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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 recites “greater a maximum angle” in lines 4 and 5, examiner recommends fixing the typo to state, “greater than a maximum angle”.
Claim 4 recites “angle between the second peak point and the horizontal line” in l8ine 12 and 15. It is well understood in the art that one needs 2 lines to make an angle. Based on the claim language examiner believes this to be a typo and should state “angle between the second peak point connection line and the horizontal line.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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.
Claims 1-4 recites “apparatus in drive” in lines 4 and 17 of claim 1, line 4 of claim 2, line 13 of claim 3, and line 19 of claim 4. There is nothing in the specification to clarify what an apparatus in drive is in regard to the claims. For the sake of prosecution, examiner takes this to mean a vehicle/car. For these reasons, claims 1-4 are indefinite.
The term “various facilities” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “various facilities” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the sake of prosecution “various facilities” is taken to imply all facilities that can be found in an industrious setting. For these reasons, independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 are indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “connecting a starting point and a peak point which are previously connected,” in line 18 and 19. It is unclear which previous step “a starting point and a peak point which are previously connected” is aligned to, and with improper antecedent basis it is unclear if “a starting point” and “a peak point” apply to new data points not previously mentioned. For the sake of prosecution examiner takes “a starting point and a peak point which are previously connected” to be from the detection step of claim 1. For these reasons, independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 are indefinite.
Claims 3 and 4 recite “when at least one or two, selected from angles between a start point connection line connecting” in line 14 of claim 3 and line 19 of claim 4. It is unclear what “at least one or two, selected from angles” means. For the sake of prosecution examiner takes “at least one or two, selected from angles” to mean “selecting at least one or two angles.” For these reasons, claims 3 and 4 are indefinite.
The term “relevant critical angles” in line 17 of claim 3 and line 24 of claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the sake of prosecution examiner takes “relevant critical angles” to mean the critical angle of failure for the apparatus under test.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
Claim 1. A method for predictive maintenance for an apparatus using angles associated with a peak, which may be used for various facilities, comprising:
an extraction step S10 of measuring energy waveform indicating changes over time in the energy required for an operation of the apparatus in drive and extracting a start point indicating the beginning of the energy waveform and a peak point indicating the highest energy value in the energy waveform;
an information collection step S20 of forming a start point connection line connecting, with a straight line, the start point and the peak point, which are extracted from the energy waveform in the extraction step S10, and a horizontal line, horizontally extending from the start point and collecting massive angle information between the start point connection line and the horizontal line by repeatedly acquiring angles there between based on a repetitive operation;
a setting step S30 of determining a critical angle for the angles between the start point connection line and the horizontal line based on information of angles between the start connection point line and the horizontal line regarding energy waveforms, which is collected in the information collection step S20; and
a detection step S40 of repeatedly collecting start points and peak points in energy waveforms in real time regarding the repetitive operation of the apparatus in drive and, when an angle between a start point connection line, connecting a start point and a peak point which are previously collected, and the horizontal line is greater than the critical angle, issuing a warning to induce inspection management.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of an extraction step S10 of measuring energy waveform indicating changes over time in the energy required for an operation of the apparatus; repeatedly acquiring angles there between based on a repetitive operation; and a detection step S40 of repeatedly collecting start points and peak points in energy waveforms in real time regarding the repetitive operation of the apparatus in drive is considered necessary data gathering and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element of issuing a warning to induce inspection management is considered extra solution activity that is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because an apparatus are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Claims 2-4 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2019177235 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches an extraction step S10 ([0041] “collecting information”) of measuring energy waveform indicating changes over time in the energy ([0041] “changes in energy magnitude over time measured (i.e., energy waveform)”, energy waveform depicted in fig. 2) required for an operation of the apparatus in drive ([0041] “a normal operating state of the drive unit (i.e., apparatus in drive),”) and extracting a start point indicating the beginning of the energy waveform and a peak point indicating the highest energy value in the energy waveform ([0041] “wherein the value with the largest energy magnitude in the information on changes in energy magnitude is designated as the first peak,” and where as seen in Fig 2, the ability to designate a peak comes from first designating a start point at the beginning of the energy waveform); an information collection step ([0041] “information collection step”) S20 of forming a start point connection line connecting, with a straight line, the start point and the peak point, which are extracted from the energy waveform in the extraction step S10 ([0044] “Figure 11 shows a drawing for extracting a first peak value in a repetitive driving section of the driving unit, Figure 12 shows a drawing for extracting a slope value for the first peak value shown in Figure 11,”) and a horizontal line, horizontally extending from the start point and collecting massive angle information between the start point connection line and the horizontal line by repeatedly acquiring angles therebetween based on a repetitive operation([0044] “ Figure 13 shows a drawing for extracting an average slope value (i.e., the slope contains the information of the angle of the line) of the first peak value between driving sections measured at unit time intervals,”); a setting step S30 ([0041] “ a setting step (S30)”) of determining a critical angle for the angles between the start point connection line and the horizontal line based on information of angles between the start connection point line and the horizontal line regarding energy waveforms, which is collected in the information collection step S20([0075] “an alarm slope value for the energy value of the first peak between driving sections is set based on the slope information collected in the above base information collection step,” where how the critical angle/slope is discussed [0059] “the alarm slope value for the second peak energy value between the above driving sections is set based on the information collected over a long period in the base information collection step (S10, S20), specifically the value at which the slope for the second peak energy value between the driving sections changes abnormally before a failure of the driving unit occurs, that is, the value at which the slope for the second peak energy value between the driving sections changes abnormally in situations such as deterioration, aging, or a load caused by foreign matter jamming of the driving unit.”); and a detection step S40 of repeatedly collecting start points and peak points in energy waveforms in real time regarding the repetitive operation of the apparatus in drive and, when an angle between a start point connection line, connecting a start point and a peak point which are previously collected, and the horizontal line is greater than the critical angle, issuing a warning to induce inspection management ([0060] “detection step (S40) detects an abnormal state of the driving unit if the average slope value (i.e., average angle) of the second peak energy value between driving sections, measured at a set unit time interval in the real-time driving state of the driving unit, exceeds the alarm slope value (i.e., critical angle) set in the setting step (S30), wherein the unit time is set to a time including at least two driving sections.”).
Lee does not explicitly teach angles and critical angles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at angles and critical angles based on the teachings of Lee. Lee implicitly teaches angles and critical angles by teaching slope values and alarm slope value in [0060]. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that if the slope of a line is known the angle of the slope is also readily available and that the behaviors of the slope of the line indicate the behaviors of the angle of the line, thus is would be available through simple well known mathematics.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1. The method for predictive maintenance of claim 1, wherein the critical angle in the setting step S30 is determined in a form of a range so that, when an angle between a start point connection line, connecting a start point and a peak point of an energy waveform, which are extracted in real time from the apparatus in drive, and the horizontal line is detected to be greater a maximum angle or to be less than a minimum angle, a warning is issued ([0016] “Based on the collected information, an alarm upper limit, a lower limit, and an alarm slope (i.e., angle) value are set for the time interval value. By comparing the time interval value and slope value collected in real time through the operation of the drive unit with the alarm upper limit, lower limit, and slope value, an alarm is issued when conditions indicating suspected abnormal signs (i.e., minimum or maximum value) in the drive unit are satisfied, thereby inducing maintenance and replacement of the drive unit at an appropriate time, which has the effect of preventing massive losses caused by the failure of the drive unit in advance.”) .
Lee does not explicitly teach angles and critical angles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at angles and critical angles based on the teachings of Lee. Lee implicitly teaches angles and critical angles by teaching slope values and alarm slope value in [0060]. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that if the slope of a line is known the angle of the slope is also readily available and that the behaviors of the slope of the line indicate the behaviors of the angle of the line, thus is would be available through simple well known mathematics.
Examiners Note
With respect to Claims 3 and 4, the closest prior art is Lee (WO 2019177235 A1) taches several limiations and their specifics are rejected below.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Lee further teaches wherein in the extraction step S10, an end point indicating the end of an energy waveform regarding the operation of the apparatus is further extracted in addition to the start point and the peak point ([0013] “the above driving section is characterized by extracting a repetitive driving section by setting the section from the starting point to the ending point as the driving section,”, start point, where [0044] “FIG. 4 is a diagram for extracting a first peak (i.e., peak point) and a second peak (i.e., post peak point) using a constant speed section of the drive unit as a search section,”).
Lee implicitly teaches angles and critical angles by teaching slope values and alarm slope value in [0060]. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that if the slope of a line is known the angle of the slope is also readily available and that the behaviors of the slope of the line indicate the behaviors of the angle of the line, thus is would be available through simple well known mathematics.
However, Lee fails to teach an end point connection line, connecting with a straight line the peak point and the end point, is further formed and angles between the start point connection line and the end point connection line and between the end point connection line and the horizontal line are further collected. There is no evidence to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to combine the prior arts in such a way to arrive at the amended claim invention.
No art rejection was further applied to the rest of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches the limitations found in claim 1.
Lee further teaches in the extraction step S10, the energy waveform measured regarding the operation of the apparatus is divided into a peak section including a start point and a peak point and a constant speed section, and a post peak point, indicating the highest energy value in the constant speed section, is further extracted ([0013] “the above driving section is characterized by extracting a repetitive driving section by setting the section from the starting point to the ending point as the driving section,”, start point, where [0044] “FIG. 4 is a diagram for extracting a first peak (i.e., peak point) and a second peak (i.e., post peak point) using a constant speed section of the drive unit as a search section,”).
Lee implicitly teaches angles and critical angles by teaching slope values and alarm slope value in [0060]. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that if the slope of a line is known the angle of the slope is also readily available and that the behaviors of the slope of the line indicate the behaviors of the angle of the line, thus is would be available through simple well known mathematics.
However, Lee fails to teach a first peak point connection line, connecting with a straight line a peak point and the post peak point instead of the end point connection line connecting with a straight line the peak point and the end point, and a second peak point connection line, connecting with a straight line the post peak point and the end point, are further formed, and information of an angle between the start point connection line and the first peak point connection line, an angle between the first peak point connection line and the second peak point connection line, and an angle between the second peak point and the horizontal line is further collected. There is no evidence to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to combine the prior arts in such a way to arrive at the amended claim invention.
No art rejection was further applied to the rest of claim 4.
Since claims 1-4 are rejected under U.S.C 101 and claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 the claims are not allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma L. Alexander whose telephone number is (571)270-0323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/EMMA ALEXANDER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights