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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (as identified in the Requirement for Restriction dated 2/20/2026) in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II (as identified in the Requirement for Restriction dated 2/20/2026), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/15/2026.
Specification Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to as they use a scheme where numbers are inserted into the drawings to represent items instead of descriptive labels. This makes the drawings useless without a key, a legend, or a specification. The drawings submitted with a patent application are supposed to help describe and set the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and when the meaning of the drawings cannot be easily or clearly derived without a specification, key, or legend, the value of the drawings and use is diminished.
Regarding Figures 1-2, please use descriptive worded labels next to the element numbers or inside the boxes, especially where the drawing element cannot be easily understandable. Proper action is requested.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “original data regrading the feature quantity” should read “original data regarding the feature quantity”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“information processing apparatus” in claim 1.
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:
“information processing apparatus” in specification [0078-0079].
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 1-2 and 4-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites “a period” twice. It is unclear if the second recitation refers back to the first recitation, or the second recitation is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a period”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the second recitation of “a period” to mean “a period of time”.
Regarding claim 1, both recitations of “the feature quantities” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted both recitations of “for each of the feature quantities” to mean “for each feature quantity”.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-5, these claims depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
“An information processing apparatus that acquires original data, created by collecting over a predetermined period using a sensor installed a vehicle, and extracts data used for calculating a level of damage indicating a magnitude of damage accumulated in a lock-up clutch of a torque converter from the original data, the information processing apparatus comprising a processing device that executes processing, wherein:
the original data includes data of slip revolution speed of the lock-up clutch of the torque converter as a feature quantity;
the processing device executes search processing including
a first step of calculating relative frequency distribution in the original data regrading the feature quantity included in the original data for each of the feature quantities,
a second step of setting a plurality of time windows for cutting out data for a part of a period of the original data such that a period obtained by totaling periods of all of the time windows is shorter than the predetermined period,
a third step of cutting out data from the original data using the time windows,
a fourth step of calculating the relative frequency distribution in extracted data obtained by combining the data cut out using the time windows for each of the feature quantities, and
a fifth step of calculating error between the relative frequency distribution in the original data and the relative frequency distribution in the extracted data; and
after the first step is executed, attempts of the second step to the fifth step are repeatedly executed while changing settings of the time windows, and the extracted data in which the error is no greater than a threshold value is extracted”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Stephenson (US 20220010871 A1) teaches plotting slip revolutions speed over multiple time windows and determining if the slip revolutions are increasing (Stephenson - Paragraph 0021) “The monitor 101 can plot the slip revolutions over time and determine a rate of increase”
However, Stephenson does not teach a relative frequency distribution of the slip revolutions speed, and does not specifically state a difference of the relative frequency distribution between the original and extracted data.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 1 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 1 recites allowable subject matter.
Claims 2 and 4-5 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights