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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This includes the “adjustment means” in Claim 11. 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), 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) 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: the energy storage unit and generator unit in Claim 15; the computing unit in Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 17-18, and 19-21; the sensor unit in Claims 1-6, 8, 11-14, and 17-18; and the communication unit in Claims 1-5, 13-14, 17, and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Objections
-Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 should be amended to recite “…tool to be rotated
line 4 should be amended to recite “…spindle (S)…
lines 8-9 should be amended to recite “…the sensor
line 14 should be amended to recite “…the [[acceleration-re presentative]] acceleration-representative variables…”; and
line 18 should be amended to recite “…a threshold
-Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 should be amended to recite “…spindle (S)…
-Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “signalling” is misspelled and should be changed to “signaling”.
-Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 4-5 should be amended to recite “…(i) automatically inserting a monitoring module to be rotated during operation
Line 7 should be amended to remove “(WZM)” at the beginning of the line;
line 11 should be amended to recite “(ii) turning” and “machining
line 13 should be amended to recite “…receiving , from the sensor unit, quantities (ax, ay) representative of an acceleration…”;
line 17 should be amended to recite “(iv) determining”;
line 22 should be amended to recite “(vi) determining”
line 24 should be amended to recite “…threshold value (SW), and signal the machine tool (WZM) / machining center (BA) whether or not there is a concentricity error.
-Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
it is unclear what “ge r ted” means in line 5;
line 8 should be amended to recite “…further arranged to
-Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 6 should be amended to recite “…acceleration
line 10 should be amended to recite “…essentially horizontally
-Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 6 should be amended to recite “…circuit board holder
-Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 9 should be amended to recite “via a monitoring signal interface (SGS)”.
-Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
lines 3-4 should be amended to recite “..a stator…”;
lines 9-10 should be amended to recite “..such a
-Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 10 should be amended to recite “…several different substantially [[li]] constant…”;
Line 11 should be amended to recite “…wherein the computing unit is [[a]] directed…”
-Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the first usage of the acronym “ms” should be spelled out.
-Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8 should be amended to recite “
Claim 21 is also objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim shall refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 21 not been further treated on the merits.
It appears that the claims are a translation from a foreign application, and appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following limitations lack antecedent basis under MPEP § 2173.05(e):
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the values” in line 15, “the total acceleration” in line 18, "the runout monitoring module" in line 19, “the quantities” in lines 19-20, and “the tool holder” in line 22.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “the concentricity monitoring tool mounting me module” in lines 6-7, “the concentricity monitoring tool mounting module” in lines 7-8, and “the concentricity via monitoring tool mounting module” in lines 10-11.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the concentricity run via monitoring tool module” in lines 6-7 and “the runout monitoring tool module” in line 18.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the round run monitoring signalling interface" in lines 8-9 and “the runout monitoring signal interface” in line 26.
Claim 6 recites “the predetermined speed” in (iii) and “the recorded acceleration representative quantities” in (iv).
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the concentricity monitoring tool tool recording module” and “concentricity monitoring tool module” in line 12.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “the rake unit” in line 3, “concentricity monitoring tool holder module” and “the rotation monitoring tool module” in lines 5-6, and “the concentricity monitoring tool on module/the concentricity monitoring tool module” in lines 8-9.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the runout via monitoring tool holder module / the runout monitoring tool module” in lines 5-6 and “the concentricity monitoring tool holder module / the concentricity run monitoring tool module” in lines 10-11.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the concentricity monitoring tool receiving module / the concentricity monitoring tool module” in the last 2 lines.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the further sensor unit” in line 6.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the further variables” in line 4-5.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the runout monitoring tool holder module/the runout monitoring tool module” in lines 4-5.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the concentricity monitoring tool holder module /rotary run monitoring tool module” in lines 5-6, “the concentricity monitoring tool module” in lines 13-14, and the concentricity monitoring signal interface (SGS)” in the last 2 lines.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “the initial variables (ax_initial, ay_initial)” in line 5, “the further sensor unit” and “the further variables” in line 6, “the concentricity monitoring tool holder module / the concentricity monitoring tool module” in lines 8-9, and “the runout monitoring signal interface (SGS)” in the last 2 lines.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the spindle” in line 8.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the variables (ax_initial, ay_initial)” and “the initial acceleration” in lines 4-5.
Claim 22 recites the limitations “the further variables”, “the runout monitoring tool module / the runout monitoring tool module”, and “the spindle (S)”.
Claim 24 recites the limitations “the further variables” and “the evaluation time”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for at least these limitations in the claims. Claims 4-5, 8-20, and 22-24 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1, and Claim 7 is rejected due to its dependence on Claim 6.
The following limitations are considered relative terminology under MPEP § 2173.05(b):
Regarding claims 8, 13, 17, and 18, the term "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 1-3, 17-18, and 22-24 the term "in particular" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 8-10, and 22, it is unclear what “this purpose” and “this time period” refer to.
The term “substantially” in claims 2, 6, 8, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. It is unclear what degree of deviation from normal would be considered “substantially” normal (Claims 2, 6, 8, and 17); what degree of overlap would be considered “substantially” simultaneous (Claim 8), and what degree of deviation from a constant rotational speed would be considered a “substantially” constant rotational speed (Claim 17).
The term “essentially” in claims 1, 3, 9, and 24 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “essentially” 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. It is unclear what degree of deviation from normal would be considered “essentially” normal (Claims 1 and 3); what degree of deviation from horizontal would be considered “essentially” horizontal (Claim 9), and what degree of deviation from a constant rotational speed would be considered a “essentially” constant rotational speed (Claim 24).
The term “shortly” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shortly” 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. It is unclear what amount of time would be considered “shortly before”.
The term “approximately” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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. It is unclear what degree of deviation from coaxial would be considered “approximately” coaxial.
The term “normal operation” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal operation” 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. It is unclear what operation would be considered “normal operation”.
Further regarding claims 1-6, 8-11,14, 16-18, and 22, these claims include various elements referred to together, separated by “/”. It is unclear whether these claims are referring to interchangeable parts, the same part with two different names, or two parts that co-occur.
Regarding Claim 23, it is unclear whether elements (i)-(v) are required together or not. Also, elements (ii), (iv), and (v) are each “a duration of a predefined speed (sequence). Further, two separate elements are listed as being each of elements (iii) and (iv). Further, the phrase "may be included" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It appears that the claims are a translation from a foreign application, and contain many errors, at least some of which are due to removal of multiple dependencies without the corresponding required claim language amendments. It is recommended that Applicant carefully recheck the claims.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed computer program product encompasses propagating signals. It is recommended that Applicant amend the claim to recite “non-transitory”.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 17-20, and 22-24 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) Concentricity monitoring module for a tool to be rotated in operation (WZG), comprising:
- a tool interface, set up to pick up the tool to be rotated (WZG);
- a tool mounting interface, set up for insertion into a tool mounting (WZGA), in particular of a machine tool (WZM) or a machining center (BA);
- a sensor unit which is assigned to the concentricity monitoring module in such a way that an axis of rotation of the concentricity monitoring module runs through the sensor unit, the sensor unit being set up to detect variables (ax, ay) in a plane (E) orientated essentially normal to the axis of rotation of the concentricity monitoring module when the concentricity monitoring module rotates, in particular together with the tool (WZG) to be rotated and/or with the tool holder (WZGA);
- a computing unit which is arranged to:
- to receive the values (ax, ay) representative of the acceleration recorded by the sensor unit;
- to determine an overall acceleration (atot) based on the recorded values (ax, ay) representative of the acceleration;
- to compare the total acceleration (atot) with a threshold value (SW) dependent on a rotational speed of the runout monitoring module during the detection of the quantities (ax, ay) representative of the acceleration; and
-to determine that a concentricity error of the tool to be rotated (WZG), the concentricity monitoring module and/or the tool holder (WZGA) is present if the total acceleration (atot) is greater than the threshold value (SW); and
- a communication unit which is communicatively connected to the computing unit and is set up to signal to the machine tool (WZM) / machining center (BA) whether or not there is a concentricity error in the tool to be rotated (WZG), the concentricity monitoring module and/or the tool holder (WZGA).
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of independent Claims 2-3 and 6.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, Claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a module (i.e., machine) claim. Likewise, Claims 2-3 are a modules, and Claim 6 is a method.
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.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a mental process This can be seen in the claim limitations of determining an overall acceleration, comparing the overall acceleration with a threshold value, and determining an error based on the comparison, which are a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to determine an error, and are capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 2-3 and 6.
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.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1 the claimed module recites additional elements including “a tool interface, set up to pick up the tool to be rotated (WZG); a tool mounting interface, set up for insertion into a tool mounting (WZGA), in particular of a machine tool (WZM) or a machining center (BA); a sensor unit which is assigned to the concentricity monitoring module in such a way that an axis of rotation of the concentricity monitoring module runs through the sensor unit, the sensor unit being set up to detect variables (ax, ay) in a plane (E) orientated essentially normal to the axis of rotation of the concentricity monitoring module when the concentricity monitoring module rotates, in particular together with the tool (WZG) to be rotated and/or with the tool holder (WZGA)”; “a computing unit”; “to receive the values (ax, ay) representative of the acceleration recorded by the sensor unit”; “a communication unit which is communicatively connected to the computing unit and is set up to signal to the machine tool (WZM) / machining center (BA) whether or not there is a concentricity error in the tool to be rotated (WZG), the concentricity monitoring module and/or the tool holder (WZGA)”. However these elements are found to be a generic, known hardware (i.e., the tool interface, the tool mounting interface, and the sensor unit) for gathering data for use in the abstract idea, and generic computing components (i.e., the computing unit, and the communication unit) for implementing the abstract idea. Further, the receiving step is mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea, and the signaling is a mere outputting of a result of the abstract idea.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, are recited at such a high level of generality (e.g. using the computing unit, and the communication unit) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed module. For instance, nothing is done with the result the determination of the concentricity error beyond generically claimed “signaling”, which is an insignificant output of the result of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims 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 a general purpose system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies). The tool mounting interface, and the sensor unit are known, generic hardware that is well understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by the Background and State of the Art sections of Applicant’s Specification as filed (see paragraphs [0002]-[0011] of the published Application), which teaches sensors for monitoring process variables, including acceleration, in machining systems. Further, the computing unit and the communication unit are also well understood, routine, and conventional computer hardware.
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that independent Claims 1-3 and 6, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims 4-5, 7, 9, 17-20, and 22-24 merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and/or recite further generic hardware for gathering of data for use in the abstract idea, and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1-3 and 6.
Dependent claims 8 and 10-16, which recite further details of the hardware configuration and functions of Claim 1, are deemed to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Grosch et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0118575) teaches an acceleration sensor 9 that is used for monitoring a machine tool, that is centered on the axis of rotation of the machine tool, and that detects acceleration signals x,y that are orthogonal to the axis of rotation (see Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0120] and [0122]; see also paragraphs [0165]-[0166]).
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art: the comparison with a threshold value dependent on a rotational speed of the module during the detection of the acceleration values, which is recited in each of independent Claims 1-3 and 6, and is illustrated by threshold SW in Fig. 10 of the Application as filed, was not found in the prior art. The most remarkable prior art of record is the Grosch reference, cited above in the prior art of record section, which does not teach the claimed a threshold. However, further search/consideration may be required based on Applicant's amendments to the claims in view of the objections and the 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights