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 9 objected to because of the following informalities: has a typo in the last line: “learning date” should read “learning data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: has an idiomatic error in line 26: “with at least of the”. 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.
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 1-14 are 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.
Claim 1 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and has some idiomatic errors. For example, claim 1 seems incomplete, the last limitation recites: “wherein the trigger threshold is used using the learning data obtained in the learning mode and using statistical methods and/or machine learning and/or artificial intelligence.” The claim recites using statistical methods but does not mention to perform what exactly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “transferring” vibration and/or temperature sensor to a measuring state in line 19. The word “transferring” makes the claim ambiguous because it’s not clear if the sensors are actually being “transferred” or “moved”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 15, recite the word "preferably" which is a relative term renders the claims indefinite. The term "preferably" 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.
Regarding claim 7, the term "optionally" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 9 and 17 recite the limitation "the measuring state" in lines 22 and 8 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19-20 depend from, and inherit the limitations of claim 17. Thus, claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph for at least the same reasons specified above with respect to claim 17.
Claims 2-8 and 10-14 depend from, and inherit the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Thus, claims 2-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph for at least the same reasons specified above with respect to claims 1 and 9.
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 8 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 claims are directed to ineligible software per se.
The claims recite "a computer program... ", without any positive recitation of hardware structure within the scope of the claimed system e.g. the computer program is [intended] "to cause the processor to" perform functions. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 8 is found to be directed to ineligible software per se (see MPEP 21.06.03(I)).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer program product, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.
Applicant is suggested to amend claim 8 to add the limitation “non- transitory” to the claim to overcome the non-statutory subject matter rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record Orman et al. US 2022/0034741 A1 discloses a condition monitoring device and method for monitoring an electrical machine. The method comprises obtaining, at periodic instants, measurements from one or more sensors of the condition monitoring device, where each sensor is one of a magnetometer and an accelerometer. The method also comprises comparing, for one or more instants, amplitude data of the measurements with condition monitoring data, wherein the comparison is performed for the amplitude data in one or more axis and at one or more frequencies. The condition monitoring data comprises a relation between a plurality of parameters, a plurality of conditions and a plurality of frequencies. The method additionally comprises detecting a condition and at least one parameter associated with the condition, based on the comparison. According to the detection, the method comprises utilizing the measurements of the at least one parameter for determining a health condition of the electrical machine.
However, Orman et al either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or
render obvious a system for the condition monitoring of a machine comprising: operate the sensor system of the machine in a learning mode to determine a trigger threshold for the trigger sensor of the sensor system; operate the sensor system in a condition monitoring mode of the sensor system, wherein operating the sensor system in the condition monitoring mode comprises the following steps: measure, in the measuring step, at least one of a machine vibration or a temperature signal of the machine to determine the condition of the machine; and
determine an additional trigger threshold for the trigger sensor in a learning trigger step for periods before or during operation of the sensor system, in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights