DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 16 July 2025. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 5 are independent claims. Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are amended.
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 Remarks
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. The 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the newly amended claims which specify the selection of a specific abnormal event by a user and displaying the model diagram accordingly.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing for functionality that is not yet present in the claims. First, Thomsen teaches storing a causal relationship model representing a causal relationship between feature values of two or more components. Specifically, Thomsen teaches asset models and model definition defined as nodes in the hierarchy to create a graphical representation of the data. Moreover, Thomsen teaches values contained in each BIDT, which represents faults.
Furthermore, the newly amended claim language states: “in response to a selection of a specific abnormal event by a user”. The Applicant points to Figs. 10A-10C of the instant specification where the user is able to select various abnormality events in the dropdown. However, this functionality is not yet specifically described in the claims. The claims merely require a “specific abnormal event”. Natsumeda teaches the user being able to switch which groups are displayed, such as in accordance with sequence of time in which an abnormality occurrence is suspected. Since the user is able to switch the groups according to a suspected abnormality occurrence, the foregoing teaches a selection of a specific abnormal event by a user. Thus, further specificity is required to capture the functionality displayed in Figs. 10A-10C of the instant specification.
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 1-10 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 5 state: “...that are highly related to each of the specific abnormal events...” The metes and bounds of “highly related” are not clear. For prior art purposes, Examiner interprets the foregoing to mean that the components are related to the abnormal events.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims.
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, 2, 4-6, and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen (US 2020/0265329 A1) hereinafter known as Thomsen in view of Natsumeda (US 2020/0041988 A1) hereinafter known as Natsumeda.
Regarding independent claim 1, Thomsen teaches:
A display system to be provided in a production facility that produces products and comprises, as components, at least one driving means for driving the production facility and at least one monitoring means for monitoring the production, the display system comprising: a processor configured with a program to perform operations comprising operation as a control unit; (Thomsen: Figs. 1-2 and ¶[0066]; Thomsen teaches monitoring industrial assets/equipment.)
a display unit; and (Thomsen: Fig. 1 and ¶[0064]; Thomsen teaches an HMI on display.)
a storage unit, (Thomsen: Fig. 4 and ¶[0079]; Thomsen teaches storage.)
wherein the storage unit is configured to store a causal relationship model representing a causal relationship between feature values of two or more components of the components that are highly related to each of specific abnormal events that may occur in the production facility and are causes of the specific abnormal event, and (Thomsen: Fig. 4 and ¶[0079]-¶[0080], and ¶[0082]; Thomsen teaches storage, which stores asset models and model definitions. Fig. 10 and ¶[0112]-¶[0113] further teaches the model definition defined as nodes in the hierarchy. Figs. 21-222 and ¶[0153] and ¶[0185] further teach creating a graphical representation of the data. Lastly, ¶[0093] teaches the values contained in each BIDT can represent faults. BIDT stands for basic information data types and contains data regarding the asset (¶[0070] and ¶[0136])).
...
...
Thomsen does not explicitly teach but Natsumeda teaches:
the processor is configured with the program to perform operations such that the operation as the control unit comprises: in response to a selection of a specific abnormal event by a user, displaying, on the display unit, a model diagram comprising nodes respectively corresponding to the components and one or more edges connecting two or more nodes of the nodes to each other and indicating the causal relationship between the feature values of the two or more components corresponding to the specific abnormal event selected by the user, based on the causal relationship model; and (Natsumeda: Figs. 6-7 and ¶[0037]; Natsumeda teaches clustering groups of sensors and displaying them on the interface. ¶[0088]-¶[0091] further teaches the user being able to switch which groups are displayed, such as in accordance with sequence of time in which an abnormality occurrence is suspected. Since the user is able to switch the groups according to a suspected abnormality occurrence, the foregoing teaches a selection of a specific abnormal event by a user.)
in response to a mode selection, displaying the model diagram in a first mode in which all of the nodes corresponding to the components are displayed as the nodes in the model diagram, or displaying the model diagram in a second mode in which the nodes corresponding to the components are allocated among a predetermined number of groups based on a predetermined criterion and the groups are displayed as the nodes in the model diagram. (Natsumeda: ¶[0088]-¶[0091]; Natsumeda further teaches switching the output to present a causal relationship within a group or between groups.)
Thomsen and Natsumeda are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to industrial monitoring systems. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine an industrial monitoring system that displays a causal relationship model as taught in Thomsen with the ability to group equipment based on user selection as taught in Natsumeda. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomsen to include teachings of Natsumeda, because the combination would allow viewing the clustered abnormal sensors, as suggested by Natsumeda: ¶[0019].
Regarding claim 2, Thomsen in view of Natsumeda further teaches the display system according to claim 1.
Natsumeda further teaches:
wherein, in the second mode for displaying the model diagram, the processor is configured with the program to perform operations such that operation as the control unit comprises displaying the nodes in a plurality of tiers that have different display modes, by further allocating the predetermined number of groups among the plurality of tiers, the tiers being arranged in a stepwise manner from a lower tier of the plurality of tiers to a higher tier of the plurality of tiers, and displaying the allocated groups according to the plurality of tiers having the different display modes. (Natsumeda: Fig. 6 and ¶[0084]; Natsumeda teaches presenting the groups linked by a hierarchical structure.)
Regarding claim 4, Thomsen in view of Natsumeda further teaches the display system according to claim 1.
Natsumeda further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured with the program to perform operations such that operation as the control unit comprises, if the model diagram is displayed in the second mode, when a group is selected from the groups, displaying the nodes corresponding to the components comprised in the group. (Natsumeda: Figs. 6-7 and ¶[0088]-¶[0091]; Natsumeda teaches the user being able to switch which groups are displayed.)
Regarding claims 5 and 6, these claims recite a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that performs the function of claim 1; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies. Thomsen further teaches actuators, i.e. servomotors, in ¶[0062.
Regarding claim 8, Thomsen in view of Natsumeda further teaches the display system according to claim 2.
Natsumeda further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured with the program to perform operations such that operation as the control unit comprises, if the model diagram is displayed in the second mode, when a group is selected from the groups, displaying the nodes comprised in the group. (Natsumeda: Figs. 6-7 and ¶[0088]-¶[0091]; Natsumeda teaches the user being able to switch which groups are displayed.)
Claims 3, 7, 9, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen in view of Natsumeda in view of Billi (US 2016/0292895 A1) hereinafter known as Billi.
Regarding claim 3, Thomsen in view of Natsumeda further teaches the display system according to claim 1.
Natsumeda further teaches:
... if the model diagram is displayed in the second mode, changing the display mode of the group that comprises the node corresponding to the component related to the occurred abnormal event. (Natsumeda: Fig. 6 and ¶[0084], ¶[0088], and ¶[0090]; Natsumeda teaches presenting the groups linked by a hierarchical structure and may indicate a time sequence in which an abnormality occurrence is suspected.)
Thomsen in view of Natsumeda does not explicitly teach but Billi further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured with the program to perform operations such that operation as the control unit comprises, when an abnormal event occurs in the production facility: if the model diagram is displayed in the first mode, changing the display mode of the node corresponding to the component related to the occurred abnormal event; and ... (Billi: Fig. 9 and ¶[0090]; Bill teaches a composite view comprising the physical layer and the alarm layer with superimposed alarm windows on or near the relevant machines or stations.)
Billi is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to industrial monitoring systems. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine an industrial monitoring system that displays a causal relationship model and is used to monitor for abnormalities as taught in Thomsen in view of Natsumeda with changing the display mode corresponding to the component related to the abnormality as taught in Billi. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomsen and Natsumeda to include teachings of Billi, because the combination would allow the user to view the information with respect to the equipment.
Regarding claim 7, Thomsen in view of Natsumeda further teaches the display system according to claim 2.
Natsumeda further teaches:
... if the model diagram is displayed in the second mode, changing the display mode of the group that comprises the node corresponding to the component related to the abnormal event. (Natsumeda: Fig. 6 and ¶[0084]; Natsumeda teaches presenting the groups linked by a hierarchical structure.)
Thomsen in view of Natsumeda does not explicitly teach but Billi further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured with the program to perform operations such that operation as the control unit comprises, when an abnormal event occurs in the production facility: if the model diagram is displayed in the first mode, changing the display mode of the node corresponding to the component related to the abnormal event; and... (Billi: Fig. 9 and ¶[0090]; Bill teaches a composite view comprising the physical layer and the alarm layer with superimposed alarm window son or near the relevant machines or stations.)
Billi is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to industrial monitoring systems. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine an industrial monitoring system that displays a causal relationship model and is used to monitor for abnormalities as taught in Thomsen in view of Natsumeda with changing the display mode corresponding to the component related to the abnormality as taught in Billi. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Thomsen and Natsumeda to include teachings of Billi, because the combination would allow the user to view the information with respect to the equipment.
Regarding claim 9, Thomsen in view of Natsumeda in view of Billi further teaches the display system according to claim 3.
Natsumeda further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured with the program to perform operations such that operation as the control unit comprises, if the model diagram is displayed in the second mode, when a group is selected from the groups, displaying the nodes comprised in the group. (Natsumeda: Figs. 6-7 and ¶[0088]-¶[0091]; Natsumeda teaches the user being able to switch which groups are displayed.)
Regarding claim 10, Thomsen in view of Natsumeda in view of Billi further teaches the display system according to claim 7.
Natsumeda further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured with the program to perform operations such that operation as the control unit comprises, if the model diagram is displayed in the second mode, when a group is selected from the groups, displaying the nodes comprised in the group. (Natsumeda: Figs. 6-7 and ¶[0088]-¶[0091]; Natsumeda teaches the user being able to switch which groups are displayed.)
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118