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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 22-23, “an abnormality of the facility-- should be --the abnormality of the facility-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis.
In claim 2, line 9, “the time-series signal indicating an operation state of the facility” should be --the time-series signal indicating the operation state of the facility-- for better clarity.
In claim 6, lines 8-9, “the time-series signal indicating an operation state of the facility” should be --the time-series signal indicating the operation state of the facility-- for better clarity.
In claim 7, lines 1-2, “an abnormality of a facility for performing a predetermined operation” should be --the abnormality of the facility for performing the predetermined operation-- to refers to their antecedent bases in claim 5.
In claim 7, lines 2-3, “using an abnormality determination model” should be --using the abnormality determination model-- to refers to its antecedent basis in claim 5.
In claim 7, lines 7-8, “an abnormality of the facility” should be --the abnormality of the facility-- for better clarity.
In claim 8, lines 4-5, “an abnormality of a facility performing a predetermined operation” should be --the abnormality of the facility performing the predetermined operation-- for better clarity.
In claim 8, lines 6-20, the limitations appear to be redundant because they are recited in the linking claim 5 already.
In claim 8, lines 21-22, “the time-series signal indicating an operation state of the facility” should be --the time-series signal indicating the operation state of the facility-- for better clarity.
In claim 9, line 7, “for the time-series signals clipped” should be --for the time-series signal clipped-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 9, line 11, “set an abnormality determination flag as a second type” should be --set the abnormality determination flag as a second type-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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: “a time-series signal clipping unit,” “a normal vector registration unit,” “an abnormality determination model registration unit,” and “an abnormality determination unit” plus their respectively recited functions in claim 1; “a time-series signal collection unit” and “a trigger condition decision model generation unit” plus their respectively recited functions in claim 2; and “a time-series signal clipping unit” and “an abnormality determination unit” plus their respectively recited functions in claim 9.
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. Specifically, each of the units is interpreted as a computing device (or equivalents) with programs for executing respective functions. See specification [0023].
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “K times of clipping” in line 5. K is not defined by the claim. For examination purpose, --K being a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “M types” in line 8. M is not defined by the claim. For examination purpose, --M being a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “each of the calculated transform coefficients of the principal component” in lines 20-21. There is no antecedent basis for “the calculated transform coefficients” (plural). For examination purpose, “each of the calculated transform coefficients of the principal component” in lines 20-21 is assumed to be --“one or more calculated transform coefficients of s--.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “the normal vectors” in line 30. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purpose, --one or more registered normal vectors-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “in ascending order of the distance” in line 31. However, there is only one distance (see line 29). It is unclear how to order the one distance in ascending order. For examination purpose, --in ascending order of a plurality of distances which includes the distance-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “based on the distance” in lines 34-35. However, there are multiple antecedent bases for “the distance.” For examination purpose, --based on the distance between the centroid vector of the neighboring data and the M-dimensional vector-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 2, it recites “having each value of one or more of the trigger candidate time-series signals at each time as an input and having the label data at each time as an output” in lines 14-15. There is no antecedent basis for “the trigger candidate time-series signals” (plural). Also, the limitation “each time” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --having each value of one or more of candidate time-series signals at each of one or more times as an input and having the label data at each of the one or more times as an output” is assumed.
Regarding claim 2, it recites “at the time of normal operation of and abnormality determination on the facility” in lines 17-18. It is unclear of the timing limitation recited. For examination purpose, --during the normal operation of the facility and at the time of abnormality determination on the facility-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 5, it recites “K times” in line 5. K is not defined by the claim. For examination purpose, --K being a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 5, it recites “M types” in line 8. M is not defined by the claim. For examination purpose, --M being a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 5, it recites “each calculated transform coefficient of the principal component” in lines 17-18. The limitation “each calculated transform coefficient” is too broad without clear boundaries, and it appears that there is only one transform coefficient of the principal component according to line 17. For examination purpose, --one or more calculated transform coefficients of s-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 6, it recites “having each value of one or more of the trigger candidate time-series signals at each time as an input and having the label data at each time as an output” in lines 11-13. There is not antecedent basis for “the trigger candidate time-series signals” (plural). Also, the limitation “each time” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --having each value of one or more of of one or more times as an input and having the label data at each of the one or more times as an output” is assumed.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “the normal vectors” in lines 13-14. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purpose, --one or more registered normal vectors-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “in ascending order of the distance” in line 14. However, there is only one distance (see lines 12-13). It is unclear how to order the one distance in ascending order. For examination purpose, --in ascending order of a plurality of distances that includes the distance-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “based on the distance” in lines 16-17. However, there are multiple antecedent bases for “the distance.” For examination purpose, --based on the distance between the centroid vector of the neighboring data and the M-dimensional vector-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 8, it recites “K times” in line 7. K is not defined by the claim. For examination purpose, --K being a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 8, it recites “M types” in line 10. M is not defined by the claim. For examination purpose, --M being a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 8, it recites “each calculated transform coefficient of the principal component” in lines 19-20. The limitation “each calculated transform coefficient” is too broad without clear boundaries, and it appears that there is only one transform coefficient of the principal component according to line 19. For examination purpose, --one or more calculated transform coefficients of s-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 8, it recites “having each value of one or more of the trigger candidate time-series signals at each time as an input and having the label data at each time as an output” in lines 29-31. There is not antecedent basis for “the trigger candidate time-series signals” (plural). Also, the limitation “each time” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --having each value of one or more of of one or more times as an input and having the label data at each of the one or more times as an output” is assumed.
Regarding claim 9, it recites “M types” in line 5. M is not defined by the claim. For examination purpose, --M being a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 9, it recites “in ascending order of the distance” in line 21. However, there is only one distance (see line 17). It is unclear how to order the one distance in ascending order. For examination purpose, --in ascending order of a plurality of distances which includes the distance-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 9, it recites “based on the distance” in line 24. However, there are multiple antecedent bases for “the distance.” For examination purpose, --based on the distance between the centroid vector of the neighboring data and the M-dimensional vector-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 10, it recites “having each value of one or more of trigger candidate time-series signals at each time as an input and having the label data at each time as an output” in lines 7-9. The limitation “each time” is too broad without clear boundaries. For examination purpose, --having each value of one or more of trigger candidate time-series signals at each of one or more times as an input and having the label data at each of the one or more times as an output” is assumed.
The other claim(s) not discussed above are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18265353 in view of HIRATA et al. (JP 2012128840 A; cited in IDS; machine translation provided) and/or Tian et al. ("Anomaly Detection Using Self-Organizing Maps-Based K-Nearest Neighbor Algorithm" EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF THE PROGNOSTICS AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT SOCIETY 2014). The reference application teaches substantially the current claims. Any differences are obvious variations, well-known, or obvious in view of HIRATA and/or Tian. The rejections under 35 USC 103 below are incorporated herein by reference to address the teaching from HIRATA and Tian.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
1. An abnormality determination apparatus for determining an abnormality of a facility performing a predetermined operation, the abnormality determination apparatus comprising:
a time-series signal clipping unit configured to perform, during normal operation of the facility, K times of clipping from two or more time-series signals indicating an operation state of the facility;
a normal vector registration unit configured to
set M types as types of two or more time-series signals clipped by the time-series signal clipping unit,
construct an M-dimensional vector including M types of variables at a same time, and
register the constructed vector as a normal vector;
an abnormality determination model registration unit configured to
set an abnormality determination flag as a first type when a maximum value of correlation between variables is less than a predetermined value,
set an abnormality determination flag as a second type when the maximum value of correlation between the variables is the predetermined value or more, and
perform, when the abnormality determination flag is of the second type, a principal component analysis on a registered normal vector group to calculate a transform coefficient of a principal component and register each of the calculated transform coefficients of the principal component as an abnormality determination model; and
an abnormality determination unit configured to determine an abnormality of the facility,
wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to construct, at a time of abnormality determination of the facility, one M-dimensional vector from a time-series signal clipped similarly to the time during normal operation,
when the abnormality determination flag is of the first type, the abnormality determination unit is configured to
calculate a distance from the registered normal vector,
extract a predetermined number of the normal vectors as neighboring data in ascending order of the distance,
calculate a distance between a centroid vector of the neighboring data and an M-dimensional vector as a target of abnormality determination, and
perform abnormality determination on the facility based on the distance, and
when the abnormality determination flag is of the second type, the abnormality determination unit is configured to
calculate a deviation from the principal component based on the transform coefficient of the principal component calculated in advance, and
perform abnormality determination on the facility based on the deviation.
The above bold-faced limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined above. However these are interpreted to be a generic computer or equivalents (see claim interpretation above). It is to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites the limitations beginning from “a time-series signal clipping step of performing, during normal operation of the facility, K times of clipping from two or more time-series signals indicating an operation state of the facility” to the end of the claim. These are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, no additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9, similar to claim 1, recites an abnormality determination apparatus, comprising various physical “units” for performing functions that are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper). The various units can be a generic computer to facilitate the execution of the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is similarly rejected.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
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 (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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRATA et al. (JP 2012128840 A; cited in IDS; machine translation provided; hereinafter “HIRATA).
Regarding claim 5, HIRATA teaches an abnormality determination model generation method of generating a model for determining an abnormality of a facility performing a predetermined operation (i.e., “The present invention relates to an abnormality monitoring system and an abnormality monitoring method for detecting an abnormality of a plant facility based on time series data obtained from the plant facility”; see translation [0001]), the abnormality determination model generation method comprising:
a time-series signal clipping step of performing, during normal operation of the facility, K times of clipping from two or more time-series signals indicating an operation state of the facility (i.e., “during a normal operation in a manufacturing process … L samples are obtained from each of the time-series data”; see [0011]);
a normal vector registration step of setting types of two or more time-series signals clipped in the time-series signal clipping step as M types, constructing an M-dimensional vector including M types of variables at a same time, and registering the constructed vector as a normal vector (i.e., “L samples are obtained from each of the time-series data of the section in which the predetermined operation of M types (M ≧ 1) obtained from the constant operation equipment at the time of normal operation is performed”; see [0011]); and
an abnormality determination model registration step of determining a first type in a case where a maximum value of correlation between variables is less than a predetermined value (i.e., “if the maximum value of the correlation coefficient is less than a predetermined threshold value, the mean and variance of each variable are calculated using the constant motion equipment as a first model,”; see [0009]), determining a second type in a case where the maximum value of correlation between variables is the predetermined value or more, and in a case where the determination is of the second type, performing a principal component analysis on a registered normal vector group to calculate a transform coefficient of a principal component and registering each calculated transform coefficient of the principal component as an abnormality determination model (i.e., “the correlation Maximum number In the case of a predetermined threshold value or more, a monitoring index creating means for calculating principal component conversion coefficients by performing principal component analysis on each variable using the constant operation facility as a second model”; see [0009]).
HIRATA does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
setting an abnormality determination flag to a first type; and
setting the abnormality determination flag to a second type; and
in a case where the abnormality determination flag is of the second type.
The difference is using a flag to keep track of the determination of the first or second type. However, it is well-known to save a determination result (i.e., first type or second type) in a register (i.e., flag). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIRATA to incorporate a flag accordingly as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate tracking the result of the determined type.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRATA in view of Tian et al. ("Anomaly Detection Using Self-Organizing Maps-Based K-Nearest Neighbor Algorithm" EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF THE PROGNOSTICS AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT SOCIETY 2014; hereinafter “Tian”).
Regarding claim 1, HIRATA teaches an abnormality determination apparatus for determining an abnormality of a facility performing a predetermined operation (i.e., “The present invention relates to an abnormality monitoring system and an abnormality monitoring method for detecting an abnormality of a plant facility based on time series data obtained from the plant facility”; see translation [0001]), the abnormality determination apparatus comprising:
a time-series signal clipping unit (i.e., “a general-purpose computer”; see [0016]) configured to perform, during normal operation of the facility, K times of clipping from two or more time-series signals indicating an operation state of the facility (i.e., “during a normal operation in a manufacturing process … L samples are obtained from each of the time-series data”; see [0011]);
a normal vector registration unit (i.e., “a general-purpose computer”; see [0016]) configured to
set M types as types of two or more time-series signals clipped by the time-series signal clipping unit (i.e., “L samples are obtained from each of the time-series data of the section in which the predetermined operation of M types (M ≧ 1) obtained from the constant operation equipment at the time of normal operation is performed”; see [0011]),
construct an M-dimensional vector including M types of variables at a same time (i.e., “A normal pattern extracting step of obtaining a point in the M × L dimensional space determined by the M × L type variable as a normal pattern”; see [0011]), and
register the constructed vector as a normal vector (i.e., “A normal pattern extracting step of obtaining a point in the M × L dimensional space determined by the M × L type variable as a normal pattern”; see [0011]);
an abnormality determination model registration unit (i.e., “a general-purpose computer”; see [0016]) configured to
determine a first type when a maximum value of correlation between variables is less than a predetermined value (i.e., “if the maximum value of the correlation coefficient is less than a predetermined threshold value, the mean and variance of each variable are calculated using the constant motion equipment as a first model,”; see [0009]),
determine a second type when the maximum value of correlation between the variables is the predetermined value or more (i.e., “the correlation Maximum number In the case of a predetermined threshold value or more, a monitoring index creating means for calculating principal component conversion coefficients by performing principal component analysis on each variable using the constant operation facility as a second model”; see [0009]), and
perform, when the determined type is of the second type, a principal component analysis on a registered normal vector group to calculate a transform coefficient of a principal component and register each of the calculated transform coefficients of the principal component as an abnormality determination model (i.e., “the maximum value of the correlation coefficient is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold No. A monitoring index creation step of calculating principal component conversion coefficients by performing principal component analysis on each variable as a model”; see [0011]; see, also, [0009] for similar context); and
an abnormality determination unit configured to determine an abnormality of the facility (i.e., “The online diagnostic system 3 is realized by using a general-purpose computer”; see [0021]; “determining an abnormality of the constant operation equipment based on the deviation degree calculated by the operating time deviation calculation step”; see [0011]),
wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to construct, at a time of abnormality determination of the facility, one M-dimensional vector from a time-series signal clipped similarly to the time during normal operation (i.e., “a section in which the M kinds of predetermined operations obtained from the constant operation equipment are performed during operation The M × L type variable is acquired from each of the series data, and the operation time pattern extraction step using the point in the M × L dimensional space determined by the M × L type variable as the operation time pattern, and the constant operation facility”; see [0011]),
when the determined type is of the first type (i.e., “first model”; see [0011]), the abnormality determination unit is configured to
calculate a distance between a centroid vector (i.e., average) of the neighboring data and an M-dimensional vector as a target of abnormality determination (i.e., “a section in which the M kinds of predetermined operations obtained from the constant operation equipment are performed during operation The M × L type variable is acquired from each of the series data, and the operation time pattern extraction step using the point in the M × L dimensional space determined by the M × L type variable as the operation time pattern, and the constant operation facility Is the first model, the Mahalanobis distance of the operating pattern is calculated as a deviation based on the average and variance of the normal pattern acquired in the monitoring index creating step, and the constant operation facility”; see [0011]), and
perform abnormality determination on the facility based on the distance (i.e., “a determination step of determining an abnormality of the constant operation equipment based on the deviation degree”; see [0011]; note that in the first model, the distance is the deviation), and
when the
calculate a deviation from the principal component based on the transform coefficient of the principal component calculated in advance (i.e., “the second model. In this case, the deviation from the main component of the operating pattern is calculated as the deviation based on the conversion factor of the main component of the normal pattern”; see [0011]), and
perform abnormality determination on the facility based on the deviation (i.e., “a determination step of determining an abnormality of the constant operation equipment based on the deviation degree”; see [0011]).
HIRATA does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
set an abnormality determination flag as a first type and a second type respectively;
when the abnormality determination flag is of the second type; and
when the abnormality determination flag is of the second type.
The difference is using a flag to keep track of the determination of the first or second type. However, it is well-known to save a determination result (i.e., first type or second type) in a register (i.e., flag). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIRATA to incorporate a flag accordingly as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate tracking the result of the determined type.
HIRATA does not explicitly disclose:
calculate a distance from the registered normal vector, and
extract a predetermined number of the normal vectors as neighboring data in ascending order of the distance.
The difference is that the distance to the centroid is calculated based on a predetermined number of nearest neighbors.
But Tian teaches:
calculating a health indicator based on a Euclidean distance between test data observation and centroid of k-nearest neighbors of normal reference (i.e., “A main task is to select the BMUs that form the subset as the normal reference. In this study, the BMUs in the subset are selected as the nearest neighbors of the test data observation… where KNN is only used to identify the nearest neighbors in the reference BMUs. The distance of the test data observation to the centroid of the identified neighbors is calculated… In this study this distance is called KNN distance. It is used as the health indicator”; see p. 4, col. 1, ¶¶ 4-5).
Also, in order to determine the k-nearest neighbors, it is necessary or obvious to calculate the distance to each neighbor, rank the neighbors by distances in ascending order, and select the k-nearest neighbors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HIRATA in view of Tian to configure the abnormality determination unit to calculate a distance from the registered normal vector, and extract a predetermined number of the normal vectors as neighboring data in ascending order of the distance, as claimed. The rationale would be to substitute the distance-to-centroid calculation method for its predicted capability of abnormality detection.
Regarding claim 4, HIRATA further teaches:
wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to determine necessity of repair of the facility based on a frequency of determinations at which the facility has been determined to be abnormal in a predetermined period (i.e., “determines whether the constant operation facility needs to be repaired based on the number of times that the constant operation facility is determined to be abnormal in a predetermined period”; see [0009]).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 in terms of the underlying further limitations involved (i.e., abnormality determination unit/method) and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites substantive limitations the same as a portion of claim 1 in terms of the method involved, and is rejected by applying the same teachings for the portion of limitations.
Notes
Regarding claim 7, it recites “using an abnormality determination model generated by the abnormality determination model generation method according to claim 5” in lines 2-4. It is interpreted that the claim requires or incorporates the full method of claim 5 to generate the abnormality determination model. Therefore, the claim is a proper dependent claim of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(d).
Claims 2, 6, 8, and 10 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 8, and 10, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 2 (as the representative): “a trigger condition decision model generation unit configured to specify beforehand a start time of the monitoring target section at which clipping regarding the time-series signal indicating an operation state of the facility is performed, generate label data having ON for a label of the start time and OFF for other times, and generate, by machine learning, a trigger condition decision model having each value of one or more of the trigger candidate time-series signals at each time as an input and having the label data at each time as an output,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. HIRATA and Tian are silent of the above indicated features. ISHIKAWA (US 20200393812 A1) teaches a technique of extracting a section signal of a specific sub-process, involving an extraction unit for extracting a specific subsequence to be an object of anomaly detection from among a plurality of subsequences from a composite sequence by a dynamic time warping method. However, ISHIKAWA is still different from the above indicated features as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HIRATA et al. (JP 2013214292 A) teaches a method of detecting an abnormality of a monitoring facility, involving extracting much normal data by making data having the same timing into a pair of pieces of normal data, from the time series data of plural signals obtained from the facility at a normal operation; and determining the abnormality of the facility on the basis of degree of deviation of the monitoring object data from a distribution of normal data based on a predetermined number of normal data extracted in ascending order of the distance from the monitoring target data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857