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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertion that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea. The claims here are merely an abstract idea implemented on a computer and not directed to an improvement in the way the computer components operate or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the claimed invention aids in calculating manufacturing data using a general-purpose computer, same as in Electric Power, “the focus of the claims is not on … an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350, 2016 WL 4073318, at *4 [119 USPQ2d 1739].
Further, the claims as an ordered combination do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea, as the claimed processing circuity and database are merely acting as tools to perform the manufacturing data calculations and determinations. Further, these generically claimed computer elements are not bettered or improved by the calculations or determination but rather used to perform the abstract ideas.
Applicant alleges that the claims are an improvement on the technology of calculating manufacturing data and then making determinations thereof. This argument is not persuasive. The claimed calculations are some of the abstract concepts identified by the examiner in Step 2A. In Step 2B, it cannot be the abstract concepts themselves that improve a technology or technical field but rather the additional elements or extra solution activities such that the claims themselves amount to significantly more than the abstract concept.
102/103 Rejection
Based on applicant amendments and argues, the previously set forth art rejections have been overcome.
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 and 3-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
acquire first manufacturing data including a manufacturing condition data group and a quality data group from manufacturing data on a plurality of products under a first acquisition condition, the manufacturing condition data group including one or more pieces of manufacturing condition data on a value indicating a manufacturing condition for each of the products, the quality data group including one or more pieces of quality data on a value indicating quality for each of the products; calculate one or more first degrees of influence exerted by first manufacturing condition data included in the manufacturing condition data group on the respective pieces of quality data included in the quality data group by analyzing the first manufacturing data; and in a first case where one or more first degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more first degrees of influence satisfy a first determination condition, generate first output data including a content related to at least one of the first manufacturing condition data, one or more pieces of first quality data on which the first manufacturing condition data has exerted the first degrees of influence satisfying the first determination condition, or the first degrees of influence satisfying the first determination condition, and calculate one or more second degrees of influence exerted by each piece of second manufacturing condition data on each of the pieces of first quality data, the second manufacturing condition data being included in the manufacturing condition data group and differing from the first manufacturing condition data; and in a case where one or more second degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more second degrees of influence satisfy a second determination condition, generate second output data including a content related to at least one of one or more pieces of the second manufacturing condition data that have exerted the second degrees of influence satisfying the second determination condition, one or more pieces of the first quality data on which the one or more pieces of second manufacturing condition data have exerted the second degrees of influence satisfying the second determination condition, or the second degrees of influence satisfying the second determination condition, wherein the first degree of influence or the second degree of influence are based on a bias in anomaly rates of the products which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts and/or mathematical concepts. The steps of acquiring manufacturing data, calculating a degree of influence disclosed as using statistical analysis, and then displaying the results based on the calculated influence reads as collecting information, analyzing it, and then outputting certain results of the collection and analysis. Much like in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they can be performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed processing circuitry operably coupled a manufacturing database, as generically claimed, merely acts as tools for performing the abstract idea; as the neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the processing circuitry or database. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The defined manufacturing data merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the defined data is not improved or bettered by the abstract idea. The data is merely used by the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because processing circuitry and defined data, in combination or alone, merely acts as a tool for performing the abstract idea while the defined data merely links the abstract idea to a field of use. The abstract idea does not improve the operation of the generical claimed computer elements itself or improve the data generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thereby, the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more.
Claims 3 and 4 further define the data information itself without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 6 further define the outputting step of the identified abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the data itself. How or what the data represent merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as an outputted value, histogram or diagram provides no real-world action. MPEP 206.05(h)
Claim 7 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts by defining the device to determine that, if one or more first degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more first degrees of influence are equal to or greater than a first threshold value, the one or more first degrees of influence satisfy the first determination condition. The further defined abstract idea does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts by defining the device to determine that, if one or more second degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more second degrees of influence are equal to or greater than a second threshold value, the one or more second degrees of influence satisfy the second determination condition. The further defined abstract idea does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 9 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts by defining the device to determine that, if one or more first degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more first degrees of influence are equal to or greater than a first threshold value, the one or more first degrees of influence satisfy the first determination condition, and the second threshold value is equal to or greater than the first threshold value. The further defined abstract idea does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 10 and 11 further define the additional element processing circuitry performing the outputting step. The claim defines a display mode to including displaying the changing data. The limitation further defines the outputting portion of the identified abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea. A display mode, as recited, reads as an additional element generically defining the well-known and convention step performed by conventional processing circuitry when displaying data. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 12 further defines the additional element processing circuitry performing the outputting step to include the additional element of a setting screen. The setting screen, as currently disclosed, reads as a generic computer element used to perform the abstract idea portion of displaying a result. The additional element setting screen is not bettered or improved by the performance of the abstract idea and therefore fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 13 further defines the outputting step of the abstract idea by defining generating a list the parameters based on the manufacturing data and generate the display data for displaying the generated list on the setting screen. The generated list merely represents the result of the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 14 further defines the abstract idea by reciting the manufacturing condition data group includes the first manufacturing condition data and second manufacturing condition data different from the first manufacturing condition data, and the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a second acquisition condition different from the first acquisition condition based on the first manufacturing data; acquire second manufacturing data including the manufacturing condition data group and the quality data group from the manufacturing data under the second acquisition condition; calculate the first degree of influence and the second degree of influence exerted by the second manufacturing condition data on each of the pieces of quality data by analyzing the first manufacturing data and the second manufacturing data; and generate the second output data including a content related to at least one of the second manufacturing condition data, quality data on which the second manufacturing condition data has exerted the second degree of influence satisfying the second determination condition, or the second degree of influence satisfying the second determination condition. The identified limitations continue to define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim defines the abstract idea is performed using the additional element processing circuitry. Again, the processing circuitry is merely acting as a tool for performing the abstract idea into a practical application; as the circuity is not bettered or improved by the performance of the abstract idea. The further defined data merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea to a practical application.
Claim 15 recites:
acquire first manufacturing data including a manufacturing condition data group and a quality data group from manufacturing data on a plurality of products under a first acquisition condition, the manufacturing condition data group including one or more pieces of manufacturing condition data on a value indicating a manufacturing condition for each of the products, the quality data group including one or more pieces of quality data on a value indicating quality for each of the products; calculate one or more first degrees of influence exerted by first manufacturing condition data included in the manufacturing condition data group on the respective pieces of quality data included in the quality data group by analyzing the first manufacturing data; and in a first case where one or more first degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more first degrees of influence satisfy a first determination condition, generate first output data including a content related to at least one of the first manufacturing condition data, one or more pieces of first quality data on which the first manufacturing condition data has exerted the first degrees of influence satisfying the first determination condition, or the first degrees of influence satisfying the first determination condition, and the display device is configured to: display an image based on the first output data generated by the manufacturing data analysis device which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts and/or mathematical concepts. The steps of acquiring manufacturing data, calculating a degree of influence disclosed as using statistical analysis, and then displaying the results based on the calculated influence reads as collecting information, analyzing it, and then outputting certain results of the collection and analysis. Much like in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed manufacturing data analysis device, display, processing circuitry and manufacturing data database, as generically claimed, merely act as tools for performing the abstract idea; as the neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the device, display or processing circuitry. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The defined manufacturing data merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the defined data is not improved or bettered by the abstract idea. The data is merely used by the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because device, display processing circuitry and defined data, in combination or alone, merely acts tools for performing the abstract idea while the defined data merely links the abstract idea to a field of use. As the abstract idea does not improve the operation of the generical claimed computer elements. Further, the manufacturing data only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thereby, the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more.
Claim 16 recites:
acquiring first manufacturing data including a manufacturing condition data group and a quality data group from manufacturing data on a plurality of products under a first acquisition condition, the manufacturing condition data group including one or more pieces of manufacturing condition data on a value indicating a manufacturing condition for each of the products, the quality data group including one or more pieces of quality data on a value indicating quality for each of the products; calculating one or more first degrees of influence exerted by first manufacturing condition data included in the manufacturing condition data group on the respective pieces of quality data included in the quality data group by analyzing the first manufacturing data; and in a first case where one or more first degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more first degrees of influence satisfy a first determination condition, generating first output data including a content related to at least one of the first manufacturing condition data, one or more pieces of first quality data on which the first manufacturing condition data has exerted the first degrees of influence satisfying the first determination condition, or the first degrees of influence satisfying the first determination condition and calculate one or more second degrees of influence exerted by each piece of second manufacturing condition data on each of the pieces of first quality data, the second manufacturing condition data being included in the manufacturing condition data group and differing from the first manufacturing condition data; and in a case where one or more second degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more second degrees of influence satisfy a second determination condition, generate second output data including a content related to at least one of one or more pieces of the second manufacturing condition data that have exerted the second degrees of influence satisfying the second determination condition, one or more pieces of the first quality data on which the one or more pieces of second manufacturing condition data have exerted the second degrees of influence satisfying the second determination condition, or the second degrees of influence satisfying the second determination condition, the first degrees of influence or the second degrees of influence are based on a bias in anomaly rates of the products which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts and/or mathematical concepts. The steps of acquiring manufacturing data, calculating a degree of influence disclosed as using statistical analysis, and then displaying the results based on the calculated influence reads as collecting information, analyzing it, and then outputting certain results of the collection and analysis. Much like in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed manufacturing data analysis device, display, processing circuitry and manufacturing data database, as generically claimed, merely act as tools for performing the abstract idea; as the neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the device, display or processing circuitry. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Further, the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the defined manufacturing data merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the defined data is not improved or bettered by the abstract idea. The data is merely used by the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the defined data, in combination or alone, merely links the abstract idea to a field of use; as the manufacturing data only generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thereby, the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more.
Claim 17 defines the output data includes a diagram in which a first axis indicates the manufacturing condition data and a second axis indicates the quality data. The outputted data being a diagram does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or integrate it into a practical application, as the courts have indicated such limitation as being sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)
Claim 18 further defines the additional element diagram and its type does not provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 19 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts and/or mathematical concepts, as the examiner considers determine[ing]… if one or more first degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more first degrees of influence are equal to or greater than a first threshold value, the one or more first degrees of influence satisfy the first determination condition as a limitation describing a mental process rooted in judgment, which can occur in the human mind. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 further define an additional element of a display. A display is considered to be a generic computer element acting as a tool; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the operation of the display. Further, how the data is presented does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as it has no improvement to the generically claimed computer elements acting as tools.
Claim 21 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts and/or mathematical concepts, as the examiner considers determine[ing]… if one or more first degrees of influence out of the calculated one or more first degrees of influence are equal to or greater than a first threshold value, the one or more first degrees of influence satisfy the first determination condition as a limitation describing a mental process rooted in judgment, which can occur in the human mind. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 23 further defines the output data being a warning. What or how the data is presented does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as it has no improvement on the generically claimed computer elements acting as tools. It merely reads as an instruction to apply the exception, in a broad and generic manner. The warning has no impact on the data or the generically claimed computer elements.
Claim 29 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts and/or mathematical concepts, as the examiner considers determine a second acquisition condition different from the first acquisition condition based on the first manufacturing data; acquire second manufacturing data including the manufacturing condition data group and the quality data group from the manufacturing data under the second acquisition condition; and calculate another second degree of influence exerted by the second manufacturing condition data on each of the pieces of quality data by analyzing the second manufacturing data, the second output data includes a content related to at least one of the second manufacturing condition data, quality data on which the second manufacturing condition data has exerted the another second degree of influence satisfying the second determination condition, or the another second degree of influence satisfying the second determination condition, and the manufacturing data analysis device comprises a display device configured to display at least one of the first output data or the second output data. as a limitation describing a mental process rooted in judgment, which can occur in the human mind. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 31 further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts and/or mathematical concepts, as the examiner considers determine a second acquisition condition different from the first acquisition condition based on the first manufacturing data; acquire second manufacturing data including the manufacturing condition data group and the quality data group from the manufacturing data under the second acquisition condition; and calculate another first degree of influence exerted by the first manufacturing condition data on each of the pieces of quality data by analyzing the second manufacturing data, the first output data includes a content related to at least one of the first manufacturing condition data, quality data on which the first manufacturing condition data has exerted the another first degree of influence satisfying the first determination condition, or the another first degree of influence satisfying the first determination condition, and the manufacturing data analysis device comprises a display device configured to display at least one of the first output data or the second output data as a limitation describing a mental and mathematic process rooted in judgment and mathematical operations, as detailed in applicant’s filed specification and their displaced formulas. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Himono (2022/0100630) which teaches a device for acquiring operation data during manufacturing to be compiled and used to manage production of a product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853