sensor arrangement for determining a contact force vector acting on a rolling element bearing, the system comprising a plurality of sensors arranged to measure a bearing component deformation. The rolling element bearing comprising inner and outer ring and a number of rolling elements, the outer ring being fixed in a sensor holder, the sensors provided at locations facing the bearing outer ring with angular spacing corresponding toe the angular spacing of the rolling elements. The bearing outer ring is provided with a recession at its outer periphery and the sensors can monitor any deformation of the surface of the recession of the outer ring as a result of the rolling elements passing by and the force applied to the bearing (see abstract, page 1, ll. 1-10; page 5, ll. 7-27, Figs. 1-2).
Luo et al. CN 113933055 A, disclose a method, a device and a system for quantifying the defect size of a rolling bearing raceway; the method comprises the steps of collecting a vibration acceleration signal of a fault rolling bearing; enhancing the fault vibration characteristics by adopting an autoregressive model; extracting local vibration acceleration signals excited by interaction of the rolling body and the front edge of the defect area, fitting the signals and integrating to obtain vibration speed signals; establishing a functional relation by using the inflection point of the vibration speed signal to obtain corresponding first key time information when the rolling element starts to interact with the front edge of the defect area; envelope extraction is carried out on the signals after the autoregressive vibration characteristics are enhanced, and second and third key time information is obtained; and inputting the information of each key time into a rolling bearing defect size quantization model, and solving to obtain the rolling bearing raceway defect size (abstract).
Hwang US2004/0074315A1 disclose known systems for monitoring a bearing system comprising displacement sensors employed in measuring radial forces or loads applied to rolling elements bearings (see para. 0004-0005).
Den Haak et al. US2013/0322801 disclose a system for sensing of a mechanical load on a rolling bearing (see abstract). The system determines that load of a radial bearing via sensors that sense the deformation of either the radial bearing or the housing accommodating the radial bearing (see para. 0010) and further disclose one or more capacitive displacement sensors known in the art are used to sense a deformation of a relevant flank of the radial bearing (see para. 0022). The invention also relates to a radial bearing, namely, a deep-groove ball-bearing 100. The deep-groove ball-bearing 100 comprises a first ring 102, a second ring 104, and a plurality of balls accommodated between the first ring 102 and the second ring 104. Only a first ball 106 and a second ball 108 have been indicated with reference numerals in order to not obscure the drawing. Typically, the plurality of balls is retained in a cage 140 to ensure an even spacing of the balls in the angular direction. The first ring 102 and the second ring 104 are configured for substantially coaxial rotation relative to each other around an axis 110. The first ring 102 has a first ring-like cross-section (not shown) in a plane (not shown) perpendicular to the axis 110, and the second ring 104 has a second ring-like cross-section (not shown) in the same plane perpendicular to the axis 110. The first ring-like cross section and the second ring-like cross-section are concentric in the same plane. The deep-groove ball-bearing 100 is a radial bearing designed for supporting predominantly radial loads, i.e., loads that exert forces whose vectors lie substantially in a plane perpendicular to the axis 110 (see para. 0051-053, Fig. 1).
Ishikawa et al. US 20220145932 A1 disclose a rolling bearing includes an outer ring as a fixed ring, an inner ring as a rotary ring, and rolling elements disposed between the outer ring and the inner ring. The outer ring includes, on the radially opposite side of its raceway surface, a fitting surface fitted to a mating member, two annular grooves in which elastic members are fitted, and a recess adjacent to the annular grooves, and having a bottom surface having an outer diameter smaller than the outer diameter of the fitting surface (abstract).
Edloth et al. US 20210372481 A1 disclose an angular contact roller bearing, including an inner bearing ring having an inner race arranged on the outer peripheral surface of the inner bearing ring and inclined with respect to the axis of rotation of the bearing, and a rim delimiting said race at the smallest diameter thereof, an outer bearing ring having an outer race arranged on the inner peripheral surface of the outer bearing ring and inclined with respect to the axis of rotation of the bearing, and a rim delimiting said race at the greatest diameter thereof, and also including a plurality of roller bearing elements arranged between the bearing rings and roll on the races and are held at uniform distances from one another in the circumferential direction by a bearing cage (abstract).
Terada et la. US Patent 9,624,977B2 disclose A cylindrical roller bearing includes a flanged outer race having two inwardly extending flanges. One of the flanges is a flange ring separate from the outer race and fixed to the outer race. Cylindrical rollers are mounted between the outer race and a flangeless inner race, and retained by a retainer which are located radially inwardly of the pitch circle of the cylindrical rollers (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights