DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/16/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 2-20 depending on Claim 1, “A sensor device” should read – The sensor device – (Emphasis added).
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a signal processing component” and “a data transmission component” in claims 1, 9-11, 14, 17, and 20-22, and “a power manager” in claim 13 and 16-19, which are interpreted under the descriptions of paragraphs 0084-0086 and Figs. 4-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A sensor device comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
a sensor controlled to produce time domain data representative of a sensed time dependent characteristic adjacent the sensor;
“produce time domain data representative …” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (i.e., Intrinsic Mode Function (IMF) components).
“a sensor” is a high level of generality.
a signal processing component, the signal processing component arranged to use the time domain data to produce frequency domain data indicative of frequency components present in the time domain data; and
abstract idea
math process
“use the time domain data to produce frequency domain data indicative of frequency components present in the time domain data ~” is a math process performed using mathematical/arithmetic algorithm/formula (e.g., FFT).
“a signal processing component” is a high level of generality.
a data transmission component arranged to transmit a portion of the frequency domain data;
wherein the sensor device is arranged to select a subset of frequency domain data from the frequency domain data based on defined criteria and to transmit the selected subset of frequency domain data.
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“transmit a portion of the frequency domain data …” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to transmit a mathematically calculated result which is performed by a generic computer.
“select a subset of frequency domain data from the frequency domain data based on defined criteria and to transmit the selected subset of frequency domain data” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to perform a mathematical calculation.
“a data transmission component” is a high level of generality.
Claims 1-22 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. Claims 1-22 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “use the time domain data to produce frequency domain data indicative of frequency components present in the time domain data” and “select a subset of frequency domain data from the frequency domain data based on defined criteria” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring the frequency domain data based on the collected routine data (i.e., the time domain data representative of a sensed time dependent characteristic), which is performed by a mathematical formula/equation such as a fast Fourier transform (FFT) including a mathematical/mental process to select the subset of frequency domain data based the defined criteria, where the defined criteria is indicative of mathematical concept/value/parameter/characteristic (see paragraphs 0114-0126 and 0130 in US PG publication US 20240385608 of the instant application).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a processor of a sensor device to perform mathematical calculations of “use the time domain data to produce frequency domain data indicative of frequency components present in the time domain data” and “select a subset of frequency domain data from the frequency domain data based on defined criteria”. The sensor, the signal processing component and the data transmission component are recited at high-level of generalities to merely collect routine data (i.e., time domain data representative of a sensed time dependent characteristic) and to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself of a generic computer component. The limitation of “produce time domain data representative of a sensed time dependent characteristic adjacent the sensor” is insignificant extra-solution activity to merely collect routine data (i.e., time domain data representative of a sensed time dependent characteristic) to be used for mathematical calculations such as a fast Fourier transform (FFT) to thereby mathematically transform time domain data into corresponding frequency domain data. The limitations of “transmit a portion of the frequency domain data” and “transmit the selected subset of frequency domain data” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “produce time domain data representative of a sensed time dependent characteristic adjacent the sensor” is insignificant extra-solution activity to merely collect routine data (i.e., time domain data representative of a sensed time dependent characteristic) to be used for mathematical calculations such as a fast Fourier transform (FFT) to thereby mathematically transform time domain data into corresponding frequency domain data. The limitations of “transmit a portion of the frequency domain data” and “transmit the selected subset of frequency domain data” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the data processor of the computer to perform “produce time domain data representative of a sensed time dependent characteristic adjacent the sensor”, “use the time domain data to produce frequency domain data indicative of frequency components present in the time domain data”, “transmit a portion of the frequency domain data” and “select a subset of frequency domain data from the frequency domain data based on defined criteria and to transmit the selected subset of frequency domain data” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-21, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The data values/peaks, peak acceleration amplitudes, the peak mean values recited in claims 2-5, 7, 12 and 19 are indicative of mathematical value/amount/relations. The limitations of “transmit other data in addition to the selected subset of frequency domain data” in claim 6, “produce time domain data representative of any one or more of vibrations, acceleration, velocity, and displacement” in claim 8, and “load successive portions of the time domain data into the signal processing component so that the time domain data can be processed in several batches” in claim 11, “control provision of power to at least one sensor device component based on defined power management criteria” in claim 13, “cause power to at least one of the sensor device components to be disconnected when the at least one sensor device component is not being used, and wherein the defined power management criteria define wake up and sleep times whereby power to at least one of the sensor device components is caused to be connected during wake time and power to the at least one of the sensor device components is caused to be disconnected during sleep time” in claim 15, “includes at least one power switch responsive to an activation signal from the power manager, the power switch arranged to cause power to be provided to at least one of the sensor device components in response to the activation signal and to cause power to not be provided to at least one of the sensor device components in absence of the activation signal” in claim 16, “control transmission of frequency domain data by the data transmission component according to defined criteria so as to control usage of the data transmission component … progressively fill a buffer with data, and wherein the power manager is arranged to send the data irrespective of whether there is sufficient data to fill a data packet if at least one defined criterion is met” in claims 17-18 and “transmit at least a portion of sensor data derived from the at least one further sensor” in claim 20 are insignificant extra-solution activities to merely perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component and collect routine data. The LPWAN protocol in claim 9, “a power manager” in claim 13, the sensor port and the external memory in claim 14, the communications network and the remote facility in claim 21 are a high level of generality. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 2-12, and 14-21, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 22, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canada et al. (US 5907491 A, hereinafter referred to as “Canada” cited in IDS dated 05/16/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Canada teaches a sensor device comprising: (Abstract)
a sensor (Fig.3 box 408) controlled to produce time domain data representative of a sensed time dependent characteristic adjacent the sensor (Col.6 lines 36-39 - The data processing tasks include such functions as (1) production of time wave form vibration data corresponding to the sensor signals (which may include selectable peak hold vibration signal processing with associated peak hold circuitry 417 similar to that disclosed in co-pending U.S. application Ser. No. 08/555,296, filed Nov. 8, 1995, the entire contents of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference));
a signal processing component (Fig.3 Data processor 420), the signal processing component arranged to use the time domain data to produce frequency domain data indicative of frequency components present in the time domain data (Col.2 lines 55-57 - Vibration signals output by the vibration sensor and received by the monitor data processor are transformed to the frequency domain by way of Fourier transform, producing a frequency spectrum; Col.6 lines 42-44 - calculation of fast Fourier transforms (FFT's) on the time-domain sensor data to produce frequency-domain data); and
a data transmission component arranged to transmit a portion of the frequency domain data (Col.6 lines 52-56 - Depending on its programmable instructions, the data processor 420 either sends the processed data over the serial interface 426 to be immediately transmitted, or stores the data in memory 422 for transmission at a later time);
wherein the sensor device is arranged to select a subset of frequency domain data from the frequency domain data based on defined criteria and to transmit the selected subset of frequency domain data (Col.7 lines 45-55 - The quantity of data transmitted (i.e., vibration, temperature, spectral, or other) by the monitor 41 during status polling is preferably kept to a minimum to reduce the length of time required to complete the time slice schedule 18. Following receipt of the response during time slice 24, the command station 6 next addresses monitor 4k and requests its status. The response from monitor 4k is transmitted and received during time slice 26. In similar fashion, each monitor 4 in the system is sequentially requested to provide a status to the command station 6 in accordance with the prearranged time slice schedule 18 ) (Col.3 lines 5-10 - The monitor data processor receives and processes the digital sensor data according to a first processing configuration for communicating the digital data to the transmitter and causing the transmitter to produce transmission signals corresponding to the digital data).
Regarding Claim 4, Canada teaches wherein sensor is arranged to transmit the selected subset of frequency domain data in a single data packet for at least some instances of data capture wherein time domain data is produced (Col.3 lines 5-10 - The monitor data processor receives and processes the digital sensor data according to a first processing configuration for communicating the digital data to the transmitter and causing the transmitter to produce transmission signals corresponding to the digital data).
Regarding Claim 6, Canada teaches wherein the sensor device is also arranged to transmit other data in addition to the selected subset of frequency domain data (Col. 17 lines 22-25 - transmits a data packet consisting of the machine monitor's identification code and the sensor data to the command station 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Canada teaches wherein the other data includes any one or more of the following: maximum peak acceleration amplitude; minimum peak acceleration amplitude; mean acceleration amplitude; time domain acceleration crest factor; frequency domain rms value; frequency domain positive peak mean value; frequency domain negative peak mean value; peak velocity data values derived by integrating the acceleration frequency domain data, for example wherein each velocity value is the or one of several maximum values in a bin of a set of bins; and/or turning speed of a rotatable part of a component to which the sensor is attached (Col.2 lines 62-67 - Another type of sensor that can be employed is a tachometer sensor which senses machine revolutions and produces corresponding tachometer signals. The tachometer sensor includes a transmitter which transmits a wireless tachometer signal corresponding to sensed machine revolutions).
Regarding Claim 8, Canada teaches wherein the sensor is arranged to produce time domain data representative of any one or more of vibrations, acceleration, velocity, and displacement (Col.2 lines 55-59 a vibration sensor can be used for sensing vibrations generated by the machine. Vibration signals output by the vibration sensor and received by the monitor data processor are transformed to the frequency domain by way of Fourier transform, producing a frequency spectrum).
Regarding Claim 10, Canada fails to explicitly disclose, but Shinohara wherein the sensor device includes an external memory (Fig.3 a memory 422) separate to the signal processing component and the data transmission component, the sensor device arranged to store the time domain data in the external memory and to load the time domain data into the signal processing component for processing (Abstract, - a memory stores the analyzed sensor data; Col.6 lines 52-56 - Depending on its programmable instructions, the data processor 420 either sends the processed data over the serial interface 426 to be immediately transmitted, or stores the data in memory 422 for transmission at a later time).
Regarding Claim 12, Canada teaches wherein the selected subset of frequency domain data is selected from a defined frequency band (Col.6 lines 21-24 - The frequency of the measurement interval is selectable by the operator and can vary substantially depending on needs, including the need to conserve battery power).
Regarding Claim 13, Canada teaches comprising a power manager (FIG. 3, a power supply 438) arranged to control provision of power to at least one sensor device component based on defined power management criteria (Abstract - To conserve power, the machine monitors are turned on only at preprogrammed times in accordance with the time-division communication protocol. Each machine monitor includes a receiver and the command station includes a transmitter to enable the command station to send commands to each machine monitor; Col.6 lines 24-34 - To conserve power and extend battery life, the monitor computer 418 remains in a standby mode for a majority of the time in the preferred embodiment, requiring less than 100 μA of current, and becomes active only at scheduled times as determined by an established communication protocol. For example, in accordance with a preferred time-division communication protocol, the timer 424, which is the monitor computer's only active component while in standby mode, causes the data processor 420 to enter an operational mode and begin processing data from the sensors 408 at scheduled times).
Regarding Claim 14, Canada teaches wherein the at least one sensor device component comprises the sensor, at least one sensor port, an external memory (Fig.3 a memory 422) separate to the signal processing component and the data transmission component, and/or a reprogramming port (Fig.3. data processor 420, a serial interface 426) (Abstract, - a memory stores the analyzed sensor data; Col.6 lines 52-56 - Depending on its programmable instructions, the data processor 420 either sends the processed data over the serial interface 426 to be immediately transmitted, or stores the data in memory 422 for transmission at a later time).
Regarding Claim 15, Canada teaches wherein the defined power management criteria is arranged to cause power to at least one of the sensor device components to be disconnected when the at least one sensor device component is not being used, and wherein the defined power management criteria define wake up and sleep times whereby power to at least one of the sensor device components is caused to be connected during wake time and power to the at least one of the sensor device components is caused to be disconnected during sleep time (Abstract - To conserve power, the machine monitors are turned on only at preprogrammed times in accordance with the time-division communication protocol. Each machine monitor includes a receiver and the command station includes a transmitter to enable the command station to send commands to each machine monitor; Col.6 lines 24-34 - To conserve power and extend battery life, the monitor computer 418 remains in a standby mode for a majority of the time in the preferred embodiment, requiring less than 100 μA of current, and becomes active only at scheduled times as determined by an established communication protocol. For example, in accordance with a preferred time-division communication protocol, the timer 424, which is the monitor computer's only active component while in standby mode, causes the data processor 420 to enter an operational mode and begin processing data from the sensors 408 at scheduled times).
Regarding Claim 16, Canada teaches wherein the sensor device includes at least one power switch responsive to an activation signal from the power manager, the power switch arranged to cause power to be provided to at least one of the sensor device components in response to the activation signal and to cause power to not be provided to at least one of the sensor device components in absence of the activation signal (Col.15 lines 38-50- The receive circuits of the machine monitor transceiver 430 are not continuously on, but, to conserve power, are turned on only when necessary to receive messages from the command station 6. The "on time" of the receive circuits is scheduled by the operator according to instructions programmed into the monitor computer 418. At the scheduled times, a message from the timer 424 causes the monitor computer 418 to send power-on messages to the receive circuits of the monitor transceiver 430. The receive circuits stay energized until an error-free message is received from the command station 6, at which time the monitor computer 418 sends a shut-down message to the receive circuits of the monitor transceiver 430, Col.17 lines 19-24 - When such an extreme fault condition occurs, the monitor computer 418 "wakes up" from the standby mode, processes the signal from its one or more sensors 408, and transmits a data packet consisting of the machine monitor's identification code and the sensor data to the command station 6.)
Regarding Claim 17, Canada teaches wherein the power manager is arranged to control transmission of frequency domain data by the data transmission component according to defined criteria so as to control usage of the data transmission component (at least Abstract and Col. 6 lines 24-36 teaches control commands related to a power controlling at preprogrammed times in accordance with the time-division communication protocol).
Regarding Claim 18, Canada teaches wherein the power manager is arranged to progressively fill a buffer with data, and wherein the power manager is arranged to send the data irrespective of whether there is sufficient data to fill a data packet if at least one defined criterion is met (Col.7 lines 45-55 The quantity of data transmitted (i.e., vibration, temperature, spectral, or other) by the monitor 41 during status polling is preferably kept to a minimum to reduce the length of time required to complete the time slice schedule 18. Following receipt of the response during time slice 24, the command station 6 next addresses monitor 4k and requests its status. The response from monitor 4k is transmitted and received during time slice 26. In similar fashion, each monitor 4 in the system is sequentially requested to provide a status to the command station 6 in accordance with the prearranged time slice schedule 18; Col.14 lines 49-57; Col.17 lines 19-24)
Regarding Claim 19, Canada teaches wherein the at least one defined criterion includes any one or more of: a maximum and/or minimum permissible value associated with a sensor, and the power manager is arranged such that if a current value associated with the sensor exceeds the maximum or minimum value, the current value is transmitted; and a maximum permissible difference value associated with a sensor, the permissible difference value representing a difference amount between a current value and a corresponding previous value, and the power manager arranged such that if a current difference value exceeds the maximum difference value, the current value is transmitted (Col.2 lines 62-67; Col.6 lines 44-47, “(2) calculation of fast Fourier transforms (FFT's) on the time-domain sensor data to produce frequency-domain data, (3) comparison of the analyzed sensor data to preprogrammed threshold criteria, (4) production of an alarm message if the threshold criteria is met, (5) band-pass filtering”)
Regarding Claim 20, Canada teaches comprising at least one further sensor, the data transmission component arranged to transmit at least a portion of sensor data derived from the at least one further sensor (Col.5 lines 19-25 - there are a plurality of sensors 408, such as a flux sensor, two temperature sensors, an RF sensor, and two vibration sensors. The machine monitor 4 has connectors 410 so that one or more sensors 408 may be interfaced with the data processing and transmission circuitry of the machine monitor 4. In this manner, the characteristics of interest may be measured at several locations on the machine and then transmitted from only one machine monitor 4).
Regarding Claim 21, Canada teaches a sensor network (abstract) comprising:
a communications network (a PC network 10) capable of facilitating data transmissions from the data transmission components of the sensor devices (Col.5 lines 21-27 - The machine monitor 4 has connectors 410 so that one or more sensors 408 may be interfaced with the data processing and transmission circuitry of the machine monitor 4); and
a remote facility (analysis and archival storage) in network communication with the plurality of sensor devices through the communications network such that the data transmissions from the data transmission components are receivable at the remote facility (Fig.8; Col 8 lines 6-9 The command station 6 can be connected to a PC network 10 as shown in FIG. 8. When so connected, the command station 6 is able to transfer data and information directly to the PC network 10 for analysis and archival storage).
Regarding Claim 22, it is a method type claim and has similar limitations as of a part of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
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.
1. Claims 2-3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canada in view of Shinohara et al. (US 2017/0181098, hereinafter referred to as “Shinohara” cited in IDS dated 05/16/2024).
Regarding Claim 2, Canada fails to explicitly disclose, but Shinohara teaches wherein the selected subset of frequency domain data corresponds to a defined number of frequency peaks in the frequency domain data (Fig.5; ¶0041 – 0042 - in the power spectrum of FIG. 5, six local peaks (maximum points) are illustrated. Frequencies giving these peak values are referred to as dominant frequencies f0 to f5. Here, the orders are given to the dominant frequencies in order, starting from the highest peak value corresponding thereto. The dominant frequency and/or peak value up to a predetermined order (about from 10th to 20th orders) including a 0th dominant frequency f0 may be used as a feature quantity).
Canada and Shinohara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an equipment health state monitoring and asset management of a machine monitoring and communication system, and a wireless sensor network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Canada to incorporate the teachings of Shinohara by providing a defined number of frequency peaks (e.g., six local peaks (maximum points)), taught by Shinohara at least at Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0041-0042.
Regarding Claim 3, Canada fails to explicitly disclose, but Shinohara teaches wherein the selected subset of frequency domain data corresponds to a defined number of the highest frequency peaks in the frequency domain data (¶0041 – 0042 - in the power spectrum of FIG. 5, six local peaks (maximum points) are illustrated. Frequencies giving these peak values are referred to as dominant frequencies f0 to f5. Here, the orders are given to the dominant frequencies in order, starting from the highest peak value corresponding thereto. The dominant frequency and/or peak value up to a predetermined order (about from 10th to 20th orders) including a 0th dominant frequency f0 may be used as a feature quantity; ¶0044 - A frequency space may be divided at equal intervals or a logarithmic space of a frequency may be divided at equal intervals to generate a plurality of frequency sections, and a statistic amount of each of the generated frequency sections may be used as a feature quantity. For example, in the case of FIG. 5, the frequency space is divided into a plurality of sections FS1 to FS5 at equal intervals, and a maximum value Max, a minimum value Min, and a median value Median are extracted as feature quantities of each of the frequency sections).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Canada to incorporate the teachings of Shinohara by providing a defined number of the highest frequency peaks, taught by Shinohara at least at Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0044.
Regarding Claim 5, Canada fails to explicitly disclose, but Shinohara wherein the defined number of frequency peaks is determined according the amount of data that can be included in the single data packet (Fig.5; ¶0041 – 0042 - in the power spectrum of FIG. 5, six local peaks (maximum points) are illustrated. Frequencies giving these peak values are referred to as dominant frequencies f0 to f5. Here, the orders are given to the dominant frequencies in order, starting from the highest peak value corresponding thereto. The dominant frequency and/or peak value up to a predetermined order (about from 10th to 20th orders) including a 0th dominant frequency f0 may be used as a feature quantity).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Canada to incorporate the teachings of Shinohara by providing frequencies giving these peak values determined according to the predetermined order, taught by Shinohara at least at Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0041-0042.
Regarding Claim 11, Canada fails to explicitly disclose, but Shinohara wherein the sensor device is arranged to load successive portions of the time domain data into the signal processing component so that the time domain data can be processed in several batches (¶0045 - For example, in a case where, instead of 16 kB time-series data, a frequency space is divided into 100 sections and a statistic amount of each section is transmitted as a feature quantity, a data amount to be transmitted may be compressed to about 1/40 of the data amount. Similarly, in a case where a frequency space is divided into 25 sections and a statistical amount of each section is transmitted as a feature quantity, a data amount to be transmitted may be compressed to about 1/160 of the data amount. In this manner, a data compression rate is in inverse proportion to the number of divided sections).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Canada to incorporate the teachings of Shinohara by providing operations for transmitting (loading) portions of the time domain data (25 divided sections) to be thereby processed (e.g., compressed), taught by Shinohara at least at paragraph 0045.
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canada in view of Ram (LPWAN, LoRa, LoRAWAn and internet of things – cited in IDS dated 05/16/2024).
Regarding Claim 9, Canada fails to explicitly disclose, but Ram teaches wherein the data transmission component is arranged to use a LPWAN protocol (Chapter What is LPWAN).
Ram is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of a network protocol. Therefore, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the teaching of LPWAN. With a decrease in power requirements, a greater range and a lower cost compared to a mobile network, LPWAN networks are designed to allow a more extensive range of M2M applications and the Internet of Things, which are often constrained by budget and power problems.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JALLURI et al. (EP 1650622 A1) teaches a data management and networking system and method are provided for automatically retrieving and storing data from a machine tool for distribution to a remote terminal over a network, where raw data related to a machine operation parameter, such as vibrations, are collected, this data is associated with machining operation data, such the particular cutting tool being used, or the particular feature being cut by the cutting tool, an algorithm is applied to the raw data to generate a parametric representation of the data, thereby significantly reducing the size of the data, at least some data related to non-machining time is separated out, further reducing the size of the data, and the associated data is sent to a network server for storage, where it may be accessed by one or more remote terminals. And it further teaches the DLL 36 may include an algorithm which is applied to raw vibration data to generate one or more statistical parameters. Such parameters may include a maximum, a minimum, an average, an average root mean square (RMS), a maximum RMS, a minimum RMS, and an RMS summation. In addition, the DLL 36 may apply an algorithm to the preprocessed data that optimises, for example, a kurtosis, a kurtosis average, a kurtosis maximum, a kurtosis minimum, and a kurtosis standard deviation. Like the RMS values, the kurtosis values are readily calculated using known statistical formulas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights