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 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:
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 limitations are “an acquisition unit”; “a storage unit” ; and “a calculation unit” in claim 9. The claim describes the various modules in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily-identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function.
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, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, [0007] discloses “ … there is provided a life estimation device including: an acquisition unit acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a predetermined part constituting an industrial machine; a storage unit storing the acquired physical quantity data and time data indicating an acquisition time of the physical quantity data in association with each other; and a calculation unit calculating a function for estimating a parameter value correlated with a life of the predetermined part over time on the basis of the acquired physical quantity data and the time data and calculating a failure time or a failure probability of the predetermined part using the calculated function.”
In order to exam the merit, Examiner interprets the above mentioned limitations performed by a generic computer.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A life estimation method comprising:
acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a predetermined part constituting an industrial machine;
storing the acquired physical quantity data and time data indicating an acquisition time of the physical quantity data in association with each other;
calculating a function for estimating a parameter value correlated with a life of the predetermined part on the basis of the acquired physical quantity data and the time data; and
calculating a failure time or a failure probability of the predetermined part using the calculated function.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed 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 claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the 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.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a predetermined part constituting an industrial machine; storing the acquired physical quantity data and time data indicating an acquisition time of the physical quantity data in association with each other.
The additional element “acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a predetermined part constituting an industrial machine” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional element “storing the acquired physical quantity data and time data indicating an acquisition time of the physical quantity data in association with each other” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a predetermined part constituting an industrial machine is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., acquiring 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).
For example, storing the acquired physical quantity data and time data indicating an acquisition time of the physical quantity data in association with each other is disclosed by “Totani US 6332355B1”, Col. 3, Lines 4-11; Col. 4, Lines 20-66; and “Horiuchi US 20200151593”, [0028], [0035].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 10 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
As to claims 1-2, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Totani et al. (US 6332355B1, hereinafter Totani).
As to claims 1 and 9-10, Totani teaches acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a predetermined part constituting an industrial machine (Col. 3, Lines 55-57 discloses torque necessary for rotating the ball screw measured by a torque meter disposed at the joint of the drive shaft of the electric motor; Col. 5, Lines 43-52);
storing the acquired physical quantity data and time data indicating an acquisition time of the physical quantity data in association with each other (Col. 3, Lines 4-11 discloses an arithmetic-and-storage means for multiplying a moving speed of the ball screw in a unit time measured by the encoder and a torque of the ball screw during this time measured by the torque meter together, and accumulating products, each formed by multiplying the moving speed of the ball screw and the torque of the ball screw in the unit time, and storing the accumulated products as cumulative data; Col. 4, Lines 61-64 discloses “The cumulative data held by the arithmetic-and-storage unit 36 is obtained by accumulating the products of the moving speed V and the operating current I in a unit operating time”);
calculating a function for estimating a parameter value correlated with a life of the predetermined part on the basis of the acquired physical quantity data and the time data (Col. 3, Lines 5-19 discloses moving speed of the ball screw in a unit time is measured by the encoder and a torque of the ball screw during this unit time is measured by the torque meter together. Life deciding means for determining a total energy value indicating an amount of total energy supplied to the ball screw on the basis of the cumulative data stored in the arithmetic-and-storage means, and comparing the total energy value, and a predetermined life energy value for the ball screw determined (i.e., comparing or calculating a function for estimating a parameter value correlated with a life of the predetermined part - emphasis added by Examiner) on the basis of force generated by the ball screw and the moving speed of the ball screw to decide whether or not the life of a ball screw has terminated); and
calculating a failure time or a failure probability of the predetermined part using the calculated function (Col. 5, Lines 12-16 discloses The life deciding unit 38 compares the total energy amount A with a desirable life energy value B and decides that the life of the ball screw has terminated when the total energy value A is equal to or greater than the life energy value B (A≥B).; Col. 6, Lines 39-50).
As to claim 2, Totani teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Totani teaches wherein a time point when the parameter value calculated using the function reaches a failure determination threshold value is the failure time (Col. 3, 4-7 and Col. 6, Lines 9-18 disclose an arithmetic-and-storage means for multiplying a moving speed of the ball screw in 5 a unit time measured by the encoder and a torque of the ball screw during this time measured by the torque meter. A life deciding unit 50c included in the injection molding machine controller 50 calculates a total energy value A on the basis of the cumulative data accumulated in the measured torque accumulating unit 50b. At the same time, the life deciding unit 50c compares the total energy value A with a life energy value B obtained by a method similar to that employed in the first embodiment, and decides that the life of the ball screw 12 has terminated when the total energy value A is equal to or greater than the life energy value B (A≥B) (i.e., the function reaches a failure determination threshold value- emphasis added by Examiner)).
As to claim 6, Totani teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Totani teaches wherein the industrial machine is a molding machine having a ball screw (Col. 1, Lines 9-11 discloses “estimating a life of a ball screw for moving an injection screw included in an electric injection molding machine”), and
the failure time or the failure probability of the ball screw is calculated (Col. 1, Lines 27-30 discloses “estimate time when the condition of the ball screw is close to a condition that causes damage to the ball Screw, i.e., to estimate the life of
the ball screw”; Col. 3, Lines 4-19).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Totani et al. (US 6332355B1, hereinafter Totani) in view of Hideki et al. (WO 2018229881A1, hereinafter Hideki).
As to claim 7, Totani teaches the claimed limitations as discussed in claim 6.
Totani teaches wherein the physical quantity data is data indicating vibration acceleration of the ball screw and a current or torque of a motor driving the ball screw (Col. 2, Lines 41-50 discloses estimating a life of a ball screw included in an electric
injection molding machine comprising an injection unit having a heating barrel and an injection screw placed for rotation in the heating barrel, and an electric motor connected to the injection unit by the ball screw, said life estimating apparatus comprising an encoder connected to the electric motor an arithmetic-and-storage means for multiplying a moving speed of the ball screw (i.e., the physical quantity data is data indicating vibration acceleration of the ball screw - emphasis added by Examiner) in a unit time measured by the encoder, and an operating current supplied to the electric motor (i.e., the physical quantity data is a current of a motor driving the ball screw - emphasis added by Examiner) together during this time).
Totani does not explicitly teach the parameter value is a peak value of the vibration acceleration, the current, or the torque.
Hideki teaches the parameter value is a peak value of the vibration acceleration, the current, or the torque ([0049] discloses the physical quantities calculated here depend on the parameters such as maximum torque (i.e., a peak value of the torque - emphasis added by Examiner), and motor power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hideki into Totani for the purpose of estimating the screw shape of a kneading device in order to search for an optimal screw shape that satisfies required values of required physical quantities under
extrusion conditions included in specified conditions, and selects the screw shape. This combination would accurately estimate a screw shape that satisfies the required values based on the input information and the knowledge information so that extrusion conditions of a kneading device that kneads materials such as resin using a screw, such as an injection molding machine or an extrusion molding machine can be efficiently estimated.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 3-5, and 8, the most pertinent prior arts are “Totani US 6332355B1”, “Hideki WO 2018229881A1”, “Jaroschek US 5090886A”, “Atshushi JP 2004090283A”, “Junpei JP 5090996B2”, “Horiuchi US 20200151593”, “Inoue US 20220006417”, and “Ito US 20160140782”.
As to claim 3, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein a time point when the parameter value calculated using the function reaches the failure determination threshold value is the failure time when the failure probability is 50%, the function being calculated using a maximum likelihood estimation method.” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 4, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein a first function for estimating a change in the parameter value is calculated using a maximum likelihood estimation method,
a second function for estimating a value obtained by adding a predetermined deviation to the parameter value calculated using the first function is calculated,
a third function for estimating a value obtained by subtracting the predetermined deviation from the parameter value calculated using the first function is calculated,
a time point when the parameter value calculated using the first function reaches the failure determination threshold value is the failure time when the failure probability is a first probability,
a time point when the parameter value calculated using the second function reaches the failure determination threshold value is the failure time when the failure probability is a second probability, and
a time point when the parameter value calculated using the third function reaches the failure determination threshold value is the failure time when the failure probability is a third probability” including all limitations as claimed.
As to claim 8, Jaroschek teaches wherein the molding machine includes a screw that is provided in a cylinder having a nozzle at its tip so as to be driven in a rotational direction and an axial direction (Jaroschek; Col. 5, Lines 17-23).
Atshushi teaches the ball screw has a ball screw shaft provided to be rotatable and a nut that is fitted to the ball screw shaft and is moved forward and backward with rotation of the ball screw shaft, the screw is driven in the axial direction by the backward and forward movement of the nut (Atshushi, [0113], [0115]).
Junpei teaches the life estimation method comprises acquiring position data indicating a position of the nut with respect to the ball screw and the physical quantity data indicating the state of the ball screw at the position; storing the acquired position data, the acquired physical quantity data, and the time data indicating the acquisition time of the physical quantity data in association with one another (Junpei, Claim 4, [0013], [0046], [0047]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “calculating the function for estimating the change in the parameter value correlated with the life of the ball screw for each part of the ball screw shaft on the basis of the acquired position data, the acquired physical quantity data, and the time data.”
Dependent claim 5 is also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 4.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Takeuchi US 20130251842” teaches “An injection molding machine includes an electric ejector configured to eject a molding product from a mold, and an assist actuator configured to assist ejection of the molding product by the electric ejector.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights