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 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:
An acquisition unit and an arithmetic operation unit in claim 8, both of which are described as being computer-implemented in paragraph [0018] of the application specification.
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 1-9 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.
The terms “normal” and “abnormal” in claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 9 are subjective terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “normal” and “abnormal” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what is “normal” or “abnormal” about the component, because what is considered “normal” can change physically and situationally, based on the actual component, it’s role, or an observers expectations.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for their dependences on claim 1.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A lifespan prediction method, comprising:
acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a component constituting an industrial machine;
determining whether or not the component is normal on the basis of the acquired physical quantity data; and
initiating lifespan prediction of the component in a case where determination is made as abnormal (Note this limitation is contingent on the component being abnormal and therefore does not carry patentable weight).
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determining whether or not the component is normal on the basis of the acquired physical quantity data (determination); and
initiating lifespan prediction of the component in a case where determination is made as abnormal (starting a process)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 9.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A lifespan prediction method, comprising: acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a component constituting an industrial machine;
Claim 8: A lifespan prediction device, comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire physical quantity data indicating a state of a component constituting an industrial machine; and an arithmetic operation unit;
Claim 9: A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to execute processes of: acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a component constituting an industrial machine.
The additional element in the preamble of “A lifespan prediction method/device” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a component constituting an industrial machine represents a mere data gathering step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A non-transitory computer readable recording medium (generic memory) and a computer or computer-implemented units (generic processors) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonekawa (JP H05187965 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yonekawa teaches a lifespan prediction method, comprising:
acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a component constituting an industrial machine (Yonekawa [0014] Now, in a ball screw incorporated in a specific machine tool, a load cell 18 is disposed in the bearing portion of the ball nut 11 on which thrust acts, and the current value I of the motor 15 and the rotational speed N of the ball screw shaft 10 are measured and recorded along with the axial load. Also see [0020] FIG.1 is a block diagram showing the configuration and calculation procedure of a ball screw life monitoring device according to an embodiment of the present invention. Data is recorded.);
determining whether or not the component is normal on the basis of the acquired physical quantity data (Yonekawa [0022] In this manner, the rated fatigue life Ll' [h] is displayed on the display device 40 every moment until the next sampling is performed. [0023] the rated fatigue life L2' [h] at that time is calculated by the above-mentioned steps 31, 32, and 33, and is displayed on the display device 40 every moment. And [0024] The above procedure is repeated and sampling is performed i times, and when the rated life Li' is reached and becomes smaller than the alarm generation value Lz', the alarm generation device 40 is activated to generate an alarm and notify the user that the time for maintenance has arrived. An average value of the parameter is compared to a threshold meaning it is abnormal. Also see [0028] Furthermore, if an excessive motor current is detected, it means that there is a malfunction in the device incorporating the ball screw and bearing, such as an overrun or breakage of a cutting tool in a machine tool, and so an alarm can be issued by the alarm device. Excessive current is also an abnormal indication that leads to remaining life calculation); and
initiating lifespan prediction of the component in a case where determination is made as abnormal (Note this limitation is contingent on the component being abnormal and therefore does not carry patentable weight. Nonetheless see Yonekawa [0025] As described above, according to this embodiment, remaining life prediction, which was previously only a rough guideline for selection at the design stage, is now performed by measuring the equivalent operating load P via the motor current value I and the rotational speed N while sampling during actual operation, and then calculating and displaying the remaining life. When the alarm is generated a more in depth life prediction is performed.).
Regarding Claim 2, Yonekawa further teaches wherein the acquired physical quantity data and time data indicating an acquisition time of the physical quantity data are stored in association with each other (Yonekawa [0020] The storage device 22 stores a relational expression between the current value Ill measured by the motor ammeter 19 and the axial load P measured by the load cell 18. Via the input device 20, the sampling device 26 stores various set values, such as the sampling interval T, the sampling time t, and the number of divisions j into which the sampling time tis divided in order to obtain the average value.),
a function for estimating a variation over time of an index value correlated with a lifespan of the component is calculated on the basis of the acquired physical quantity data and the time data (Note this limitation is contingent on the component being abnormal and therefore does not carry patentable weight. Nonetheless see Yonekawa [0014] A relationship diagram (not shown) between the motor current value I and the axial load P measured by the load cell 18 is also obtained at the same time.[0016] That is, the rated fatigue rotational speed R, which means the total usable rotational speed of the ball screw under a specific load, is calculated using equation (3), and the remaining life in hours from the average operating rotational speed at that time is calculated as the rated fatigue life L, using equation (4).), and
the lifespan of the component is predicted by using the calculated function (Note this limitation is contingent on the component being abnormal and therefore does not carry patentable weight. Nonetheless see Yonekawa [0016] That is, the rated fatigue rotational speed R, which means the total usable rotational speed of the ball screw under a specific load, is calculated using equation (3), and the remaining life in hours from the average operating rotational speed at that time is calculated as the rated fatigue life L, using equation (4).).
Regarding Claim 3, the Examiner notes that this claim depends on initiation of lifespan prediction, which is contingent on the component being abnormal and therefore does not carry patentable weight. Nonetheless Yonekawa further teaches wherein a determination is made as to whether or not the component is normal even after initiating the lifespan prediction (Yonekawa [0024] The above procedure is repeated and sampling is performed i times, and when the rated life Li' is reached and becomes smaller than the alarm generation value Lz', the alarm generation device 40 is activated to generate an alarm and notify the user that the time for maintenance has arrived. The useful life calculation is repeated), and
in a case where the determination is made as normal, the lifespan prediction of the component is stopped (Note this limitation is contingent on the component being normal after initiating the lifespan prediction, and therefore does not carry patentable weight. Nonetheless Yonekawa [0025] As described above, according to this embodiment, remaining life prediction, which was previously only a rough guideline for selection at the design stage, is now performed by measuring the equivalent operating load P via the motor current value I and the rotational speed N while sampling during actual operation, and then calculating and displaying the remaining life. When the alarm is not generated the more in depth life prediction is not performed.).
Regarding Claim 4, the Examiner notes that this claim depends on initiation of lifespan prediction, which is contingent on the component being abnormal and therefore does not carry patentable weight. Nonetheless Yonekawa further teaches wherein, in a case where the lifespan prediction is initiated, output of a lifespan prediction result is started (Yonekawa [0025] As described above, according to this embodiment, remaining life prediction, which was previously only a rough guideline for selection at the design stage, is now performed by measuring the equivalent operating load P via the motor current value I and the rotational speed N while sampling during actual operation, and then calculating and displaying the remaining life.), and
in a case where the determination is made as normal, the output of the lifespan prediction result is stopped (Yonekawa [0025] As described above, according to this embodiment, remaining life prediction, which was previously only a rough guideline for selection at the design stage, is now performed by measuring the equivalent operating load P via the motor current value I and the rotational speed N while sampling during actual operation, and then calculating and displaying the remaining life. The method iterates and when the alarm is not generated the more in depth life prediction is not performed.).
Regarding Claim 5, the Examiner notes that this claim depends on Claim 3, which depends on initiation of lifespan prediction, which is contingent on the component being abnormal and therefore does not carry patentable weight. Nonetheless Yonekawa further teaches wherein, in a case where the determination is made again as abnormal after stopping the lifespan prediction, the lifespan prediction of the component is initiated again from a point of time when the determination is made again as abnormal (Yonekawa [0025] As described above, according to this embodiment, remaining life prediction, which was previously only a rough guideline for selection at the design stage, is now performed by measuring the equivalent operating load P via the motor current value I and the rotational speed N while sampling during actual operation, and then calculating and displaying the remaining life. The method iterates and then computes the more in-depth useful life during iterations when the conditions of abnormality arise.).
Regarding Claim, Yonekawa further teaches wherein the industrial machine is a molding machine including a ball screw (Yonekawa [0014] Now, in a ball screw incorporated in a specific machine tool, a load cell 18 is disposed in the bearing portion of the ball nut 11 on which thrust acts, and the current value I of the motor 15 and the rotational speed N of the ball screw shaft 10 are measured and recorded along with the axial load.), and
a lifespan of the ball screw is predicted (Yonekawa [0020] FIG.1 is a block diagram showing the configuration and calculation procedure of a ball screw life monitoring device according to an embodiment of the present invention.).
Regarding Claim 7, Yonekawa further teaches wherein the physical quantity data is data indicating a vibration acceleration of the ball screw, or a current or a driving sound of a motor that drives the ball screw (Yonekawa [0014] Now, in a ball screw incorporated in a specific machine tool, a load cell 18 is disposed in the bearing portion of the ball nut 11 on which thrust acts, and the current value I of the motor 15 and the rotational speed N of the ball screw shaft 10 are measured and recorded along with the axial load. Also see [0028] Furthermore, if an excessive motor current is detected, it means that there is a malfunction in the device incorporating the ball screw and bearing, such as an overrun or breakage of a cutting tool in a machine tool, and so an alarm can be issued by the alarm device.).
Regarding Claim 8, Yonekawa teaches a lifespan prediction device, comprising:
an acquisition unit (Yonekawa [0020] in which 15' denotes an ammeter for a motor 15 that drives the ball screw 10, 17 denotes a shaft rotation speed meter, and 18 denotes a load cell disposed on the ball nut. See Fig. 1 26. The inputs 15’, 17, 18, 20, and 22 are all data that is input into 26) configured to acquire physical quantity data indicating a state of a component constituting an industrial machine (Yonekawa [0014] Now, in a ball screw incorporated in a specific machine tool, a load cell 18 is disposed in the bearing portion of the ball nut 11 on which thrust acts, and the current value I of the motor 15 and the rotational speed N of the ball screw shaft 10 are measured and recorded along with the axial load. Also see [0020] FIG.1 is a block diagram showing the configuration and calculation procedure of a ball screw life monitoring device according to an embodiment of the present invention. Data is recorded.); and
an arithmetic operation unit (Yonekawa [0020] The storage device 22 stores a relational expression between the current value Ill measured by the motor ammeter 19 and the axial load P measured by the load cell 18. Via the input device 20, the sampling device 26 stores various set values, such as the sampling interval T, the sampling time t, and the number of divisions j into which the sampling time tis divided in order to obtain the average value. The basic dynamic load rating C, the operation factor f, or the operation factor f selected depending on the magnitude of fluctuation in the motor current value I, and the power factor m of the calculation formula selected depending on the ball screw and bearing are stored in the calculation device 30 via the input device 21. See Fig. 1 30), wherein the arithmetic operation unit determines whether or not the component is normal on the basis of the acquired physical quantity data (Yonekawa [0022] In this manner, the rated fatigue life Ll' [h] is displayed on the display device 40 every moment until the next sampling is performed. [0023] the rated fatigue life L2' [h] at that time is calculated by the above-mentioned steps 31, 32, and 33, and is displayed on the display device 40 every moment. And [0024] The above procedure is repeated and sampling is performed i times, and when the rated life Li' is reached and becomes smaller than the alarm generation value Lz', the alarm generation device 40 is activated to generate an alarm and notify the user that the time for maintenance has arrived. An average value of the parameter is compared to a threshold meaning it is abnormal), and
initiates lifespan prediction of the component in a case where the determination is made as abnormal (Yonekawa [0025] As described above, according to this embodiment, remaining life prediction, which was previously only a rough guideline for selection at the design stage, is now performed by measuring the equivalent operating load P via the motor current value I and the rotational speed N while sampling during actual operation, and then calculating and displaying the remaining life. When the alarm is generated a more in depth life prediction is performed.).
Regarding Claim 9, Yonekawa teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to execute processes (The disclosure of calculations by Yonekawa is clearly computer implemented. See [0029] Furthermore, even for a plurality of ball screws and bearings, the remaining lifespans of these can be displayed in the same manner as above by performing time-sharing calculations with the processing capacity of the computer as the limit. The computing/calculation device 30 is clearly a processor with instructions to perform the disclosed functions.) of:
acquiring physical quantity data indicating a state of a component constituting an industrial machine (Yonekawa [0014] Now, in a ball screw incorporated in a specific machine tool, a load cell 18 is disposed in the bearing portion of the ball nut 11 on which thrust acts, and the current value I of the motor 15 and the rotational speed N of the ball screw shaft 10 are measured and recorded along with the axial load. Also see [0020] FIG.1 is a block diagram showing the configuration and calculation procedure of a ball screw life monitoring device according to an embodiment of the present invention. Data is recorded.);
determining whether or not the component is normal on the basis of the acquired physical quantity data (Yonekawa [0022] In this manner, the rated fatigue life Ll' [h] is displayed on the display device 40 every moment until the next sampling is performed. [0023] the rated fatigue life L2' [h] at that time is calculated by the above-mentioned steps 31, 32, and 33, and is displayed on the display device 40 every moment. And [0024] The above procedure is repeated and sampling is performed i times, and when the rated life Li' is reached and becomes smaller than the alarm generation value Lz', the alarm generation device 40 is activated to generate an alarm and notify the user that the time for maintenance has arrived. An average value of the parameter is compared to a threshold meaning it is abnormal); and
initiating lifespan prediction of the component in a case where the determination is made as abnormal (Note this limitation is contingent on the component being abnormal and therefore does not carry patentable weight. Nonetheless see Yonekawa [0025] As described above, according to this embodiment, remaining life prediction, which was previously only a rough guideline for selection at the design stage, is now performed by measuring the equivalent operating load P via the motor current value I and the rotational speed N while sampling during actual operation, and then calculating and displaying the remaining life. When the alarm is generated a more in depth life prediction is performed.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasuda et al. (US 20240385613 A1) discloses a Life Estimation Method, Life Estimation Device, And Computer Program.
Totani et al. (US 6332355 B1) discloses a Method Of Estimating A Life Of Ball Screw Included In Electric Injection Molding Machine And Life Estimating System.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights