DETAILED ACTION
Claims 7-16 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/06/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the storage, it can be noted that other than reciting “computer” and “storage device”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the mental acts/steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
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.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 - abstract idea without significantly more:
CLAIMS 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent CLAIMS 7, 15, and 16 -
Step 1
Independent claim 7 is drawn to a device, independent claim 15 is drawn to a method, and independent claim 16 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium - they fall under a statutory category of invention and thus step 1 of the 101 Analysis is satisfied.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claims 7, 15, and 16 recite the following abstract ideas:
Calculating an abnormality degree;
Determining whether an abnormality degree satisfies a predetermined criterion.
These steps may be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claims 7, 15, and 16 recite additional elements, but do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims further recite steps of: “reading pieces of process data”.
The “reading” step is considered an insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering recited at a high level of generality and not performed in a specific manner which would improve the system. The reading step merely retrieves the data necessary for mental processing and thus does not provide a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 7, 15 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Other than reciting “computer” and “storage device”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the mental acts/steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding dependent CLAIMS 8-14
It can be noted that the none of the dependent claims add additional element linking the judicial exception into a practical application, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8-14 recite further steps/limitation of:
“Calculating steps”- The calculating can be performed in the human mind.
“Displaying steps” The “displaying” data could be performed with a pen and paper. Displaying data does not serve as an additional element linking/integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis et al., US Patent No. 7,477,960 (hereinafter Willis) in view of Srinivasan et al. (hereinafter Srinivasan).
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 16, Willis discloses:
Claim 7. An abnormal irregularity cause identifying device comprising: a process data acquisition unit configured to read, from a storage device storing pieces of process data continuously output by a plurality of sensors included in a production facility and each associated with a management number of a processing target, the pieces of process data; an abnormality determination unit configured to continuously calculate, for each of the plurality of sensors, an abnormality degree representing an extent of an irregularity of process data of the pieces of process data read by the process data acquisition unit;
and a cause diagnosis unit configured to determine, for each of the pieces of process data output by the corresponding one of the plurality of sensors and corresponding to the management number of the processing target, whether the abnormality degree calculated by the abnormality determination unit satisfies a predetermined criterion by using causal relation information defining a combination between a cause and the irregularity of the process data output by each of the plurality of sensors, the irregularity appearing as an influence resulting from the cause (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Claim 15. An abnormal irregularity cause identifying method executed by a computer, the method comprising: reading, from a storage device storing pieces of process data continuously output by a plurality of sensors included in a production facility and each associated with a management number of a processing target, the pieces of process data; continuously calculating, for each of the plurality of sensors, an abnormality degree representing an extent of an irregularity of process data of the pieces of process data that is read; and determining, for each of the pieces of process data output by the corresponding one of the plurality of sensors and corresponding to the management number of the processing target, whether the abnormality degree that is calculated satisfies a predetermined criterion by using causal relation information defining a combination between a cause and the irregularity of the process data output by each of the plurality of sensors, the irregularity appearing as an influence resulting from the cause (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Claim 16. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing an abnormal irregularity cause identifying program causing a computer to perform: reading, from a storage device storing pieces of process data continuously output by a plurality of sensors included in a production facility and each associated with a management number of a processing target, the pieces of process data; continuously calculating, for each of the plurality of sensors, an abnormality degree representing an extent of an irregularity of process data of the pieces of process data that is read; and determining, for each of the pieces of process data output by the corresponding one of the plurality of sensors and corresponding to the management number of the processing target, whether the abnormality degree that is calculated satisfies a predetermined criterion by using causal relation information defining a combination between a cause and the irregularity of the process data output by each of the plurality of sensors, the irregularity appearing as an influence resulting from the cause (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Willis fails to clearly specify wherein the determination of whether the abnormality degree satisfies the predetermined criterion is performed by using a value that has been further weighted based on a magnitude of the abnormality degree, and wherein the storage stores an action, associated with the cause, to be performed to eliminate a corresponding cause.
However, Srinivasan teaches wherein the determination of whether the abnormality degree satisfies the predetermined criterion is performed by using a value that has been further weighted based on a magnitude of the abnormality degree, and wherein the storage stores an action, associated with the cause, to be performed to eliminate a corresponding cause (C2 L18-24).
The applied prior art is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they relate to same field of endeavor. They relate to quality assessment and control systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above faut detection system, as taught by Willis, and incorporating the concept of weight values for quality assessment, as taught by Srinivasan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide improved quality assessments, as suggested by Srinivasan ( See C2 L18-24).
Regarding claims 8-14, Willis further teaches:
Claim 8. The abnormal irregularity cause identifying device according to claim 7, wherein the cause diagnosis unit obtains accuracy of the cause of the irregularity based on a proportion of process data having the abnormality degree calculated by the abnormality determination unit satisfying a predetermined criterion to the pieces of process data output by the plurality of sensors and each corresponding to the management number of the processing target (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Claim 9. The abnormal irregularity cause identifying device according to claim 7, further comprising a preprocessing unit configured to calculate average time-series data by using pieces of process data each corresponding to a stage performed in the production facility and each having the management number that is different and synchronize the pieces of process data based on a degree of similarity to the calculated average time-series data, wherein the abnormality determination unit calculates the abnormality degree based on an extent of divergence from a predetermined criterion, for each of the pieces of process data synchronized, corresponding to the stage, and having the management number that is different (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Claim 10. The abnormal irregularity cause identifying device according to claim 8, further comprising a preprocessing unit configured to calculate average time-series data by using pieces of process data each corresponding to a stage performed in the production facility and each having the management number that is different and synchronize the pieces of process data based on a degree of similarity to the calculated average time-series data, wherein the abnormality determination unit calculates the abnormality degree based on an extent of divergence from a predetermined criterion, for each of the pieces of process data synchronized, corresponding to the stage, and having the management number that is different (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Claim 11. The abnormal irregularity cause identifying device according to claim 7, wherein the process data is associated with a step indicating a phase of processing in a stage performed in the production facility to be stored in the storage device, and the abnormal irregularity cause identifying device further comprises an output control unit configured to make an output device display the pieces of process data each associated with the management number that is different and each corresponding to the step in an overlapping manner (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Claim 12. The abnormal irregularity cause identifying device according to claim 8, wherein the process data is associated with a step indicating a phase of processing in a stage performed in the production facility to be stored in the storage device, and the abnormal irregularity cause identifying device further comprises an output control unit configured to make an output device display the pieces of process data each associated with the management number that is different and each corresponding to the step in an overlapping manner (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Claim 13. The abnormal irregularity cause identifying device according to claim 9, wherein the process data is associated with a step indicating a phase of processing in a stage performed in the production facility to be stored in the storage device, and the abnormal irregularity cause identifying device further comprises an output control unit configured to make an output device display the pieces of process data each associated with the management number that is different and each corresponding to the step in an overlapping manner (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Claim 14. The abnormal irregularity cause identifying device according to claim 10, wherein the process data is associated with a step indicating a phase of processing in a stage performed in the production facility to be stored in the storage device, and the abnormal irregularity cause identifying device further comprises an output control unit configured to make an output device display the pieces of process data each associated with the management number that is different and each corresponding to the step in an overlapping manner (Fig 3, Fig 5, Fig 6, C2 L5-40, C7 L25-67, C8 L1-5 - - Correcting the control strategy, which involve sensors and abnormality/deviation detection. The cause of the deviation and the degree is determined by the statistical control system and the E-diagnostic system. ID information is used at different levels of the overall system).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nomoto et al., US Patent No. 5,432,885 relates to – recurrent fuzzy inference apparatus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3766. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00 am- 6:30 pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/CARLOS R ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
