Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/13/2026 has been entered.
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 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claim 7 recites a system. Thus, the claims are to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 7 recites:
A system, comprising a plurality of motion guiding devices, a sensor provided in each of the plurality of motion guiding devices, a monitoring device, and a terminal device, each of the plurality of motion guiding devices having a given movable part which carries out a reciprocating motion along a track of the each of the plurality of motion guiding devices, the movable part carrying out the reciprocating motion by circulation of a rolling element inside the movable part, the rolling element being sandwiched between a groove of the movable part and a groove of the track,
the sensor being fixed to a rail serving as the track or to the movable part,
the monitoring device monitoring a degree of at least one of damage and lubrication in the movable part of each of a plurality of motion guiding devices [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed by a human],
the monitoring device including:
a storage circuit that accumulates therein information indicating sensing results for a plurality of times of sensing carried out by a sensor provided to the each of the plurality of motion guiding devices; and
a control circuit that: calculates, through processing carried out by the control circuit itself, the degree of at least one of the damage and lubrication in the given movable part of each of the plurality of motion guiding devices based on the information accumulated in the storage circuit, and which indicates sensing results for the plurality of times of sensing and generates a first screen and outputs the first screen to the terminal device, through processing carried out by the control circuit itself, in response to first input from a user to the terminal device, the first screen including information indicating changes in the degree observed in a certain period, the degree being calculated from the accumulated sensing results with respect to one of the plurality of motion guiding devices which is designated by input from the user to the terminal device [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper],
each of the sensing results which is for a single time of sensing being a sensing result obtained by sensing a plurality of times of reciprocating motions of the movable part, and the sensing results for the plurality of times of sensing being sensing results obtained by sensing carried out at different timings that are not consecutive with each other,
the control circuit generating a second screen and outputting the second screen to the terminal device, through processing carried out by the control circuit itself, in response to second input from the user to the terminal device, the second screen including an analysis result of the control circuit itself for the one of the plurality of motion guiding devices, which is designated by input from the user to the terminal device, the analysis result relating to changes in the degree observed in a certain period [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper], and
individually accepting the first input and the second input performed via the terminal device,
the terminal device displaying the first screen and the second screen received from the monitoring device.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., “a plurality of motion guiding devices, a sensor provided in each of the plurality of motion guiding devices, a monitoring device, and a terminal device, each of the plurality of motion guiding devices having a given movable part which carries out a reciprocating motion along a track of the each of the plurality of motion guiding devices, the movable part carrying out the reciprocating motion by circulation of a rolling element inside the movable part, the rolling element being sandwiched between a groove of the movable part and a groove of the track, the sensor being fixed to a rail serving as the track or to the movable part”; a monitoring device including a storage circuit that accumulates therein information indicating sensing results for a plurality of times of sensing carried out by a sensor provided to the each of the plurality of motion guiding devices; and a control circuit that generates a first screen and outputs the first screen to the terminal device, through processing carried out by the control circuit itself, in response to first input from a user to the terminal device, and generating a second screen and outputting the second screen to the terminal device, through processing carried out by the control circuit itself, in response to second input from the user to the terminal device which is designated by input from the user to the terminal device; each of the sensing results which is for a single time of sensing being a sensing result obtained by sensing a plurality of times of reciprocating motions of the movable part, and the sensing results for the plurality of times of sensing being sensing results obtained by sensing carried out at different timings that are not consecutive with each other; individually accepting the first input and the second input performed via the terminal device; and the terminal device displaying the first screen and the second screen received from the monitoring device).
The examiner submits that each of the additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. The motion guiding devices and sensors are broadly claimed and amount to no more than generic components that are somehow associated with generic sensors, which are located generally on either a rail or a movable part. The monitoring device, storage circuit, control circuit, and terminal device amount to no more than generic computer hardware (e.g., generic computer processors). Further, the accumulating of information in the storage circuit, “each of the sensing results which is for a single time of sensing being a sensing result obtained by sensing a plurality of times of reciprocating motions of the movable part, and the sensing results for the plurality of times of sensing being sensing results obtained by sensing carried out at different timings that are not consecutive with each other”, and the individual accepting of the first input and the second input amount to no more than gathering of data for use in the abstract idea. The displaying of the first and second screens by the terminal device amounts to no more than outputting a result of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 8-16 are likewise also not patent eligible. There are no additional elements in claims 8-16 which are capable of integrating the exception into a practical application or are significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding dependent Claims 8, 10-12, and 14, these claims merely recite further steps in the mental process as implemented by the generic computer components.
Regarding dependent Claim 9 and 15, these claim merely recites receiving of data for use in the mental process (i.e., the calculating and generating steps).
Regarding dependent Claims 13, machine learning is not a practical application because machine learning is merely using a generic computer performing conventional functions to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent Claim 16, the amplifier is merely generic hardware that is commonly used in conjunction with sensors.
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) 7, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hihara et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0347905, hereinafter “Hihara”).
Regarding Claim 7, Hihara teaches a system (Figs. 1-2) comprising a motion guiding device (ball screw 30), a sensor provided in the motion guiding device (vibrations sensor 7a, paragraphs [0060]-[0061]), a monitoring device (abnormality detection apparatus 7), and a terminal device (combination of operation unit 7c and display unit 7d, see paragraphs [0072] and [0074], are equated to the claimed terminal device), the motion guiding device having a given movable part (Fig. 1, nut 32) which carries out a reciprocating motion along a track (Fig. 1, screw shaft 31) of the motion guiding device, the movable part carrying out the reciprocating motion by circulation of a rolling element inside the movable part, the rolling element being sandwiched between a groove of the movable part and a groove of the track (paragraph [0062], a ball is rolled between a the screw shaft and the nut), the sensor being fixed to a rail serving as the track (no patentable weight due to “or”) or to the movable part (paragraph [0061], vibration sensor 7a is attached to the nut 32), the monitoring device monitoring a degree of at least one of damage and lubrication in the movable part of a motion guiding device, (Fig. 1, ball screw 30 and abnormality detection apparatus 7), the monitoring device including: a storage circuit that accumulates therein information indicating sensing results for a plurality of times of sensing carried out by a sensor provided to the motion guiding device (Fig. 2, storage unit 72, paragraph [0060], acceleration data is output over time); and a control circuit that calculates, through processing carried out by the control circuit itself, the degree of at least one of damage and lubrication in the given movable part of the motion guiding device based on the information which is accumulated in the storage circuit (paragraphs [0107], [0110], [0124], [0125], [0135]. [0146], [0147], [0151], [0152], [0156] and which indicates sensing results for the plurality of times of sensing; degree of abnormality or failure is equated to degree of damage, degree of lubrication is not given patentable weight), and generates a first screen and outputs the first screen to the terminal device, through processing carried out by the control circuit itself, in response to first input from a user to the terminal device (computation unit 71, operation unit 7c, and display unit 7d, paragraph [0078]), the first screen including information indicating changes in the degree observed in a certain period, the degree being calculated from the accumulated sensing results with respect to the motion guiding device which is designated by input from the user to the terminal device, each of the sensing results which is for a single time of sensing being a sensing result obtained by sensing a plurality of times of reciprocating motions of the movable part (Fig. 3, S101; Fig. 4, S111 and S1112, and paragraphs [0078] and [0080], user selects measurement file; SS1115 and paragraph [0082], measurement data waveform includes accumulated sensing results over time and would indicate changes in observed degree of sensing results), and the sensing results for the plurality of times of sensing being sensing results obtained by sensing carried out at different timings that are not consecutive with each other (Fig. 3, S112, and Fig. 6, the measurement data file would include at least two sensing results, each including a plurality of reciprocating motions, from non-consecutive timings), the control circuit generating a second screen and outputting the second screen to the terminal device, through processing carried out by the control circuit itself, in response to second input from the user to the terminal device, the second screen including an analysis result of the control circuit itself for the motion guiding device, which is designated by input from the user of the terminal device, the analysis result relating to changes in the degree observed in a certain period, and individually accepting the first input and the second input performed via the terminal device (Fig. 3, S102, S103, S104, operator selects cutout of analysis region, and paragraph [0098], frequency analysis data corresponding to selected analysis region is displayed), the terminal device displaying the first screen and the second screen received from the monitoring device (display unit 7d).
Hahira does not specifically teach that the monitoring system monitors a plurality of motion guiding devices. However, Hahira does teach monitoring of a motion guiding device (ball screw 30). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to monitor a plurality of motion guiding devices using the system taught by Hahira, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Hahira teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Hahira further teaches wherein: the control circuit generates a third screen and outputs the third screen to the terminal device, through processing carried out by the control circuit itself, the third screen including (i) information relating to one of the plurality of motion guiding devices which requires maintenance or (ii) information relating to one of the plurality of motion guiding devices which has been subjected to maintenance (Fig. 3, S106, failure state determination process, Fig. 13 S164; Fig. 15 and paragraphs [0109]-[0110], displaying of failure information).
Hahira does not specifically teach that the control circuit generates and outputs the third screen in response to third input from the user to the terminal device, and the control circuit individually accepts the first input, the second input, and the third input performed via the terminal device. However, Hahira does teach in paragraphs [0074] and [0076] that an input operation by the operator via operation unit 7c can intervene in some of the processes of Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the third input, and individually accepting the first input, the second input, and the third input, in the system of Hahira, in order to allow the operator to intervene in the vibration data analysis and display process of Hahira (see paragraph [0076]), and also because displaying of screens in response to various user inputs is a common operation of computer systems (as evidenced by paragraph [0021] of Collier et al, U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0204381; paragraph [0015] of Harrison, U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0139195; and Figs. 3 and 6 of Sukumaran et al, U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0201591).
Regarding Claim 15, Hahira teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Hahira further teaches wherein: the information indicating the sensing results for the plurality of times of sensing carried out by the sensor is automatically and continuously accumulated in the storage circuit after the monitoring system is activated (paragraph [0060]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahira in view of Gatti et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0326383, hereinafter “Gatti”).
Regarding Claim 8, Hahira teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Hahira does not specifically teach wherein: the control circuit outputs, to the terminal device, information indicating, in a comparative manner, degrees of at least one of damage and lubrication in the movable part which degrees are calculated from sensing results with respect to, among the plurality of motion guiding devices, two or more motion guiding devices designated by input from the user to the terminal device. However, Gatti teaches, in paragraphs [0037] and [0067], outputting to a user comparisons between sensor data from different sources; Gatti also teaches selecting particular sensors by the user in paragraphs [0058]-[0059]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the comparisons of Gatti in the system of Hahira, in order to allow collection and processing of data from multiple (e.g., a fleet of) machines (see Gatti, paragraph [0037]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahira in view of Potts et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0330867, hereinafter “Potts”).
Regarding Claim 9, Hahira teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Hahira does not specifically teach further comprising: a first device associated with the sensor, wherein the first device supplies information indicating a feature extracted from the sensing result to the storage circuit as information indicating the sensing result; and the information indicating the feature is smaller in information amount than the information indicating the sensing result. However, Potts teaches, in paragraph [0071]), determining, by a processor (equated to the claimed first device), condition indicator (CI) values (equated to the recited extracted feature) from raw vibration data, storing the CI values, and discarding the raw vibration data. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the sensor data processing described in Potts in the system of Hahira, in order to reduce the memory requirements for storing historical data (see Potts, paragraph [0071]).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahira in view of Rothwell et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0216990, hereinafter “Rothwell”).
Regarding Claim 11, Hahira teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Hahira further teaches in response to designation, performed via the terminal device, of at least one of the plurality of motion guiding devices, the control circuit obtains information indicating the sensing result with respect to the designated one of the plurality of motion guiding devices (Fig. 3, paragraph [0080]; terminal device is equated to operation unit 7c and display unit 7d). Hahira does not specifically teach wherein: the storage circuit is included in a server device on a cloud; and that the information is obtained from the server device. However, Rothwell teaches, in paragraph [0164], storing sensor data in the cloud and remotely accessing the sensor data by a user. It would have been obvious to one skilled in eh art at the time of the invention to include the cloud server of Rothwell in the system of Hahira, in order to allow remote access to sensor data by users (see Rothwell, paragraph [0164]).
Regarding Claim 14, Hahira teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Hahira does not specifically teach in a case where a value indicating information indicating a sensing result in at least one of the plurality of motion guiding devices satisfies a predetermined condition, the control circuit notifies the terminal device information indicating that the predetermined condition is satisfied. However, Rothwell teaches in paragraph [0078] generating alerts to a user based on analytics of sensor data regarding impeding issues with machinery that are detected (equated to the recited predetermined condition). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the alerts of Rothwell in the system of Hahira, in order to ensure that the user is aware of impending issues with the machinery (see Rothwell, paragraph [0078]).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahira in view of Yoskovitz et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0182684).
Regarding Claim 12, Hahira teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Hahira does not specifically teach wherein: the control circuit predicts, with reference to the information indicating the sensing result, time when the degree of at least one of damage and lubrication in the movable part reaches a predetermined degree. However, Hahira does teach that an operator can assume a timing at which maintenance is required based on displayed failure state information in paragraph [0110]. Further, Yoskovitz teaches in paragraph [0357] prediction of time to failure (equated to the recited predetermined degree) of a machine under test based on sensor data. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the prediction of Yoskovitz in the system of Hahira, in order to detect and predict problems in a machine based on monitoring of the machine (see Yoskovitz, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 13, Hahira in view of Yoskovitz teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 12. Hahira does not teach a learning circuit that trains a learning model with use of training data, the learning model receiving input of the information indicating the sensing result and outputting the predicted time when the degree of at least one of damage and lubrication in the movable part reaches the predetermined degree, the training data being a set of information indicating a sensing result obtained by the sensor and time when a degree of at least one of damage and lubrication in the movable part has reached the predetermined degree. However, Yoskovitz teaches in paragraph [0357] a learning circuit that trains a learning model with use of training data, the learning model receiving input of the information corresponding to the sensing result (“training of such machine learning algorithms is preferably performed by providing historical examples of data relating to failures and faults”) and outputting the predicted time when the degree of at least one of damage and lubrication in the movable part reaches the predetermined degree (output of the machine learning is predicted time to failure of the machine under test), the training data being a set of information corresponding to a sensing result obtained by the sensor and time when a degree of at least one of damage and lubrication in the movable part has reached the predetermined degree (“training of such machine learning algorithms is preferably performed by providing historical examples of data relating to failures and faults”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the machine learning and prediction of Yoskovitz in the system of Hahira, in order to detect and predict problems in a machine based on monitoring of the machine (see Yoskovitz, paragraph [0005]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahira in view of Potts and Lee et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6510738, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 16, Hahira in view of Potts teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 9. Hahira does not teach an amplifier that extracts, from a voltage waveform indicative of a sensing result of the sensor, information indicative of the feature. However, Lee teaches an amplifier that extracts, from a voltage waveform indicative of a sensing result of the sensor, information indicative of the feature (column 4, lines 41-52, accelerometer output voltage is provided to an amplifier to obtain an acceleration signal for measuring vibration. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use an amplifier, such as is taught in Lee, in conjunction with the acceleration sensor of Hahira, in order to obtain an acceleration signal for measuring vibration (see Lee, column 4, lines 46-52).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Yoshioka et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0065354) teaches display of condition of a motion guide apparatus based on vibration data.
Honjo (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0205425) teaches display of state of a linear motion system based on vibration data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejections of the Claims, the Examiner does not deem Applicant’s amendments dated 1/13/2026 is sufficiently specific to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The location of the single sensor on the movable part that is recited in the amended claims is not a particular configuration of sensors (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), the discussion of Thales Visionix), but rather is extremely broad, and is also known in the art (see the updated 103 rejection of Claim 7 above). Applicant argues on page 6 that the amended claims provides a sensor in each motion guiding device; however, this is mere duplication of the single sensor located on a single movable part, such as is taught in Hahira.
Regarding the 103 rejections of the Claims, Applicant argues that Hahira does not teach “each of the sensing results which is for a single time of sensing being a sensing result obtained by sensing a plurality of times of reciprocating motions of the movable part, and the sensing results for the plurality of times of sensing being sensing results obtained by sensing carried out at different timings that are not consecutive with each other”. The Examiner disagrees. The claim language is very broad. Any vibration data that includes data for at least 5 reciprocating motions of the movable part would read on Applicant’s claim language. The first set of two reciprocations and the last set of two reciprocations (each of which includes a plurality of times of reciprocating motions of the movable part) of such a set of 5, which are separated by the middle reciprocation of the set of 5, may be equated to the not consecutive timings. This is taught by the vibration data of Hahira, which includes data corresponding to many reciprocations of the movable part that were gathered at different times (see the updated rejection of Claim 7, above). Further, it appears that, in Figs. 4 and 8 of Applicant’s Specification, the vibration signal is gathered consecutively over time, which is the same as the data that is gathered in Hahira.
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
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857