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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 27 June 2024, 17 March 2025, and 7 January 2026 are acknowledged and the information referred to therein has been considered.
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:
(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) 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 limitation(s) is/are: "a plurality of surface shape measuring parts," "a positioning device part," "a storage unit," and "an arithmetic processing unit" in claims 1-6.
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, 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) 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 § 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 1-6 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.
Claims 1 and 4 recites the limitations "the entire circumference" and "the entire length" in the clauses describing a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts. It is not clear what element these circumferences and lengths are in reference to. For the purpose of examination, the circumference and length recited are understood to be those of the crankshaft.
Claim 4 is, according to the preamble, a method that calculates information on the balance of a crankshaft. However, the only recited step relates to "using a balance inspection apparatus" (see line 3). The rest of the claim merely defines the balance inspection apparatus, and does not positively recite any further method steps, such as those relating to measuring a base crankshaft, or calculating information on the balance of that crankshaft. It is therefore unclear how claim 4 can in fact be a method that calculates information on the balance of a crankshaft. Clarification, or proper claim amendments, are requested.
Claim 6 likewise contains the limitation "the information on the balance of the crankshaft calculated using the balance inspection method according to claim 4." However, there is no positively recited step in claim 4 in which information on the balance of a crankshaft is calculated. There is accordingly no antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 depend from claims 1 and 4 and inherit the deficiencies of these claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claim 3 is directed toward a balance-inspected crankshaft with information based on the information on the balance of the crankshaft calculated using the balance inspection apparatus according to claim 1 displayed on a surface thereof by means of letters or codes. Claim 3 is an apparatus claim comprising a crankshaft with balance information printed thereon. It does not include the inspection apparatus of claim 1. Accordingly, because it depends from claim 1 but does not include all the limitations of claim 1, this claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Similarly, claim 6 is directed toward a balance-inspected crankshaft with information based on the information on the balance of the crankshaft displayed on a surface thereof by means of letters or codes. Claim 6 is also an apparatus claim comprising a crankshaft with balance information printed thereon. It does not include the method of using the inspection apparatus of claim 4. Accordingly, because it depends from claim 4 but does not include all the limitations of claim 4, this claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is performed as set forth in the 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2024 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106. (Note: the claim limitations below considered to fall within an abstract idea are highlighted in bold font; the remaining features are "additional elements.")
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2024 PEG asks whether a claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-2 are directed to an apparatus, and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Claims 4-5 are directed to a method, and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Claims 7-8 are directed to an apparatus, and therefore fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One
Step 2A, Prong One of the 2024 PEG asks whether the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The claims recite:
1. A balance inspection apparatus that calculates information on balance of a crankshaft. the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of surface shape measuring parts that are each arranged around a rotation center axis of the crankshaft and optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft;
a positioning device part that moves the surface shape measuring part relative to the crankshaft in the direction of the rotation center axis of the crankshaft;
a storage unit that stores a surface shape model, the surface shape model in which a designed surface shape of the crankshaft is defined in a coordinate system in which a designed rotation center axis of the crankshaft is an X axis; and
an arithmetic processing unit that calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts, wherein
a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts are arranged to measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire circumference and moved relative to the crankshaft by the positioning device part, to thereby measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire length, and
the arithmetic processing unit
combines measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts, to thereby generate three-dimensional point cloud data consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft,
aligns the three-dimensional point cloud data with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model,
based on the three-dimensional point cloud data that have been aligned, generates surface data represented by a collection of planes passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data,
extracts, from the surface data, evaluation object data, which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft, and calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data,
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data.
2. The balance inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft before machining,
the storage unit stores information on machining of the crankshaft, and
the arithmetic processing unit
estimates evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and the information on machining read from the storage unit,
calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the estimated evaluation object data after machining,
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining.
4. A balance inspection method that calculates information on balance of a crankshaft, the method comprising:
using a balance inspection apparatus including:
a plurality of surface shape measuring parts that are each arranged around a rotation center axis of the crankshaft and optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft;
a positioning device part that moves the surface shape measuring part relative to the crankshaft in the direction of the rotation center axis of the crankshaft;
a storage unit that stores a surface shape model, the surface shape model in which a designed surface shape of the crankshaft is defined in a coordinate system in which a designed rotation center axis of the crankshaft is an X axis; and
an arithmetic processing unit that calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts;
a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts are arranged to measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire circumference and moved relative to the crankshaft by the positioning device part, to thereby measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire length, and
the arithmetic processing unit
combines measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts, to thereby generate three-dimensional point cloud data consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft,
aligns the three-dimensional point cloud data with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model, based on the three-dimensional point cloud data that have been aligned,
generates surface data represented by a collection of planes passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data,
extracts, from the surface data, evaluation object data, which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft, and
calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data,
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data.
5. The balance inspection method according to claim 4, wherein,
a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft before machining,
the storage unit stores information on machining of the crankshaft, and
the arithmetic processing unit
estimates evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and the information on machining read from the storage unit,
calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the estimated evaluation object data after machining,
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining.
7. An arithmetic processing device that calculates information on balance of a crankshaft, the device comprising:
a computer processor including processing circuitry programmed to perform operations comprising:
store a surface shape model in a storage unit, the surface shape model in which a designed surface shape of the crankshaft is defined in a coordinate system in which a designed rotation center axis of the crankshaft is an X axis;
align three-dimensional point cloud data, the three-dimensional point cloud data generated based on results obtained by optically measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft and consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft, with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model;
generate surface data represented by a collection of planes passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data, based on the three-dimensional point cloud data that have been aligned;
extract, from the surface data evaluation object data, which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft, and calculate gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data;
calculate a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculate information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data.
8. The arithmetic processing device according to claim 7, wherein
the three-dimensional point cloud data are generated based on results obtained by optically measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft before machining,
the computer processor including processing circuitry programmed to perform operations comprising:
estimate evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and information on machining prepared in advance, and calculate gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data after machining,
calculate a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculate information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data after machining.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "combines measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts, to thereby generate three-dimensional point cloud data consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft, aligns the three-dimensional point cloud data with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model, based on the three-dimensional point cloud data that have been aligned, generates surface data represented by a collection of planes passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data, extracts, from the surface data, evaluation object data, which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft, and calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data, calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data." is an abstract process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts.
The highlighted portion of claim 2 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "estimates evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and the information on machining read from the storage unit, calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the estimated evaluation object data after machining, calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and calculates information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining." is an abstract process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts.
The highlighted portion of claim 4 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "combines measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts, to thereby generate three-dimensional point cloud data consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft, aligns the three-dimensional point cloud data with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model, based on the three-dimensional point cloud data that have been aligned, generates surface data represented by a collection of planes passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data, extracts, from the surface data, evaluation object data, which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft, and calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data, calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data." is an abstract process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts.
The highlighted portion of claim 5 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "estimates evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and the information on machining read from the storage unit, calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the estimated evaluation object data after machining, calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and calculates information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining." is an abstract process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts.
The highlighted portion of claim 7 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "align three-dimensional point cloud data, the three-dimensional point cloud data generated based on results obtained by optically measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft and consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft, with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model; generate surface data represented by a collection of planes passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data, based on the three-dimensional point cloud data that have been aligned; extract, from the surface data evaluation object data, which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft, and calculate gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data; calculate a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and calculate information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data." is an abstract process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts.
The highlighted portion of claim 8 comprises a series of method steps that fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, "estimate evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and information on machining prepared in advance, and calculate gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data after machining, calculate a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and calculate information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data after machining." is an abstract process that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2024 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is "directed to" the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1 and 4 recite the additional elements of 1) "a plurality of surface shape measuring parts that are each arranged around a rotation center axis of the crankshaft and optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft … wherein a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts are arranged to measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire circumference and moved relative to the crankshaft by the positioning device part, to thereby measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire length," 2) "a positioning device part that moves the surface shape measuring part relative to the crankshaft in the direction of the rotation center axis of the crankshaft," and 3) "a storage unit that stores a surface shape model, the surface shape model in which a designed surface shape of the crankshaft is defined in a coordinate system in which a designed rotation center axis of the crankshaft is an X axis."
Additional elements 1 and 2 relate to elements for collecting surface shape data around the entire length and circumference of a crankshaft. This data collection is recited at a high level of generality. Additional element 3 relates to storing shape data. This is a different form of data collection. Additional elements 1-3 merely correspond to necessary data gathering for using the identified judicial exception, and are thus extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. At best, limitations 1-3 merely link the abstract idea to a field of use (crankshaft manufacturing/quality control), and fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Moreover, even considered in combination, these additional elements do not: improve the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
implement the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); or applying or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Because these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, these claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 2 and 5 recite the additional elements of 1) "a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft before machining," and 2) "the storage unit stores information on machining of the crankshaft."
Additional element 1 relates to elements for collecting surface shape data. This data collection is recited at a high level of generality. Additional element 2 relates to storing data. This is a different form of data collection. Additional elements 1-2 merely correspond to necessary data gathering for using the identified judicial exception, and are thus extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. At best, limitations 1-2 merely link the abstract idea to a field of use (crankshaft manufacturing/quality control), and fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Moreover, even considered in combination, these additional elements do not: improve the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
implement the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); or applying or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Because these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, these claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recite the additional elements of 1) "an arithmetic processing device, (and) … a computer processor including processing circuitry," 2) "store a surface shape model in a storage unit, the surface shape model in which a designed surface shape of the crankshaft is defined in a coordinate system in which a designed rotation center axis of the crankshaft is an X axis," and 3) "the three-dimensional point cloud data generated based on results obtained by optically measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft and consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft."
Additional element 1 recites generic computing elements that implement the judicial exception. This does not correspond to any particular, specialized machine. Additional element 2 relates to storing shape data. This is a form of data collection. Additional element 3 relates to the collecting surface shape data around a crankshaft. This data collection is recited at a high level of generality. Additional elements 2-3 merely correspond to necessary data gathering for using the identified judicial exception, and are thus extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. At best, limitations 1-3 generally apply the judicial exception or merely link the abstract idea to a field of use (crankshaft manufacturing/quality control), and fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Moreover, even considered in combination, these additional elements do not: improve the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
implement the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); or applying or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Because these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, this claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites the additional element of 1) "the three-dimensional point cloud data are generated based on results obtained by optically measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft before machining."
Additional element 1 relates to when and how the point cloud data is collected. This data collection is recited at a high level of generality. This merely corresponds to necessary data gathering for using the identified judicial exception, and is thus extra-solution activity that do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim such that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. At best, this merely links the abstract idea to a field of use (crankshaft manufacturing/quality control), and fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Moreover, even considered in combination, this additional element does not: improve the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
implement the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); or applying or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Because this additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, this claim is directed to the judicial exception.
These claims thus require further analysis under Step 2B.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2024 PEG asks whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 recite the additional elements identified above.
The data collection elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. These moreover relate to well-understood, routine, and conventional data collection. This is evidenced by US 10,598,481. See elements 21-24 and 31-34 in fig. 2, element 52 in fig. 5, col. 9, l. 32 to col. 10, l. 14, col. 13, ll. 50-58, and col. 16, ll. 14-47.
In addition, the recitation of a generic computer elements to perform limitations, or as an object on which the judicial exception operates, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept to the claim.
Claims 2, 5, and 8 recite the additional elements identified above.
Like for the other claims, the data collection elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. These moreover relate to well-understood, routine, and conventional data collection. This is evidenced by US 10,598,481. See col. 1, ll. 47-49, col. 13, ll. 56-58, and col. 16, l. 64 to col. 17, l. 6.
Accordingly, even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept to the claim.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-8 therefore constitute ineligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1 are 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,598,481 to Isei et al. (hereinafter referred to as Isei), JP 2010-091283 to Kamoto (cited by applicant), and US 10,930,069 to Jackson et al. (hereinafter referred to as Jackson).
With regards to claim 1, Isei teaches a balance inspection apparatus that calculates information on balance of a crankshaft (see the apparatus of fig. 2), the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of surface shape measuring parts (first shape measuring device 31 to fourth shape measuring device 34) that are each arranged around a rotation center axis of the crankshaft and optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft (col. 9, ll. 32-40);
a positioning device part (first mobile device 21 to the fourth mobile device 24) that moves the surface shape measuring part relative to the crankshaft in the direction of the rotation center axis of the crankshaft (col. 16, ll. 14-47);
a storage unit (storage unit 52; fig. 5) that stores a surface shape model (CAD data of the designed crankshaft), the surface shape model in which a designed surface shape of the crankshaft is defined in a coordinate system in which a designed rotation center axis of the crankshaft is an X axis (col. 13, ll. 50-58; noting this axes as defined in fig. 2); and
an arithmetic processing unit (arithmetic unit 50), wherein
a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts (the first shape measuring device 31 to fourth shape measuring device 34) are arranged to measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire circumference and moved relative to the crankshaft by the positioning device part, to thereby measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire length (see fig. 2 and col. 16, l. 64 to col. 17, l. 17), and
the arithmetic processing unit
combines measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts, to thereby generate three-dimensional point cloud data consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft (as per col. 16, l. 64 to col. 17, l. 17).
Isei does not expressly teach
the arithmetic processing unit calculating information on balance of the crankshaft based on measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts, wherein
the arithmetic processing unit
aligns the three-dimensional point cloud data with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model,
based on the three-dimensional point cloud data that have been aligned, generates surface data represented by a collection of planes passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data,
extracts, from the surface data, evaluation object data, which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft, and calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data,
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data.
Kamoto teaches the feature of:
an arithmetic processing unit (data processing device 4; fig. 1) calculating information on balance of the crankshaft based on measurement results of a surface shape measuring part (three-dimensional shape measuring instrument 3) ([0015]), wherein
the arithmetic processing unit
based on three-dimensional point cloud data (step 1 of fig. 2; [0017]), generates surface data (YZ plane projections) represented by a collection of planes (the individual projections) passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data (planes are necessarily defined by at least three points, and the point cloud points are used to define surface outlines in each plane) (steps 2-3 of fig. 2; [0018]-[0019]),
extracts, from the surface data, evaluation object data (triangular prism data for each plane along the whole crankshaft), which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft (steps 4-5 of fig. 2; [0020]-[0021]), and calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data (step 6 of fig. 2; [0022]),
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections (step 7 of fig. 2; [0023]), and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data (step 8 of fig. 2; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the imbalance detection technique of Kamoto to the base device of Isei (all processing implemented by the arithmetic processing unit as above). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to determine whether the balance of the crankshaft is within tolerances, and unacceptable crankshafts can be discarded (see [0029] of Kamoto).
Jackson teaches the feature of aligning three-dimensional point cloud data (point cloud 220) with a surface shape model (reference model 240), and filling in incomplete parts of the three-dimensional point cloud data using the surface shape model (see col. 7, ll. 53-64). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique taught by Jackson, relating to fixing incomplete point clouds using a reference model, to the teachings of Isei and Kamoto such that the arithmetic processing unit aligns the three-dimensional point cloud data with an appropriate surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model (and fills in any missing areas of the point cloud data), and then generates the surface data based on this three-dimensional point cloud data. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to compensate for portions of a crankshaft that may not have scanned completely so that balance may still be accurately calculated.
With regards to claim 4, Isei teaches a balance inspection method that calculates information on balance of a crankshaft (using the apparatus of fig. 2), the method comprising:
using a balance inspection apparatus (see the apparatus of fig. 2) including:
a plurality of surface shape measuring parts (first shape measuring device 31 to fourth shape measuring device 34) that are each arranged around a rotation center axis of the crankshaft and optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft (col. 9, ll. 32-40);
a positioning device part (first mobile device 21 to the fourth mobile device 24) that moves the surface shape measuring part relative to the crankshaft in the direction of the rotation center axis of the crankshaft (col. 16, ll. 14-47);
a storage unit (storage unit 52; fig. 5) that stores a surface shape model (CAD data of the designed crankshaft), the surface shape model in which a designed surface shape of the crankshaft is defined in a coordinate system in which a designed rotation center axis of the crankshaft is an X axis (col. 13, ll. 50-58; noting this axes as defined in fig. 2); and
an arithmetic processing unit (arithmetic unit 50), wherein
a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts (the first shape measuring device 31 to fourth shape measuring device 34) are arranged to measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire circumference and moved relative to the crankshaft by the positioning device part, to thereby measure a surface shape of the crankshaft over substantially the entire length (see fig. 2 and col. 16, l. 64 to col. 17, l. 17), and
the arithmetic processing unit
combines measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts, to thereby generate three-dimensional point cloud data consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft (as per col. 16, l. 64 to col. 17, l. 17).
Isei does not expressly teach
the arithmetic processing unit calculating information on balance of the crankshaft based on measurement results of a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts, wherein
the arithmetic processing unit
aligns the three-dimensional point cloud data with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model,
based on the three-dimensional point cloud data that have been aligned, generates surface data represented by a collection of planes passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data,
extracts, from the surface data, evaluation object data, which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft, and calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data,
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data.
Kamoto teaches the feature of:
an arithmetic processing unit (data processing device 4; fig. 1) calculating information on balance of the crankshaft based on measurement results of a surface shape measuring part (three-dimensional shape measuring instrument 3) ([0015]), wherein
the arithmetic processing unit
based on three-dimensional point cloud data (step 1 of fig. 2; [0017]), generates surface data (YZ plane projections) represented by a collection of planes (the individual projections) passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data (planes are necessarily defined by at least three points, and the point cloud points are used to define surface outlines in each plane) (steps 2-3 of fig. 2; [0018]-[0019]),
extracts, from the surface data, evaluation object data (triangular prism data for each plane along the whole crankshaft), which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft (steps 4-5 of fig. 2; [0020]-[0021]), and calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data (step 6 of fig. 2; [0022]),
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections (step 7 of fig. 2; [0023]), and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data (step 8 of fig. 2; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the imbalance detection technique of Kamoto to the base method and device of Isei (all processing implemented by the arithmetic processing unit as above). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to determine whether the balance of the crankshaft is within tolerances, and unacceptable crankshafts can be discarded (see [0029] of Kamoto).
Jackson teaches the feature of aligning three-dimensional point cloud data (point cloud 220) with a surface shape model (reference model 240), and filling in incomplete parts of the three-dimensional point cloud data using the surface shape model (see col. 7, ll. 53-64). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique taught by Jackson, relating to fixing incomplete point clouds using a reference model, to the teachings of Isei and Kamoto such that the arithmetic processing unit aligns the three-dimensional point cloud data with an appropriate surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model (and fills in any missing areas of the point cloud data), and then generates the surface data based on this three-dimensional point cloud data. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to compensate for portions of a crankshaft that may not have scanned completely so that balance may still be accurately calculated.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamoto in view of Jackson.
With regards to claim 7, Kamoto teaches an arithmetic processing device (data processing device 4; fig. 1) that calculates information on balance of a crankshaft (abstract, etc.), the device comprising:
a computer processor including processing circuitry (data processing device 4; fig. 1 and [0015]) programmed to perform operations comprising:
obtaining three-dimensional point cloud data, the three-dimensional point cloud data generated based on results obtained by optically measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft and consisting of data points corresponding to points of a surface of the crankshaft ([0015], [0017]);
generate surface data (YZ plane projections) represented by a collection of planes (the individual projections) passing through three data points that constitute the three-dimensional point cloud data, (planes are necessarily defined by at least three points, and the point cloud points are used to define surface outlines in each plane) (steps 2-3 of fig. 2; [0018]-[0019]);
extract, from the surface data evaluation object data (triangular prism data for each plane along the whole crankshaft), which are surface data of an evaluation object portion including at least an arm of the crankshaft (steps 4-5 of fig. 2; [0020]-[0021]), and calculate gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data (step 6 of fig. 2; [0022]);
calculate a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections (step 7 of fig. 2; [0023]), and
calculate information on balance of the crankshaft based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data (step 8 of fig. 2; [0024]).
Kamoto does not expressly teach
storing a surface shape model in a storage unit, the surface shape model in which a designed surface shape of the crankshaft is defined in a coordinate system in which a designed rotation center axis of the crankshaft is an X axis,
aligning three-dimensional point cloud data with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model;
generating the surface data based on the three-dimensional point cloud data that have been aligned.
Jackson teaches the feature of aligning three-dimensional point cloud data (point cloud 220) with a surface shape model (reference model 240), and filling in incomplete parts of the three-dimensional point cloud data using the surface shape model (see col. 7, ll. 53-64). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique taught by Jackson, relating to fixing incomplete point clouds using a reference model, to the teachings of Kamoto such that the arithmetic processing unit stores a surface shape model (reference model) in a storage unit, the surface shape model in which a designed surface shape of the crankshaft is defined in a coordinate system in which a designed rotation center axis of the crankshaft is an X axis, aligns three-dimensional point cloud data with the surface shape model read from the storage unit in a coordinate system of the surface shape model (and fills in any missing areas of the point cloud data), and then generates the surface data based on this three-dimensional point cloud data. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to compensate for portions of a crankshaft that may not have scanned completely so that balance may still be accurately calculated.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isei, Kamoto, and Jackson as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of JP 2007-264749 to Hirano et al. (hereinafter referred to as Hirano; cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Isei, Kamoto, and Jackson teaches the balance inspection apparatus according to claim 1. Isei further teaches a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft before machining (the inspection process is performed before machining, as is clear from col. 1. ll. 35-57), and the storage unit storing information on machining of the crankshaft (col. 14, ll. 47-51).
However, this combination does not expressly teach estimating and calculating information on the balance of the crankshaft after machining, and thus does not teach that:
the arithmetic processing unit
estimates evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and the information on machining read from the storage unit,
calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the estimated evaluation object data after machining,
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining.
Hirano teaches the feature of estimating the balance of a crankshaft after machining, based on scanned data for the crankshaft and machining data, to create a virtual version of the machined crankshaft, and then calculating the balance/center of rotation of the crankshaft for the virtually machined crankshaft ([0021]-[0030]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly adopt such calculation of the balance of the crankshaft after machining, and thereby in the apparatus of Isei, Kamoto, and Jackson configure the arithmetic processing unit such that it estimates evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and the information on machining read from the storage unit, calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the estimated evaluation object data after machining, calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and calculates information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to ensure that the crankshaft will be well-balanced after machining (see [0042] of Hirano).
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Isei, Kamoto, and Jackson teaches the balance inspection method according to claim 4. Isei further teaches a plurality of the surface shape measuring parts optically measure a surface shape of the crankshaft before machining (the inspection process is performed before machining, as is clear from col. 1. ll. 35-57), and the storage unit storing information on machining of the crankshaft (col. 14, ll. 47-51).
However, this combination does not expressly teach estimating and calculating information on the balance of the crankshaft after machining, and thus does not teach that:
the arithmetic processing unit
estimates evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and the information on machining read from the storage unit,
calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the estimated evaluation object data after machining,
calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculates information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining.
Hirano teaches the feature of estimating the balance of a crankshaft after machining, based on scanned data for the crankshaft and machining data, to create a virtual version of the machined crankshaft, and then calculating the balance/center of rotation of the crankshaft for the virtually machined crankshaft ([0021]-[0030]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly adopt such calculation of the balance of the crankshaft after machining, and thereby in the method of Isei, Kamoto, and Jackson configure the arithmetic processing unit such that it estimates evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and the information on machining read from the storage unit, calculates gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the estimated evaluation object data after machining, calculates a gravitational center and a weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and calculates information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the estimated evaluation object data after machining. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to ensure that the crankshaft will be well-balanced after machining (see [0042] of Hirano).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamoto, and Jackson as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hirano.
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Kamoto and Jackson teaches the arithmetic processing device according to claim 7. Kamoto further teaches the three-dimensional point cloud data are generated based on results obtained by optically measuring a surface shape of the crankshaft before machining ([0014]-[0015]).
However, this combination does not expressly teach estimating and calculating information on the balance of the crankshaft after machining, and thus does not teach that:
the computer processor including processing circuitry programmed to perform operations comprising:
estimate evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and information on machining prepared in advance, and calculate gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data after machining,
calculate a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and
calculate information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data after machining.
Hirano teaches the feature of estimating the balance of a crankshaft after machining, based on scanned data for the crankshaft and machining data, to create a virtual version of the machined crankshaft, and then calculating the balance/center of rotation of the crankshaft for the virtually machined crankshaft ([0021]-[0030]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly adopt such calculation of the balance of the crankshaft after machining, and thereby in the apparatus Kamoto and Jackson configure the computer processor including processing circuitry such that it is programmed to estimate evaluation object data after machining based on the extracted evaluation object data and information on machining prepared in advance, and calculate gravitational centers and areas of cross sections orthogonal to the X axis at a plurality of positions along the X axis of the evaluation object data after machining, calculate a gravitational center and a weight of the evaluation object data after machining based on the gravitational centers of the cross sections and predetermined weights set according to the areas of the cross sections, and calculate information on balance of the crankshaft after machining based on the gravitational center and the weight of the evaluation object data after machining. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to ensure that the crankshaft will be well-balanced after machining (see [0042] of Hirano).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,539,651 to Nagata et al. (hereinafter referred to as Nagata) in view of CN 207571785 to Dai.
With regards to claim 3, Nagata teaches a balance-inspected crankshaft (col. 6, ll. 38-47). However, Nagata does not teach this crankshaft having information on the balance of the crankshaft displayed on a surface thereof by means of letters or codes.
Dai teaches the feature of marking an inspected product (e.g., a brake disc) with a code indicating the result of an inspection of the product, information on the balance of the product, etc. (see the second paragraph from the bottom of p. 5 of the translated text, beginning with "the specific operation steps are…"). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly provide the inspected crankshaft of Nagata with a code on the surface thereof that indicates information on the balance of the crankshaft similarly to as taught by Dai. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to allow verifying the balance inspection results as in Dai. Providing such a code would also enable other testing and manufacturing information to be provided, allowing verification/tracing of the manufacturing process of the crankshaft.
Although this information is not information calculated using the balance inspection apparatus according to claim 1, in cases such as this, anticipation or obviousness of a product is determined by a disclosure of the same product irrespective of the processes by which they are made. In the instant case, Nagata and Dai teach a balance-inspected crankshaft having a code with balance information on the surface thereof, and therefore anticipate this claim.
With regards to claim 6, Nagata teaches a balance-inspected crankshaft (col. 6, ll. 38-47). However, Nagata does not teach this crankshaft having information on the balance of the crankshaft displayed on a surface thereof by means of letters or codes.
Dai teaches the feature of marking an inspected product (e.g., a brake disc) with a code indicating the result of an inspection of the product, information on the balance of the product, etc. (see the second paragraph from the bottom of p. 5 of the translated text, beginning with "the specific operation steps are…"). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly provide the inspected crankshaft of Nagata with a code on the surface thereof that indicates information on the balance of the crankshaft similarly to as taught by Dai. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to allow verifying the balance inspection results as in Dai. Providing such a code would also enable other testing and manufacturing information to be provided, allowing verification/tracing of the manufacturing process of the crankshaft.
Although this information is not information calculated using the balance inspection method according to claim 4, in cases such as this, anticipation or obviousness of a product is determined by a disclosure of the same product irrespective of the processes by which they are made. In the instant case, Nagata and Dai teach a balance-inspected crankshaft having a code with balance information on the surface thereof, and therefore anticipate this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Split whose telephone number is (571)270-1524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 3:30.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/JS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights