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 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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a device (an estimation device).
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations “determine a state estimation target portion of a monitoring target based on qualitative inference that uses designated portion qualitative expression information qualitatively indicating a state of a designated portion of the monitoring target, and acquires acquire state candidate qualitative expression information that qualitatively indicates a candidate for the state of the state estimation target portion” and “acquire state candidate quantitative expression information that quantitatively indicates a candidate for the state of the state estimation target portion, based on the state candidate qualitative expression information” recite the idea of determining state candidate qualitative expression information using qualitative inferencing and state candidate quantitative expression information using the state candidate qualitative expression information. This determining is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited determining is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application?
The claim further recites “a memory configured to store instructions” and “a processor configured to execute the instructions” which are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are processors and storage media storing software for the processors) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. These additional elements are viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial
exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements “a memory configured to store instructions” and “a processor configured to execute the instructions” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: narrow down the state candidate quantitative expression information based on a comparison between: the state of the designated portion in a simulation result of the monitoring target using the state candidate quantitative expression information; and a designated state of the designated portion” which under Step 2A Prong 1 recites the abstract idea of comparing a simulation result and the state candidate quantitative expression information. This comparing is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited comparing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
As described above, the additional limitations in the claim do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: convert information quantitatively indicating the state of the designated portion, into the designated portion qualitative expression information” which under Step 2A Prong 1 recites the abstract idea of converting qualitative information into qualitative expression information. This converting is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited converting is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
As described above, the additional limitations in the claim do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: narrow down at least one of the state candidate qualitative expression information and the state candidate quantitative expression information, using observed value information indicating an observed value of the state of the state estimation target portion” which under Step 2A Prong 1 recites the abstract idea of narrowing down state candidate qualitative expression information using an observed value. This narrowing down is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited narrowing down is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
As described above, the additional limitations in the claim do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 6-7:
Independent claims 6 and 7 are the method and non-transitory recording medium of claim 1 respectively and are thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “control the monitoring target, based on the state candidate quantitative expression information” which does integrate the exception into a practical application and is therefore patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0202235 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Chen et al. teaches an estimation device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to: determine a state estimation target portion of a monitoring target based on qualitative inference (Paragraph [0045], qualitative characteristics of the molding product are inferred by the state inference engine)
that uses designated portion qualitative expression information qualitatively indicating a state of a designated portion of the monitoring target, and acquire state candidate qualitative expression information that qualitatively indicates a candidate for the state of the state estimation target portion; (Paragraph [0042] and [0045], sensing data regarding the current injection molding process is used to infer the qualitative characteristics of the molding process and determine an acceptance state for the molded product)
and acquire state candidate quantitative expression information that quantitatively indicates a candidate for the state of the state estimation target portion, based on the state candidate
qualitative expression information. (Paragraph [0049] and [0051], injection molding condition optimizer takes as an input the qualitative characteristics and the acceptance state to determine recommended adjustments to process parameters)
Regarding Claim 2:
Chen et al. additionally teaches the estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the
processor is configured to execute the instructions to: narrow down the state candidate quantitative expression information based on a comparison between: the state of the designated portion in a simulation result of the monitoring target using the state candidate quantitative expression information; and a designated state of the designated portion. (Paragraph [0034], during training phase, the recommended molding conditions is inputted into the emulator 400 for conducting process simulation)
Regarding Claim 3:
Chen et al. additionally teaches the estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: convert information quantitatively indicating the state of the designated portion, into the designated portion qualitative expression information. (Paragraph [0042], qualitative identification can be performed by identifying the results of quantitative characteristics)
Regarding Claim 4:
Chen et al. additionally teaches the estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: narrow down at least one of the state candidate qualitative expression information and the state candidate quantitative expression information, using observed value information indicating an observed value of the state of the state estimation target portion. (Paragraph [0045], sampling of actual products and data collected can be used to determine qualitative characteristics of the molding product and the acceptance state)
Regarding Claim 5:
Chen et al. additionally teaches the estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: control the monitoring target, based on the state candidate quantitative expression information. (Paragraph [0051], optimized molding conditions are used for the next round of injection molding)
Regarding Claims 6-7:
Claims 6 and 7 are the method and non-transitory recording medium of claim 1 respectively and are thus rejected under the same rational as cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0375551 A1) discloses ensuring potential designs meet quantitative and qualitative safety considerations before simulation to filter or eliminate nonviable designs.
Behandish, III et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0192105 A1) discloses simulating a hybrid qualitative and quantitative model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER DEAN HEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/T.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115