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 .
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically 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 claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/29/2023, 11/16/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 limitations are:
“collection unit”, “acquisition unit”, “linking unit”, “generation unit” and “control device”, “UI unit” in claims 1-14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 1-14 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.
Claim limitation “collection unit”, “acquisition unit”, “linking unit”, “generation unit” and “control device”, “UI unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Examiner notes, the specification does state above the function of these elements as “functional unit that provides” claimed functions and further shows corresponding items in fig. 3 but merely as black box1 units. See item 63, 64, 10B of fig. 6. However, the provided description for these black box entities is not sufficient to clarify the structural details. Thus, the Spec fails to describe the structural details for other claim elements that invoke 112(f) as outlined above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites:
a data collection device that collects data of a production line through which a target is produced through a plurality of processes, the data collection device comprising:
a collection unit configured to collect data of a data item related to production work from each of the plurality of processes;
an acquisition unit configured to acquire an identifier of the target produced in the production line;
a linking unit configured to link the identifier of the target acquired by the acquisition unit with the data collected by the collection unit from the process in a period in which the production work is performed on the target in the process for the each process; and
a generation unit configured to generate visualization data visualizing the data of the each process linked with the identifier by the linking unit.
Step 1:
The claim recites a device. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one:
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “a linking unit configured to link the identifier of the target acquired by the acquisition unit with the data collected by the collection unit from the process in a period in which the production work is performed on the target in the process for the each process”. The recited “link …, generate …,” steps, as drafted, but for “a linking unit” and “a generation unit”, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, linking the identifier of the target and an inspection result of the target with collection data collected from the process can be done in the mind or with pen and paper by adding the identifier to head of collection data and inspection result. The mind is also capable of generating the visualization data by listing the inspection result and the collection data that with identifier of the target side by side, with help pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two:
Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional elements of 1) “a target produced through a plurality of processes” that merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional limitations of 2) “collect data of a data item related to production work from each of the one or the plurality of processes” and “acquire an identifier of the target produced in the production line”, these additional limitations represent mere receiving data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, and are recited at a high level of generality (For example, see MPEP 2106.05(g), which notes that mere data gathering, outputting and storing can be seen as insignificant extra-solution activity). These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recited 3) “collection unit”, “acquisition unit”, “linking unit”, “generation unit” (“collection unit”, “acquisition unit”, “linking unit”, “generation unit” invoking 35 USC 112(f) therefore are interpreted by corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, which is merely a module implemented using one or more processors) are additional elements which are to implement the system. But the “data collection device”, “collection unit”, “acquisition unit”, “linking unit”, “generation unit” are recited at high level of generality (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is “processor") that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See also MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional limitation and additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has the following additional limitations and elements:
1) “a target produced through one or a plurality of processes”;
2) “collect data of a data item related to production work from each of the one or the plurality of processes” and “acquire an identifier of the target produced in the production line”;
3) “data collection device”, “collection unit”, “acquisition unit”, “linking unit”, “generation unit”.
Regarding 1), as explained previously, merely link the recited judicial exception to a particular technology environment or particular field of use, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not add inventive concept.
Regarding 2), as explained previously, are extra-solution activities, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. As indicated in MPEP 2016.05(d) II, receiving, transmitting and storing data are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Regarding 3) “data collection device”, “collection unit”, “acquisition unit”, “linking unit”, “generation unit” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, the claim directs to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitations of “periodically collects the data from the each process” that represent mere receiving data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, or mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, and are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activities and are considered well-known, routine and conventional activities in the field, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and do not add inventive concept. The recited additional limitation of “linking unit, for the each process, the identifier of the target is linked with partial time series data corresponding to the period in time series data periodically collected and configured from the process” that merely specifies some details of the “linking …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 2 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and recites additional limitation of “the production line is configured to allow the target to be input from one process to a next process in predetermined order and the visualization data includes, for the each process, characteristic visualization data that visualizes a characteristic of a change in a value of the partial time series data for each target input to the process” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 3 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claims 4-7 depend on claim 1+3, and recites additional elements of “the characteristic visualization data…” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claims 4-7 are directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claims 4-7 are not patent eligible.
Claims 8-11 depend on claim 1 and recite additional elements of “UI unit configured to set the data item collected by the collection unit”, “identifier in which at least a part of the identifier is common in the plurality of processes”, an identifier of the lot to which the target belongs”, and “acquisition unit acquires the identifier of the target from input order of the target input to the production line” that merely specifies some details of the “collecting…, acquisition” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claims 8-11 are directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claims 8-11 are not patent eligible.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of “control device that controls the production line'' are recited at high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 1: The claim recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 1, claim 13 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Thus, the claim is directed to a product, which belongs to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A and Step 2B: Similarly, as recited in the rejection of claim 1, claim 14 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The additional elements " non-transitory computer-readable recording medium'' are recited at high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical applicant and do not add an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chiba et al. US Pub. No. 20240210927 (“Chiba”).
Regarding claim 1, Chiba discloses a data collection device that collects data of a production line through which a target is produced through a plurality of processes [SEE fig. 1], the data collection device comprising:
[Abstract] A visualization system according to an embodiment stores manufacturing log information including start times and end times of manufacturing processes of products grouped in manufacturing units and manufactured through a plurality of manufacturing processes in order, and chronological history information of process characteristic factors corresponding to factors affecting quality characteristics in the manufacturing processes.
[0023] The visualization system 100 according to Embodiment 1 provides a visualization function of visualizing the manufacturing statuses of products manufactured through a plurality of manufacturing processes in order and displaying the manufacturing statuses on the display apparatus 300. The storage apparatus 120 stores histories including a manufacturing plan 121, manufacturing results 122, and process characteristic factors 123, for each of the plurality of manufacturing processes.
a collection unit configured to collect data of a data item related to production work from each of the plurality of processes [SEE Fig. 7];
[0026] Examples of the manufacturing results 122 include information about products manufactured in manufacturing units (such as the start time, end time, and processing period of each of processes constituting the manufacturing line), statuses of machines in operation, environmental information, inspection results, production amount records, and actual result values including change histories based on quality control (logs of process characteristic factor changes), later described. The manufacturing results 122 can be configured to store time-series information collected from data sources such as machine equipment or sensor equipment used in the manufacturing processes constituting the product manufacturing line such that sensor values acquired from the sensor equipment are included.
[0033] The sensor information includes groups of sensor values detected chronologically at predetermined time intervals. Data in each group of sensor values is stored in association with each manufacturing processes. The accumulated sensor information includes sensor values output from the machine equipment in the respective manufacturing processes or sensor values necessary for manufacturing or inspection, and includes time-series elements.
an acquisition unit configured to acquire an identifier of the target produced in the production line;
[0027] FIG. 2 shows a table illustrating a data example of the manufacturing results 122. The example of FIG. 2 shows an aspect in which a set of products of the same type corresponding to a production unit (a product manufacturing unit, or a lot) goes through a plurality of processes. In the manufacturing results 122, a plurality of manufacturing processes constituting a manufacturing line are associated with lot IDs of products going through the manufacturing line, and each of the lot IDs is associated with the start time, the end time, and the processing period (the end time minus the start time) of each process. The manufacturing processes are assigned sequential process IDs in the order of processes determined previously based on the production planning.
[0028] The lot ID is the number assigned uniquely to each production unit of products to be manufactured, for example. Thus, a plurality of products are given the same lot ID, and each of the products having the same lot ID is assigned a unique manufacturing number. The lot is a set of products of the same type corresponding to the production unit, that is, a minimum production unit of products to be manufactured under the same conditions, and one lot contains one or more products. Thus, the visualization system 100 according to Embodiment 1 is applicable not only to the lot but also to a manufacturing unit when the production unit is “one.”
[0029] The manufacturing results 122 shown in FIG. 2 indicate that a process 1 of products having a lot ID “R001” started at a time “10:50:00” and ended at a time “11: 05:00.” A subsequent process 2 of the products having the lot ID “R001” started at a time “11:06:00” and ended at a time “11:11:00.” Products having a lot ID “R002” are input to the process 1 subsequently to the lot ID “R001.” It is shown that the process 1 of the products having the lot ID “R002” started at a time “11:05:05” and ended at a time “11:20:05.” It is also shown that the subsequent process 2 of the products having the lot ID “R002” started at a time “11:21:05” and ended at a time “11:26:05.”
a linking unit configured to link the identifier of the target acquired by the acquisition unit with the data collected by the collection unit from the process in a period in which the production work is performed on the target in the process for the each process [SEE fig. 2, 3, 5, and 8]; and
[0031] As shown in FIG. 3, the subject of a data source can be defined as “subject” to organize and accumulate what the “subject” has done to which object (“event”). For example, a Manufacturing Execution System (MES) is used to collect information from a machine 1 corresponding to a data source. The machine 1 operates in manufacturing processes based on a manufacturing plan, and the operation results of the machine 1 are collected in real time by the manufacturing management system. Specifically, what has been performed during the manufacturing processes in the machine 1, and the related state and status of the machine 1 are organized according to the data structure definition, thereby producing the record indicating that a machine 1 (subject) performed assembly (event) on products having certain product numbers (object). The records of the results produced according to the data structure definition are accumulated chronologically in the data model.
[0032] A table at the top in FIG. 3 shows an example of manufacturing and operation result data. For “objects” of the manufacturing and operation result data, detailed results of each object are stored in manufacturing recipe result data shown below the top table in FIG. 3. In the manufacturing recipe result data, information collected and accumulated from the machine equipment includes measured values of “object,” “time,” and “status (manufacturing parameter).” In the manufacturing recipe result data, sensor values detected in real time are also accumulated in “status.” The sensor values are sensor information output from sensor equipment provided for the machine 1 sensor information output from sensor equipment provided independently of the machine 1 for detecting the status of the machine 1.
[0049] It should be noted that various types of information stored in the storage apparatus 120 may be collected and stored directly from data sources without the intervening manufacturing management system. In this case, the control apparatus 110 of the visualization system 100 can have an information processing function of editing and processing the information collected from the data sources into various types of information for use in visualizing the manufacturing statuses of products manufactured through the manufacturing processes in order.
[0053] The control apparatus 110 according to Embodiment 1 includes a creation section 112. The creation section 112 acquires the start time of each manufacturing process for each lot ID from the manufacturing results 122. The first creation section 112 creates, for each product manufacturing unit (lot), a line segment connecting the start time of Process 1 on the time axis T1 of Process 1 to the start time of Process 2 subsequent to Process 1 on the time axis T2 in parallel with the time axis T1 of Process 1. Specifically, the creation section 112 plots marks indicating the start times on the time axes T1 and T2 of the manufacturing processes and then creates the line segment connecting the marks plotted on the time axes T1 and T2 between the processes (connecting the start times between Processes 1 and 2). Similarly, the creation section 112 creates a line segment connecting the start time of Process 2 on the time axis T2 of Process 2 to the start time of Process 3 subsequent to Process 2 on the time axis T3 of Process in parallel with the time axis T2 of Process 2. The similar creation of marks and a line segment indicating start times is performed on the time axes T4 and T5 of Process 4 subsequent to Process 3 and Process 5 subsequent to Process 4.
READ further paragraph [0050], [0054-0061, 0083-0085, 0101]
a generation unit configured to generate visualization data visualizing the data of the each process linked with the identifier by the linking unit [SEE fig. 8-10, 12].
[0065] For display of the 5M1E timeline chart, items to be displayed can be selected from the viewpoint of each process characteristic factor category on the graph display selection screen shown in FIG. 8 before or during display operation. Any item can be added to preset items, or any item can be deleted (not displayed), and the operation for adding or deleting any item can be performed on the graph display selection screen shown in FIG. 8.
[0066] In Embodiment 1, the states and changes in the process characteristic factors are accumulated as chronological history information. Each of the process characteristic factors includes one or more items belonging thereto. The chronological history information is configured to be accumulated for each of the items. A display control section 111 creates and displays the graph display selection screen on the display apparatus 300. Based on the chronological history information of selected items, the creation section 112 creates display objects associated with each item and representing the states or changes of the item belonging to the process characteristic factor and places the created display objects on the time axis to create timeline objects of the process characteristic factor. The display control section 111 displays a 5M1E timeline chart (process characteristic factor timeline screen) on the display apparatus 300 in which the timeline objects created from the display objects associated with each item placed on the time axis are arranged in parallel.
[0073] FIG. 10 shows an example of one unit of products going through a plurality of manufacturing processes. Thus, the timeline of the item “process” shows the processes on the timeline at their processing times (result values). The name or processing details of each process may also be displayed. For the item “Machine,” the machine operation state, the machine event, and the maintenance history are displayed on the timeline created from the viewpoint of the products of interest. The items of material and measurement are displayed similarly. It can be said that the 5M1E timeline chart shown from product viewpoint is an edited version of 5M1E timeline charts created from machine viewpoint for representing machines used in manufacturing processes such that those charts are assembled from the viewpoint of one unit of products.
[0082] In the visualization system according to Embodiment 1, the manufacturing log information including the start time or the end time of each process for each manufacturing unit of the products manufactured through the manufacturing processes in order is stored as the manufacturing results 122 in the storage apparatus 120. In addition, the chronological history information of the process characteristic factors (time-series states including the logs of process characteristic factor changes) including the Machine, Man, Material, and Method in the manufacturing processes is stored as the process characteristic factors 123 in the store apparatus 120.
Regarding claim 2, Chiba discloses the collection unit periodically collects the data from the each process, and in the linking unit, for the each process, the identifier of the target is linked with partial time series data corresponding to the period in time series data periodically collected and configured from the process [SEE fig. 2-3].
Regarding claim 3, Chiba discloses the each process is configured to allow the target to be input one by one to the process, the production line is configured to allow the target to be input from one process to a next process in predetermined order, and the visualization data includes, for the each process, characteristic visualization data that visualizes a characteristic of a change in a value of the partial time series data for each target input to the process [SEE fig. 2-3, 7, 10-11; par. 0035, 0042, 0058].
Regarding claim 4, Chiba discloses the characteristic visualization data includes, for the each process, temporal characteristic visualization data visualizing a characteristic indicating a temporal change in a value of the partial time series data for each target input to the process by visualizing the characteristic with a common time axis [SEE fig. 8 and 10-11].
Regarding claim 5, Chiba discloses the characteristic visualization data includes GUI data including an object that visualizes the characteristic for each of the target for the each process [SEE fig. 8 and 10].
Regarding claim 6, Chiba discloses the GUI data includes an object that visualizes the identifier of the target linked with the partial time series data of the object on condition that a user operation on the object is received [SEE fig. 8].
Regarding claim 7, Chiba discloses for the each process, the object visualizing the characteristic of one of the targets is configured to visualize the characteristic in a manner different from the object visualizing the characteristic of another of the targets [par. 0068, 0072].
Regarding claim 12, Chiba discloses wherein the data collection device is comprised in a control system including a control device that controls the production line [Chiba teaches visually display the manufacturing statuses of products manufactured through a plurality of manufacturing processes in order and changes of process characteristic factors caused in the manufacturing processes. Therefore, Chiba’s system includes a control device that controls the production line].
Regarding claims 13-14, they are directed to the method of steps and anon-transitory machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions to implement the system as set forth in claim s. Therefore, they are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba as applied to claims 1+3+5 above, and further in view of Nagata et al. US Pub. No. 20220276630 (“Nagata”).
Regarding claim 8, Chiba does not teach a UI unit configured to set the data item collected by the collection unit in the data collection device for the each process.
Nagata teaches a data collection system for an industrial machine, the data collection system comprising circuitry configured to: collect collection data relating to the industrial machine based on a predetermined collection setting. Specifically, Nagata teaches a UI unit configured to set the data item collected by the collection unit in the data collection device [SEE fig. 3; par. 0037-0042]
[0038] FIG. 3 is a view for illustrating an example of the setting screen. As illustrated in FIG. 3, on a setting screen G, an input form F1, an input form F2, a button B1, and a button B2 are displayed. The input form F1 is used to specify an industrial machine 30 being a target of the data collection. The input form F2 is used to specify specific contents of the collection settings. The button B1 is used to register the collection settings.
[0040] In the input form F2, a value of each item included in the collection settings is displayed. In the example of FIG. 3, the input form F2 has a tabular form, and a value can be input to each cell of the table. The collection settings may include any item, and include, for example, a machine ID, a topic ID, a setting name, a trigger, variable names of variables to be collected, a schedule, and a sampling cycle. The collection settings are not limited to the example in the first embodiment, and may include specification of other information, for example, an axis of a motor being a target of the collection. In the first embodiment, parse processing corresponding to the collection settings is executed, and thus parsers are also specified on the setting screen G. A detailed description is later given of the parsers and the parse processing.
[0042] The user specifies the industrial machine 30 from the input form F1, and specifies the contents of the collection settings in the input form F2. To the machine ID of the input form F2, the machine ID of the industrial machine 30 specified in the input form F1 may be automatically input. When the user selects the button B1, the contents of the collection settings specified on the setting screen G are passed to an IoT module of the data collection apparatus 10 (Processing 2). The IoT module is one of programs executed by the data collection apparatus 10, and is responsible for transmission and reception of data to and from the IoT unit 24 of the upper-level control apparatus 20.
Before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Chiba with a UI unit configured to set the data item collected by the collection unit in the data collection device of Nagata. The motivation for do so would has been, as suggested by Nagata, to achieve a flexible date collection corresponding to the user.
Regarding claim 9, Chiba teaches the identifier of the target is configured by an identifier in which at least a part of the identifier is common in the plurality of processes [SEE fig. 2].
Regarding claim 10, Chiba teaches the production line is configured to produce the target in a lot unit, and the common identifier includes an identifier of the lot to which the target belongs [SEE fig. 10 – product ID and Lot NO].
Regarding claim 11, Chiba teaches the production line is configured to allow the target to be input to the production line one by one, and the acquisition unit acquires the identifier of the target from input order of the target input to the production line and the identifier of the lot [SEE fig. 10].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub No. 2022/0291670 to Wakamatsu et al. teach information collection device comprising circuitry configured to: accumulate, in a database, a control signal of a local device having a motor, the local device being a part of a production system of one or more workpieces, the control signal including internal information of the local device generated during operation of a plurality of processes. Specifically, Wakamatsu et al. teach
a data collection device that collects data of a production line through which a target is produced through a plurality of processes [Fig. 1 [0029] [0038] The control system 100 includes a host controller 300, a plurality of a local controllers 400, and an information collection device 200], the data collection device comprising:
a collection unit configured to collect data of a data item related to production work from each of the plurality of processes;
an acquisition unit configured to acquire an identifier of the target produced in the production line [par. 0051-0062];
[0051] The data handling unit 211 may further accumulate the workpiece information on the workpiece 9 in the database. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 5, the data handling unit 211 further accumulates, in the program database 221, the type of the workpiece 9 (“TYPE” in the drawing) and the individual identification information of the workpiece 9 (“SERIAL NO.” in the drawing) with the identification information of the job and the identification information of the process in association with each other.
[0052] When the workpiece 9 is produced by the operation of the local device 2 including two or more processes, the individual identification information of the workpiece 9 is associated with the identification information of the two or more processes. In this case, the plurality of processes are grouped into a plurality of groups also by the workpiece information. Each group includes two or more processes for an identical workpiece. Accordingly, accumulating the individual identification information of the workpiece 9 and the identification information of the process in association with each other in the program database 221 is an example of further storing the grouping information including the workpiece information in the database.
[0053] The data handling unit 211 may further accumulate quality information representing the inspection result of the quality of the workpiece 9 in the database. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the data handling unit 211 accumulates the type of the workpiece 9, the individual identification information of the workpiece 9, the inspection time by the inspection device 5, and the inspection result by the inspection device 5 in a workpiece quality database 222 in association with one another. The inspection time by the inspection device 5 may be a time at which the program database 221 acquires the inspection result by the inspection device 5.
[0054] Returning to FIG. 3, the control signal extraction unit 212 extracts a signal set accumulated during any one process of the plurality of processes from the control signal accumulated in the control signal database 223. The control signal extraction unit 212 may extract the signal set based on the time information. The control signal extraction unit 212 may extract the signal set based on program information. For example, the control signal extraction unit 212 acquires the start time and the end time of the one process from the program database 221, and extracts a signal set from the acquired start time to the end time from the control signal database 223.
a linking unit configured to link the identifier of the target acquired by the acquisition unit with the data collected by the collection unit from the process in a period in which the production work is performed on the target in the process for the each process [See par. 0053-0054, 0099]; and
a generation unit configured to generate visualization data visualizing the data of the each process linked with the identifier by the linking unit [Figs. 5,7&17 [0099] – [0102] the collected process data and inspection data linked to the target workpiece are extracted and displayed in a list screen grouped under the SERIAL NO of the target workpiece].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Thomas C Lee can be reached on 571-272-3667. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 MPEP 2181 “Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph… undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383-85, 91 USPQ2d 1481, 1491-93 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366-67, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d at 1405-06.”