DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 15 and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1, 15 and 16 are independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is 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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have not avoided invoking 112(f) interpretations previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. As a result, the 112(f) interpretations have been maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but respectfully found not persuasive.
Applicant amended independent claims 1, 15 and 16 to further specify:
a control unit configured to, for each process of the plurality of processes, count an order in which the target is input to the process, and output a first individual identifier that includes the order that is counted;
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a second individual identifier of the target produced in the production line from a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read;
a linking unit configured to determine, based on collection setting information, from one of the first individual identifier or the second individual identifier, a product identifier that is to be acquired and to link, for the each process, the product identifier of the target and an inspection result of the target with collection data collected from the process by the collection unit in a period in which the production work is performed on the target in the process.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance that the amended feature “from a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read” cannot be performed in mind, therefore, the claims are directed to significantly more than abstract ideas.
While the examiner agrees that the amended feature “from a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read” cannot be performed in mind. However, the examiner respectfully submit that applicant has overlooked the fact that the recited “from a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read” 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, and does not change the fact that the independent claims are directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant's arguments regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered but in moot in view of new ground of rejection.
The teachings of WAKAMATSU, UESUG and Amminudin as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
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:
“data collection device”, “central processing unit”, “control unit”, “collection unit”, “acquisition unit”, “linking unit”, “generation unit” and “control device” 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 § 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 1-16 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 target produced through a plurality of processes provided in a production line, the data collection device comprising a central processing unit configured to implement:
a control unit configured to, for each process of the plurality of processes, count an order in which the target is input to the process, and output a first individual identifier that includes the order that is counted;
a collection unit configured to collect data of a data item related to production work from each of the one or the plurality of processes;
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a second individual identifier of the target produced in the production line from a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read;
a linking unit configured to determine, based on collection setting information, from one of the first individual identifier or the second individual identifier, a product identifier that is to be acquired and to link, for the each process, the product identifier of the target and an inspection result of the target with collection data collected from the process by the collection unit in a period in which the production work is performed on the target in the process; and
a generation unit configured to generate, for the each process, visualization data visualizing the collected data of the process linked with the product identifier and the inspection result using 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 control unit configured to, for each process of the plurality of processes, count an order in which the target is input to the process, and output a first individual identifier that includes the order that is counted; a linking unit configured to determine, based on collection setting information, from one of the first individual identifier or the second individual identifier, a product identifier that is to be acquired and to link, for the each process, the product identifier of the target and an inspection result of the target with collection data collected from the process by the collection unit in a period in which the production work is performed on the target in the process; and a generation unit configured to generate, for the each process, visualization data visualizing the collected data of the process linked with the product identifier and the inspection result using the linking unit”. The recited “count …, link …, generate …,” steps, as drafted, but for “a control unit”, “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, count an order in which the target is input to the process and output a first individual identifier that includes the order that is counted can be done in the mind or with pen and paper by putting the group of process steps the target is going to go through in order and give a group ID to associate with the group of process steps; based on collection setting information, from the group ID of the process steps and the target ID, determining that the target ID is chosen as the product ID can be done in the mind, and 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 provided in a production line” and “from a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read” 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 a second individual 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) “data collection device”, “central processing unit”, “control unit”, “collection unit”, “acquisition unit”, “linking unit”, “generation unit” (“data collection device”, “central processing unit”, “control 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”, “central processing unit”, “control unit”, “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 a plurality of processes provided in a production line” and “from a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read”;
2) “collect data of a data item related to production work from each of the one or the plurality of processes” and “acquire a second individual identifier of the target produced in the production line”;
3) “data collection device”, “central processing unit”, “control unit”, “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”, “central processing unit”, “control unit”, “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 “links, for the each process, the product identifier of the target and the inspection result with partial time series data corresponding to the period in time series data configured by being periodically collected from the process” that merely specifies some details of the “link …” (“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 visualization data includes data that visualizes the partial time series data in which the product identifier and the inspection result are linked with each other for the each process by arranging the partial time series data according to priority order based on a value of the partial time series data” 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.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and recites additional elements of “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” that 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.
The recited additional limitation of “for the each process, for each of a plurality of groups including the target input to the process, acquire a representative value of values of the partial time series data of each target constituting the group, and acquire a deviation degree between the representative value of each of the plurality of groups and the representative value of another group is acquired” 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.
Therefore claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitation of “determines the priority order based on the deviation degree acquired for the each process” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 5 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitation of “the representative value includes, for each of the plurality of groups, a statistic of values of the partial time series data of each target constituting the group” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 6 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and recites additional limitation of “the visualization data includes data visualizing the statistic corresponding to the each group” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 7 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitation of “determines order in the priority order of the each process so as to be higher as the deviation degree of the process is larger” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 8 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 depends on claim 4, and recites additional limitation of “for the each group, a type of the inspection result of the target constituting the group is different from a type of the inspection result of the target constituting the another groups” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 9 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9, and recites additional limitation of “the type of the inspection result includes normal, abnormal, and uninspected indicating that the target is not inspected yet” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 10 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 depends on claim 2, and recites additional limitation of “the visualization data includes, for the each process, characteristic visualization data visualizing a characteristic of a change in the 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 11 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11, and recites additional limitation of “the characteristic visualization data includes, for the each process, temporal characteristic visualization data visualizing a characteristic indicating a temporal change in the value of the partial time series data for each target input to the process with a common time axis” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 12 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 depends on claim 1, and recites additional limitation of “the visualization data includes data visualizing the collection data in a mode according to the type of the inspection result linked with the collection data” that merely specifies some details of the “generate …” (“mental process” group of abstract idea) and does not change the fact that the claim 13 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 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 15,
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 15 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 15 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16,
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 16 is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WAKAMATSU US 20220291670 A1 in view of UESUGI JP 2020095614 A1.
Regarding claim 1, WAKAMATSU teaches a data collection device that collects data of a target produced through a plurality of processes provided in a production line (Fig. 1 [0029] [0038] control system 100 collecting information of workpiece 9 in a production line 2 processed in a plurality of local devices 2), the data collection device comprising a central processing unit configured to implement (Fig. 1 [0038] collection device 200):
a control unit configured to, for each process of the plurality of processes, count an order in which the target is input to the process, and output a first individual identifier that includes the order that is counted (Fig. 5 [0048] [0049] a job program counting the order of process steps along a series of work stations, the job program is identified with the identification information of the job program i.e. “first individual identifier”);
a collection unit configured to collect data of a data item related to production work from each of the one or the plurality of processes (Figs. 5,7&17 [0051] – [0053] [0099] the workpiece process information, inspection time, inspection results are collected and linked with the workpiece identification information);
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a second individual identifier of the target produced in the production line (Figs. 5,7&17 [0051] – [0053] [0099] workpiece is identified using identification information such as SERIAL NO. a workpiece is selected as target workpiece with workpiece identification information i.e. “second individual identifier”);
a linking unit configured to determine, based on collection setting information, from one of the first individual identifier or the second individual identifier, a product identifier that is to be acquired and to link, for the each process, the product identifier of the target ([0051] – [0053] [0056] the workpiece process information, inspection time, inspection results can be extracted based on the individual identification of the workpiece i.e. “determined, based on collection setting information” “the second individual identifier” as “the product identifier of the target”, [0048] [0049] [0062] the workpiece process information, inspection time, inspection results can be extracted based on the job information i.e. “determined, based on collection setting information” “the first individual identifier” as “the product identifier of the target”) and an inspection result of the target with collection data collected from the process by the collection unit in a period in which the production work is performed on the target in the process (Figs. 5,7&17 [0051] – [0053] [0099] the workpiece process information, inspection time, inspection results are collected and linked with the workpiece identification information); and
a generation unit configured to generate, for the each process, visualization data visualizing the collected data of the process linked with the product identifier and the inspection result using 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).
WAKAMATSU does not explicitly further teach acquiring the second individual identifier of the target is done by a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read.
UESUGI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that acquiring the second individual identifier of the target is done by a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read (page 5 paragraph 4 from the bottom, a scanner scans the bar code to get identification information of the workpiece).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WAKAMATSU to incorporate the teachings of UESUGI, because they all directed to process monitoring, to make the device wherein acquiring the second individual identifier of the target is done by a code reader that is provided in each process of the plurality of processes and that reads an identifier of the target and outputs the second individual identifier indicating the identifier that is read. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to so as to associate the inspection with the input item, as UESUGI teaches in page 5 paragraph 4 from the bottom.
Regarding claim 2, WAKAMATSU further teaches the collection unit periodically collects the data from the each process, and the linking unit links, for the each process, the product identifier of the target and the inspection result with partial time series data corresponding to the period in time series data configured by being periodically collected from the process ([0052] [0053] [0060] the process data and inspection data are collected as time series data and stored for later extract using time period condition).
Regarding claim 11, WAKAMATSU further teaches the visualization data includes, for the each process, characteristic visualization data visualizing a characteristic of a change in the value of the partial time series data for each target input to the process (Fig. 12 [0078] signal chart screen representing a time variation of the control signal).
Regarding claim 12, WAKAMATSU further teaches the characteristic visualization data includes, for the each process, temporal characteristic visualization data visualizing a characteristic indicating a temporal change in the value of the partial time series data for each target input to the process with a common time axis (Fig. 12 [0078] signal chart screen representing a time variation of the control signal).
Regarding claim 13, WAKAMATSU further teaches the visualization data includes data visualizing the collection data in a mode according to the type of the inspection result linked with the collection data (Fig. 12 [0078] when one inspection time is selected i.e. “in a mode according to the type of the inspection result linked with the collection data”, generates the signal chart screen accordingly).
Regarding claim 14, WAKAMATSU further teaches the data collection device is included in a control device that controls the production line (Fig. 1 [0029] [0038] the data collection device is included in the control system 100).
Regarding claim 15, it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing program of carrying out the device with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since WAKAMATSU and UESUGI teach the claimed device, they teach the program for implementing the device.
Regarding claim 16, it is directed to a method of carrying out the device with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since WAKAMATSU and UESUGI teach the claimed device, they teach the method steps for implementing the device.
Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WAKAMATSU in view of UESUGI as applied to claims 1-2 and 11-16 above, further in view of Amminudin US 20140026085 A12.
Regarding claim 3, WAKAMATSU further teaches the visualization data includes data that visualizes the partial time series data in which the product identifier and the inspection result are linked with each other for the each process by arranging the partial time series data (Fig. 7).
Neither WAKAMATSU nor UESUGI explicitly further teaches the data is arranged according to priority order based on a value of the partial time series data.
Amminudin explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the data is arranged according to priority order based on a value of the partial time series data ([0026] displaying a list of parameters on a priority order based on percentage deviations from target performance parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WAKAMATSU and UESUGI to incorporate the teachings of Amminudin, because they all directed to process monitoring, to make the device wherein the data is arranged according to priority order based on a value of the partial time series data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to so as to allow user to address the parameters based on a priority order, as Amminudin teaches in [0026].
Regarding claim 4, WAKAMATSU further teaches 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 (Fig. 1 [0027] – [0031] the workpieces are input into processes in consecutive order one by one), and the data collection device is configured to, for the each process, for each of a plurality of groups including the target input to the process, acquire a representative value of values of the partial time series data of each target constituting the group ([0074] statistical processing on evaluation information including mean value); and
Amminudin further teaches acquire a deviation degree between the representative value of each of the plurality of groups and the representative value of another group is acquired (Amminudin: displaying a list of parameters on a priority order based on percentage deviations from target performance parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WAKAMATSU and UESUGI to incorporate the teachings of Amminudin, because they all directed to process monitoring, to make the device wherein acquire a deviation degree between the representative value of each of the plurality of groups and the representative value of another group is acquired. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to so as to allow user to address the parameters based on a priority order, as Amminudin teaches in [0026].
Regarding claim 5, Amminudin further teaches the generation unit determines the priority order based on the deviation degree acquired for the each process (displaying a list of parameters on a priority order based on percentage deviations from target performance parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WAKAMATSU and UESUGI to incorporate the teachings of Amminudin, because they all directed to process monitoring, to make the device wherein the generation unit determines the priority order based on the deviation degree acquired for the each process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to so as to allow user to address the parameters based on a priority order, as Amminudin teaches in [0026].
Regarding claim 6, WAKAMATSU further teaches the representative value includes, for each of the plurality of groups, a statistic of values of the partial time series data of each target constituting the group ([0074] statistical processing on evaluation information).
Regarding claim 7, WAKAMATSU further teaches the visualization data includes data visualizing the statistic corresponding to the each group ([0074] statistical processing on evaluation information).
Regarding claim 8, Amminudin further teaches the generation unit determines order in the priority order of the each process so as to be higher as the deviation degree of the process is larger ([0036] [0042] the larger the deviation, the higher the priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WAKAMATSU and UESUGI to incorporate the teachings of Amminudin, because they all directed to process monitoring, to make the device wherein the generation unit determines order in the priority order of the each process so as to be higher as the deviation degree of the process is larger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to so as to allow user to address the parameters based on a priority order, as Amminudin teaches in [0026].
Regarding claim 9, UESUGI further teaches in an analogous art that the each group, a type of the inspection result of the target constituting the group is different from a type of the inspection result of the target constituting the another groups (page 5 paragraph 2 from the bottom, three types of inspection result: pass, fail and skip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WAKAMATSU to incorporate the teachings of UESUGI, because they all directed to process monitoring, to make the device wherein for the each group, a type of the inspection result of the target constituting the group is different from a type of the inspection result of the target constituting the another groups. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to so as to allow user to check inspection, as UESUGI teaches in page 5 paragraph from the bottom.
Regarding claim 10, UESUGI further teaches the type of the inspection result includes normal, abnormal, and uninspected indicating that the target is not inspected yet (page 5 paragraph 2 from the bottom, three types of inspection result: pass, fail and skip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WAKAMATSU to incorporate the teachings of UESUGI, because they all directed to process monitoring, to make the device wherein the type of the inspection result includes normal, abnormal, and uninspected indicating that the target is not inspected yet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to so as to allow user to check inspection, as UESUGI teaches in page 5 paragraph from the bottom.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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 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 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/THOMAS C LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 WAKAMATSU and UESUGI are the prior arts of record
2 Amminudin is the prior art of record