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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
Specification
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY INFORMATION RECORDING MEDIUM WITH COMPUTER-READABLE INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM RECORDED FOR ABNORMALITY DETECTION AND MONITORING IN A PROCESS LINE
Claim Objections
3. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 5, it recites the limitation “the estimator” which is unclear what the limitation refers which causes a postal antecedent basis issue.
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.
4. 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.
Claim 5 recites “estimator”.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation:
Specification paragraph [0064] of PG PUB states:
[0064] FIG. 4 is a block diagram that schematically illustrates exemplified software elements of process analyzer 1 according to the embodiment. … As a result of that, process analyzer 1 according to this embodiment includes the following elements illustrated in FIG. 4 as software modules; first obtaining unit 111, second obtaining unit 112, third obtaining unit 113, first relationship identifier 114, second relationship identifier 115, third relationship identifier 116, abnormality detector 117, contribution ratio calculator 118, estimator 119, event-related matter registration unit 120, event estimator 121, and display 122.
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.
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.
5. Claim 6 is 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.
As per Claim 6, it recites the limitation " a degree of similarity" which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “similarity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
6. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claims 1-6 are directed to an information processing device comprising a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a memory storing a program therefore are a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim 7 recites steps or acts including estimating an abnormality causal factor; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim 8 is directed a non-transitory information recording medium which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claims 1 and 7-8 recite:
generating a plurality of cause-and-effect models between variables based on a relationship between a plurality of mechanisms in a production process of a production line, a dependency between a plurality of events associated with the plurality of mechanisms, or a control-based relationship between the plurality of mechanisms (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example drawing a component);
obtaining a result of abnormality detection in the production line (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
calculating a contribution ratio of the variable contributing to abnormality in the result of abnormality detection (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example drawing a component); and
estimating an abnormality causal factor for at least one of the plurality of cause- and-effect models based on the calculated contribution ratio of the variable contributing to abnormality (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, mathematical concepts and mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example drawing a component).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “An information processing device comprising a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a memory storing a program” (Claim 1) and “A non-transitory information recording medium with a computer-readable information processing program recorded thereon, the information processing program causing the computer to execute” (Claim 8) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a memory storing a program” does not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Further the additional elements of “production process of a production line” and “the plasma processing tool is an etch tool, a deposition tool, or an ion implant tool” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1 and 19-20 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “obtaining a result of abnormality detection in the production line (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)”.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “An information processing device comprising a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a memory storing a program” (Claim 1) and “A non-transitory information recording medium with a computer-readable information processing program recorded thereon, the information processing program causing the computer to execute” (Claim 8) which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional elements of “production process of a production line” and “the plasma processing tool is an etch tool, a deposition tool, or an ion implant tool” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further as discussed above Claims 1 and 7-8 recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93): “obtaining a result of abnormality detection in the production line (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)”.
Further dependent claims 2-6 recite:
(Claim 2) wherein the CPU is configured to display the abnormality causal factor estimated for the at least one of the plurality of cause-and-effect models based on a result of estimation. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting)
(Claim 3) wherein the CPU is configured to receive an input from a user of a selected one of the plurality of cause-and-effect models, (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering) and
display the abnormality causal factor estimated for the selected one of the plurality of cause-and-effect models (insignificant extra-solution activity – data outputting) based on the result of estimation in response to reception of the input of the selected one of the plurality of cause-and-effect models. (mental process)
(Claim 4) wherein the CPU is configured to register an event list for an abnormal event. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering/outputting)
(Claim 5) wherein the event list includes pieces of information including: an event outline, event data of a generated event, the estimation result of the estimator, a confirmed event associated with the plurality of mechanisms, details of an event activity, and the contribution ratio of the variable contributing to abnormality. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering/outputting)
(Claim 6) wherein the CPU is configured to calculate a degree of similarity to the registered event list based on the calculated contribution ratio of the variable contributing to abnormality. (mental process)
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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.
7. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanaka et al. (JP 2018120343 A).
As per Claim 1 and 7-8, Yamanaka et al. teaches a method/ non-transitory information recording medium information processing device comprising a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a memory storing a program (Fig. 1 & 4, “The process diagnostic device 2 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a memory, an auxiliary storage device,”, “process diagnosis apparatus” on Pg 4-6 ), the CPU being configured to
generate a plurality of cause-and-effect models between variables based on a relationship between a plurality of mechanisms in a production process of a production line, a dependency between a plurality of events associated with the plurality of mechanisms, or a control-based relationship between the plurality of mechanisms (“The abnormality diagnosis model construction unit 206 constructs an abnormality diagnosis model based on the process data acquired from the diagnosis target process.” on Pg 5),
obtain a result of abnormality detection in the production line (“The abnormality detection unit 207 detects an abnormality of the diagnosis target process based on the process data acquired from the diagnosis target process and the constructed abnormality diagnosis model. The abnormality detection unit 207 outputs the detection result” on Pg 5),
calculate a contribution ratio of the variable contributing to abnormality in the result of abnormality detection (“The contribution amount defining unit 213 generates contribution amount definition information that defines the contribution amount of each registered variable with respect to the abnormality detection data defined based on the abnormality detection data definition information. The contribution amount definition unit 213 outputs the generated contribution amount definition information” on Pg 5), and
estimate an abnormality causal factor for at least one of the plurality of cause-and-effect models based on the calculated contribution ratio of the variable contributing to abnormality (“the support information extraction unit 232 estimates an event that may be a cause of the detected abnormality based on the contribution rate of each registered variable and the abnormality definition information, and relates to the estimated abnormality” on Pg 6).
As per Claim 2, Yamanaka et al. teaches wherein the CPU is configured to display the abnormality causal factor estimated for the at least one of the plurality of cause-and-effect models based on a result of estimation (“The support information providing unit 208 transmits the generated support information to the user terminal.” on Pg 6; “the abnormality definition information input unit 203 displays a user interface as shown in FIG. 5 or FIG. 6 when an abnormality in which the cause of an abnormal event is unknown (or is highly likely) is detected. It may be configured to be displayed.” on Pg 14).
As per Claim 3, Yamanaka et al. teaches wherein the CPU is configured to receive an input from a user of a selected one of the plurality of cause-and-effect models (“the user interface may be provided as an input screen displayed on the user terminal. ” Pg 7; “constructs an abnormality diagnosis model based on… The predetermined period may be set by the user.” On Pg 8), and
display the abnormality causal factor estimated for the selected one of the plurality of cause-and-effect models based on the result of estimation in response to reception of the input of the selected one of the plurality of cause-and-effect models (“since the amount of rain and sewage inflow are included in the factors, the amount of sewage inflow increases with rainfall, and oxygen contained in rainwater deteriorates the state of the anaerobic tank 102 and anaerobic tank 103. Can be estimated. Based on such a determination, the user determines that the detected abnormality is air mixing into the anaerobic tank 102 and the anaerobic tank 103, and a new “anaerobic / anoxic tank air mixing” is entered in the input area A2. Enter the name of the abnormal even” on Pg 7).
As per Claim 4, Yamanaka et al. teaches wherein the CPU is configured to register an event list for an abnormal event (“By such an operation, a new abnormal event “anaerobic / anoxic tank aeration” is registered in the process diagnosis apparatus 2. Specifically, abnormality definition information as shown in FIG. 5B is newly registered” on Pg 7).
As per Claim 5, Yamanaka et al. teaches wherein the event list includes pieces of information including: an event outline, event data of a generated event, the estimation result of the estimator, a confirmed event associated with the plurality of mechanisms, details of an event activity, and the contribution ratio of the variable contributing to abnormality (“the contribution rate of each registered variable …with respect to the event to be registered… the name of the abnormal event…. a new abnormal event “anaerobic / anoxic tank aeration” …abnormality definition information as shown in FIG. 5B is newly registered” on Pg 7).
As per Claim 6, Yamanaka et al. teaches wherein the CPU is configured to calculate a degree of similarity to the registered event list based on the calculated contribution ratio of the variable contributing to abnormality (“the support information extraction unit 232 generates support information related to the detected abnormality based on the contribution rate estimated for each registered variable and the predefined abnormality definition information… using an inference engine”, “a certain abnormality can be estimated in a form with probabilistic accuracy”, “an inference method such as TBM (Transferable BeliefModel)” on Pg 12-13).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noskov et al. (US 20190318288 A1)
AMBICHL et al. (US 20170075749 A1)
Vedam et al. (PCA-SDG based process monitoring and fault diagnosis.”)
Amin MT. “An integrated methodology for fault detection, root cause diagnosis, and propagation pathway analysis in chemical process systems.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188