DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling an RCE request on 03/11/2026.
The application has claims 1-22 present. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21 have been amended. All present claims have been examined.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn as necessitated by the claim amendments.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a “Method” comprising steps that may be mental process (prong 1). The overall process presented in the claim is receiving information of a worker location and a production apparatus status and use that information to associate and generate a time chart representation. See par. 25-26 of the specification. The steps taken provide an opportunity identify productivity data associated to the workers and worked done using the machinery.
Limitations under prong 1:
The specific limitations of
- accumulating…. Time in a first combination of the location…. (this can be accomplished mentally).
Limitations under prong 2:
“Receiving… information on a location of a worker…. State of a production apparatus as, mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Associating signal… with time information, mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Storing… time information as measurement data, is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of "displaying… an accumulated time”, is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Step 2B – not significant more.
Thus, the recited “Method” is an abstract idea in that it is not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and it does not transform a particular article into a different state or thing. Furthermore, the additional element of using a computer as a tool to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the recited method is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2: “processing the measurement data…. and displaying…. an accumulated-time matrix…” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 3: “accepting… a selection… and displaying… an alert setting screen” further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 4: “wherein the alert setting screen contains information on an allowable range of the accumulated time or information on an alert process executed if the accumulated time exceeds the allowable range” further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claims 5: “accepting, by the information processing apparatus, registration of the information on the allowable range of the accumulated time or the information on the alert process executed if the accumulated time exceeds the allowable range, via the alert setting screen” further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 6: “displaying, by the information processing apparatus, a time-series chart in which occurrence times of combinations” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 7: “displaying, by the information processing apparatus, a maintenance recommendation time” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 8: “executing, by the information processing apparatus, a preset process if an accumulated time in a second combination of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus becomes out of an allowable range that is set for the second combination.” (display an alert when the accumulated time becomes out of allowable range) further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 9: “wherein the preset process is a process that issues an alert” (display an alert when the accumulated time becomes out of allowable range) further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim has the limitation as per claim 1 in a non-transitory medium, as such is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 11 recites a “Apparatus” comprising steps that may be mental process (prong 1). The overall process presented in the claim is receiving information of a worker location and a production apparatus status and use that information to associate and generate a time chart representation. See par. 25-26 of the specification. The steps taken provide an opportunity identify productivity data associated to the workers and worked done using the machinery.
Limitations under prong 1:
The specific limitations of
Process the measurement data… with reference to the time information (this can be accomplished mentally)
Limitations under prong 2:
“first and second signal… information on a location of a worker…. State of a production apparatus, as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of "display an accumulation time…”, is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
Step 2B – not significant more.
Thus, the recited “Apparatus” is an abstract idea in that it is not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and it does not transform a particular article into a different state or thing. Furthermore, the additional element of using a computer as a tool to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the recited apparatus is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12: “processing the measurement data… and displaying…. an accumulated-time matrix…” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 13: “accepting… a selection… and displaying… an alert setting screen” further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 14: “wherein the alert setting screen contains information on an allowable range of the accumulated time or information on an alert process executed if the accumulated time exceeds the allowable range” further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claims 15: “accepting, by the information processing apparatus, registration of the information on the allowable range of the accumulated time or the information on the alert process executed if the accumulated time exceeds the allowable range, via the alert setting screen; and register the information on the allowable range of the accumulated time or the information on the alert process, in a storage portion.” further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 16: “display portion to display a time-series chart in which occurrence times of the combination of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus are displayed in time series.” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 17: “display a maintenance recommendation time…” further describes the abstract idea for displaying as previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 18: “a preset process if an accumulated time in a second combination of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus becomes out of an allowable range that is set for the second combination.” (display an alert when the accumulated time becomes out of allowable range) further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 19: “wherein the preset process is a process that issues an alert” (display an alert when the accumulated time becomes out of allowable range) further describes the abstract idea as is interpreted as merely using instructions or a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims 20-22 recite the limitation as per claim 11 in system and method form, as such these claims are rejected along the same rationale.
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(s) 1-6, 8-16, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga (US 20210166180), in view of Kang (KR 20190041651) English translation provided.
In regards to claims (1, 10, 11), Matsunaga teaches a method of controlling an information processing apparatus, including a processor the method comprising: receiving, a first signal output from a first sensor, wherein the first signal includes information on a location of a worker associated with the time information (see para 8-12, 50: on para 8 teaches “a work identification unit that identifies a work content and a working hour of a worker based on time-series data of position information of the worker at least in a work region”. Para 11 teaches “a position information acquisition device that acquires position information of a worker in at least a work region as time-series data”. On para 50 teaches “the work evaluation system according to the present embodiment, a work content of a worker is identified based on a work position of the worker by acquiring position information of the worker in the work region S. Further, in a case where at least the position information of the worker in the work region S is acquired as time-series data, it is possible to identify where the worker currently stays in the work region S and to where the worker moved”. On para 64 teaches “motion information of the body part of the worker may be information based on a measurement value of a sensor that can detect the movement or posture of the body part, such as an acceleration sensor. Further, information acquired by spatial scanning such as LiDAR may be used as the motion information of the body part of the worker. The motion information of the body part of the worker that is acquired by the motion information acquisition device is output to the information processing apparatus”),
and information on a state of a production apparatus (see abstract and at least para 8-12, 51-52, 75, 153; time information associated to worker and production apparatus. On para 51 teaches “Examples of the work result information include the number of products (that is, a production amount) processed in the work lines L1 to L3, a quality of a processed product, and the like. Such work result information of the work lines L1 to L3 can be acquired by, for example, capturing an image of a product conveyed on the line with an image capturing device, and the like“. On para 153 teaches “the worker can include a factory machine. A machine can also be considered as a worker in a wide sense, and it is also possible to evaluate a work status by using the work evaluation system of the present technology based on data indicating an operating status of the machine”); and
displaying, by the processor, the accumulated time in the first combination of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus on a display screen (see FIG. 5-8 and at least para 82-95: presents quantified information based on the data from the worker and the production apparatus. On Para 94 teaches “the quantified information generation unit 115 may record the generated quantified information in the quantified information DB 125, or may perform processing of outputting the quantified information to the output unit 43 to present the quantified information to an operator or the like”).
Matsunaga teach state of production as shown above, but doesn’t specifically teach a second signal from a second sensor, the second signal includes information on a state of a production apparatus indicating whether the production apparatus is operating normally; associating the first signal with time information and the second signal with time information: storing the first signal associated with the time information and the second signal associates with the time information as measurement data; accumulating, by the processor, time in a first combination of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus by using the measurement data.
Kang teaches a second signal from a second sensor, wherein the second signal includes information on a state of a production apparatus indicating whether the production apparatus is operating normally (see at least para 12-13: obtaining operation data from worker and of each machine. On para 17 teaches accurately identifying the causes and responsibilities for machine errors or product errors. On para 66 teaches “machine operation information collection unit (240) of the server (200) may collect operation data of the machine (10) in real time from the sensor assembly (100) and analyze whether there are errors in the machine (10) and errors in the products produced by the machine (10). At this time, the machine operation information collection unit (240) can derive a pattern from the operation data collected over the entire time after the machine (10) is operated, and analyze whether there is an error in the machine (10) and an error in the product by comparing the operation data collected thereafter with the pattern.);
associating the first signal with time information and the second signal with time information (see at least para 30 and 74: On para 74 teaches collect worker movement information from the recognition sensor and machine operation data from the sensor assembly (100), and by combining these, it can refer to the machine error and product error status and the time-based location information of the worker device together.): storing the first signal associated with the time information and the second signal associates with the time information as measurement data; accumulating, by the processor, time in a first combination of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus by using the measurement data (see at least para 12-13, 17, 26, 30, 64-65, 70, 72-74. On para 12-13 teaches obtaining operation data from worker and of each machine. On para 17 teaches accurately identifying the causes and responsibilities for machine errors or product errors. Para 26: sensor data for operation data of a machine. Para 30 teaches analyzing the associated data timed based location information for each worker and the operation data of each machine. On para 63-64 teaches worker and location data is associated with time based on sensor data received. On para 70 transmit operation status. On para 72: “the server (200) can store the data pattern of the measurement value for a predetermined time before the malfunction occurred and derive a statistical value”. On para 74 teaches collect worker movement information from the recognition sensor and machine operation data from the sensor assembly (100), and by combining these, it can refer to the machine error and product error status and the time-based location information of the worker device together).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Kang in combination with Matsunaga, since by doing so it would provide a system improvement for obtaining data with sensors, storing and analyzing data associated to the status of the machine and the worker, and thus enhancing the determination associated to the status and providing evidence of the associated data and determinations (see para 31 and 52).
In regards to claims (2 and 12) although Matsunaga teaches displaying the data as taught above (see FIG. 5-8 and at least para 82-95), it doesn’t specifically teach processing the measurement data with reference to the time information by the processor; and displaying, by the processor, an accumulated-time matrix that contains accumulated times obtained in a plurality of combinations of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus, including the first combination, on the display screen, by using a result of the processing the measurement data.
However, Kang teaches processing the measurement data with reference to the time information by the processor; and displaying, by the processor, an accumulated-time matrix that contains accumulated times obtained in a plurality of combinations of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus, including the first combination, on the display screen, by using a result of the processing the measurement data (see at least para 63 mentions providing the information as table of time and space. On para 73: mentions that on different occasions the data can be store for multiple incidents. On para 17 teaches accurately identifying the causes and responsibilities for machine errors or product errors. Para 26: sensor data for operation data of a machine. Para 30 teaches analyzing the associated data timed based location information for each worker and the operation data of each machine. On para 63-64 teaches worker and location data is associated with time based on sensor data received. On para 70 transmit operation status. On para 72-73: “the server (200) can store the data pattern of the measurement value for a predetermined time before the malfunction occurred and derive a statistical value”. On para 74 teaches collect worker movement information from the recognition sensor and machine operation data from the sensor assembly (100), and by combining these, it can refer to the machine error and product error status and the time-based location information of the worker device together. Para 73” Information analyzed on the server can be provided to the administrator terminal in accordance with the administrator UI).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Kang in combination with Matsunaga, since by doing so it would provide a system improvement by obtaining, storing and analyzing data associated to the status of the machine and the worker and providing results to user or administrator, thus enhancing the determination associated to the status and providing evidence of the associated data and determinations (see para 31 and 52).
In regards to claims (3 and 13), although Matsunaga doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: accepting, by the processor, a selection of any of the plurality of combinations of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus in the accumulated-time matrix; and displaying, by the information processing apparatus, an alert setting screen that corresponds to a combination selected from the plurality of combinations.
Matsunaga does teach an interface which allows a user to make selections of multiple criteria that are used to set a notification to be presented based on the different criteria (see para 139: a rule of determination processing performed as the real-time processing may be appropriately set with items such as a “target (who)”, a “position (where)”, an “action (what)”, and a “time (when)” according to a content to be detected. For example, it is possible to set a rule such that abnormality notification is made in a case where “a product inspection worker (who) leaves (what) a product inspection area (where) during operation of the line (when)”. As for the “target (who)”, an individual worker may be set or a job position may be set. As for the “action (what)”, various actions can be set, and a more specific action such as “leaving for 5 minutes” may be set.)
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings Matsunaga in order to be able to make the selection associated with state of the production apparatus in the accumulated-time matrix and set an alert rule, since it would provide a performance improvement by notifying when a user or operation is not performing on the set parameters which would cause to be remedied by the worker or operation as needed.
In regards to claims (4 and 14), Matsunaga further teaches wherein the alert setting screen contains information on an allowable range of the accumulated time or information on an alert process executed if the accumulated time exceeds the allowable range (see para 139: exceeding a range e.g. it is possible to set a rule such that abnormality notification is made in a case where “a product inspection worker (who) leaves (what) a product inspection area (where) during operation of the line (when)”. As for the “target (who)”, an individual worker may be set or a job position may be set. As for the “action (what)”, various actions can be set, and a more specific action such as “leaving for 5 minutes” may be set).
In regards to claims (5 and 15), Matsunaga further teaches the method further comprising: accepting, by the information processing apparatus, registration of the information on the allowable range of the accumulated time or the information on the alert process executed if the accumulated time exceeds the allowable range, via the alert setting screen (see para 139: a rule of determination processing performed as the real-time processing may be appropriately set with items such as a “target (who)”, a “position (where)”, an “action (what)”, and a “time (when)” according to a content to be detected. For example, it is possible to set a rule such that abnormality notification is made in a case where “a product inspection worker (who) leaves (what) a product inspection area (where) during operation of the line (when)”. As for the “target (who)”, an individual worker may be set or a job position may be set. As for the “action (what)”, various actions can be set, and a more specific action such as “leaving for 5 minutes” may be set.).
In regards to claims (6 and 16), Matsunaga teaches discloses the method further comprising: displaying, by the processor, a time-series chart in which occurrence times of combinations of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus are displayed in time series (see FIG. 5-8 and at least para 82-95: the system uses the information and generated accumulated time representation/graph).
In regards to claims (8 and 18), Matsunaga teaches discloses the method further comprising: executing, by the information processing apparatus, a preset process if an accumulated time in a combination of the location of the worker and the state of the production apparatus becomes out of an allowable range that is set for the combination (see para 133-139: provides a process that determines if meeting parameters on an allowable range based on the worker and production apparatus. Para 84-86 teaches).
Although Matsunaga doesn’t specifically teach a second combination. It does teach that the rule determination can be set to different specified times (see para 139. Also, the data is presented for workers for certain time spans e.g. one day see para 17. Thus the data can be seen and determinations can be made for a different time or day which would make it a “second or different combination”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings of Matsunaga, since it provides means to execute preset processes and different times, which enhances the capabilities to set preset actions to multiple times.
In regards to claims (9 and 19), Matsunaga teaches discloses wherein the preset process is a process that issues an alert (see para 133-139: provides a process that determines if meeting parameters on an allowable range based on the worker and production apparatus and issues an alert/notification based on the determination).
In regards to claim 20, Matsunaga teaches all the limitations on claim 11 and further discloses. An information processing system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 11; a node apparatus configured to transmit a measurement value related to the location of the worker as the first signal or a measurement value related to the state of the production apparatus as the second signal (see abstract and at least para 8-12, 51-52; time information associated to worker and production apparatus. On para 8 teaches “a work identification unit that identifies a work content and a working hour of a worker based on time-series data of position information of the worker at least in a work region”. Para 11 teaches “a position information acquisition device that acquires position information of a worker in at least a work region as time-series data”. On para 50 teaches “the work evaluation system according to the present embodiment, a work content of a worker is identified based on a work position of the worker by acquiring position information of the worker in the work region S. Further, in a case where at least the position information of the worker in the work region S is acquired as time-series data, it is possible to identify where the worker currently stays in the work region S and to where the worker moved”. On para 64 teaches “motion information of the body part of the worker may be information based on a measurement value of a sensor that can detect the movement or posture of the body part, such as an acceleration sensor. Further, information acquired by spatial scanning such as LiDAR may be used as the motion information of the body part of the worker. The motion information of the body part of the worker that is acquired by the motion information acquisition device is output to the information processing apparatus”); and a gateway apparatus configured to transmit the first or second signal from the node apparatus to the information processing apparatus (see FIG. 2, and at least para 58, 61-62, “The acquired information is output to an information processing apparatus 100 via a network 10, and analyzed”).
In regards to claim 21, Matsunaga teaches all the limitations on claim 20 as shown above and the production apparatus and the first or second sensor (see abstract and at least para 8-12, 50, 64: On para 64 teaches “motion information of the body part of the worker may be information based on a measurement value of a sensor that can detect the movement or posture of the body part, such as an acceleration sensor. Further, information acquired by spatial scanning such as LiDAR may be used as the motion information of the body part of the worker. The motion information of the body part of the worker that is acquired by the motion information acquisition device is output to the information processing apparatus”).
In regards to claim 22, Matsunaga and Kang teaches all the limitations on claim 21 as shown above and a method of manufacturing products comprising: producing products by using the production system (see abstract and at least para 11 : “information processing apparatus including a work identification unit that identifies a work content and a working hour of the worker based on the time-series data of the position information of the worker in the work region, and a quantified information generation unit that generates quantified information quantitatively expressing a work status of the worker, based on the time-series data of the production amount on the work line corresponding to the identified work content, and the working hour of the worker”),
Matsunaga doesn’t specifically teach monitoring the state of the production apparatus by using the sensor.
Kang teaches monitoring the state of the production apparatus by using the sensor (see at least para 30 and 74: On para 74 teaches collect worker movement information from the recognition sensor and machine operation data from the sensor assembly (100), and by combining these, it can refer to the machine error and product error status and the time-based location information of the worker device together.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Kang with the teachings of Matsunaga, since it provides means to monitor apparatus using a known technique, which facilitates how status information is obtained in a production apparatus or target device.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga in view of Kang, as applied to claim 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 20200142365).
In regards to claims (7 and 17), Matsunaga doesn’t specifically teach further comprising: displaying, by the information processing apparatus, a maintenance recommendation time of the production apparatus in the time-series chart by performing extrapolation.
Sharma teaches further comprising: displaying, by the information processing apparatus, a maintenance recommendation time of the production apparatus in the time-series chart by performing extrapolation (see para 120, 174: teaches a system that analyses all received data associated to machinery. The system performs data analysis of time series data. Further the system can provide within an interface recommendation to perform maintenance to physical devices based on determinations associated to data analysis).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Sharma for data analysis and recommendations based on received data to the teachings of Matsunaga, since it would enhance the system and provide a performance improvement to the system over others by providing means which allows workers/management to known when maintenance is needed based on the machines performance data (see para 174).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 101 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive. Although the amendments include additional language, the added language doesn't overcome the USC 101 rejection because as provided the claim language is merely including limitations using generic computer elements (sensors), to implement data gathering, there is no mention of particular or specialized configuration or specialized component as those argued by applicant from court cases.
The limitations for receiving data are analyzed are under prong 2 of the assessment for abstract idea, these are mere data gathering. The data is obtained and it’s analyzed for a worker and for production, these data is measured or associated within a timeframe. Such data as is provided on the independent claim is obtained, stored for analysis (creating a data set or table of data with worker and production information associated with time), and then display it as the claim language specifically mentions at the end of the claim. The claim provides no additional step for the use of the data.
The additional elements provided with the amendments are still generic computer components that receives information as there is no additional limitation associated to the components.
Further its noted that the preamble specifically states, “a method for controlling an apparatus.” However, there does not seem to be any controlling taking place in any of the provided limitations. A limitation showing this controlling would help overcome this rejection.
Therefore, as provided by the claim language, the steps are not providing a technical improvement or practical idea as they are obtaining data, storing the data and displaying it. The amendments are appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (e.g. computer process, algorithm or setting) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights