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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/2/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 remain pending in the present application. Claim 9 has been amended to recite previously identified allowable subject matter into independent form and is thus allowable.
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 1-8 and 10-11 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.
Independent claims 1 and 10-11 have been amended and now recite: “An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor that performs a plurality of different functions and is configured to:
acquire, from a device for an operation of a plant, data that is related to the operation of the plant and to which one of pieces of attribute information indicating a state of the device has been assigned;
classify the acquired data into one of the pieces of attribute information based on the attribute information assigned to the acquired data for one of the plurality of different functions by using one of the pieces of attribute information corresponding to the one of the plurality of different functions; and
operate the plant with the one of the plurality of different functions by using the classified data into one of the pieces of attribute information corresponding to the one of the plurality of different functions.”
In particular, it is very confusing regarding, “the plurality of different functions”, as highlighted, it would appear that the plurality of functions are tied to “a processor”, that then performs a plurality of functions regarding gathering state information from a device and determining optimal control instructions after performing classification of data. However, it would appear that the claims insinuate that the, “plurality of functions” are tied to the device based on attribute information received about the device regarding state information. This provides a lot of confusion as it is unclear whether the functions being performed are being done by the processor or by the device being monitored?
Further, it is unclear how exactly the attribute information and functions are tied together. It appears that the acquired operation data is assigned attribute information, but then further it appears that the attribute information is associated with the functions without providing a nexus as to how the attribute information relates to the functions when performing classification?
In order to further prosecution, the office will interpret the functions being performed as any device/processor performing functions as a result of data classification and the plurality of functions will be interpreted as any segmenting of data to create a plurality of functions that are then optimized based classification of the segments.
Corrections and clarification is required.
Dependent claims 2-8 are dependent upon rejected base claim 1 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanokogi et al. (US PGPUB 20190018374).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10-11; Kanokogi teaches; An information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor that performs a plurality of different functions: (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0208])
acquire, from a device for an operation of a plant, data that is related to the operation of the plant and to which one of pieces of attribute information indicating a state of the device has been assigned; (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0057] and [0076]; disclose wherein the system and method includes acquiring operation plant data including the states of field devices)
classify the acquired data into one of the pieces of attribute information based on the attribute information assigned to the acquired data for one of the plurality of different functions by using one of the pieces of attribute information corresponding to the one of the plurality of different functions; and (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0075]-[0091] and [0103]; disclose a parameter classifier (106) for which classifies the acquired data based on attribute information and wherein the system further segments the data into a plurality of different functions according to the attribute information)
operate the plant with the one of the plurality of different functions by using the classified data into one of the pieces of attribute information corresponding to the one of the plurality of different functions. (Kanokogi; at least paragraph [0075]-[0091]; disclose wherein the system segments the data into a plurality of different segments/functions and method includes outputting an operation instruction based on the learned/classified data regarding a respective segment and associated attribute information).
Regarding Claim 2; Kanokogi teaches; The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is a cloud server, and the processor further provides the classified data to a system external to the plant for each of the pieces of attribute information. (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0067] and [0201]-[0204]).
Regarding Claim 3; Kanokogi teaches; The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pieces of attribute information include information indicating whether a state of the device in which the data has been measured is one of normal, abnormal, and uncertain, and the processor further performs a simulation that calculates control data related to the operation of the plant by excluding uncertain data out of pieces of data from the device. (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0086] and [0104]).
Regarding Claim 5; Kanokogi teaches; The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pieces of attribute information include information indicating an operation state of the device in which the data has been measured, and the processor further performs a statistical process related to the operation of the plant by using only data indicating that a normal operation is being performed out of pieces of data from the device. (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0158] and [0167]).
Regarding Claim 7; Kanokogi teaches; The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pieces of attribute information include information indicating one of attributes of the plant, and the processor further: classifies pieces of data from the device into groups for each of the attributes of the plant, and distributes the data belonging to each of the groups in accordance with a type of risk control, ensuring security, and management control including information management. (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0132]-[0138]).
Regarding Claim 8; Kanokogi teaches; The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pieces of attribute information include information indicating either a situation of the device in which the data has been measured or an operation load of the device, and the processor further: calculates an operation load of the plant based on the situation of the device or the operation load of the device, and operates the plant in accordance with the operation load of the plant. (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0127]-[0130]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanokogi et al. (US PGPUB 20190018374) in view of Steinberg et al. (US PGPUB 20100308119).
Regarding Claim 4; Kanokogi teaches; The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pieces of attribute information include information indicating whether the device in which the data has been measured is controlled by manual control or automatic control, and the processor further: performs a simulation that calculates control data related to the operation of the plant, and selects, out of pieces of data from the device, data associated with the manual control or the automatic control based on content of the simulation. (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0201]-[0205]; discloses performing simulations on the control data and wherein the simulator can calculate optimal control values from the analyzed data that can be applied to control the system).
Kanokogi appears to be silent on; “…wherein the pieces of attribute information include information indicating whether the device…is controlled by manual control or automatic control,”
However, Steinberg teaches; “…wherein the pieces of attribute information include information indicating whether the device…is controlled by manual control or automatic control,” (Steinberg; at least Abstract; Figs. 7 and 8; disclose a control system and method in which the system is capable of receiving system state data and determining and classifying whether a control adjustment was automatic or manual).
Kanokogi and Steinberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of data classification and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of identifying manual or automatic control as taught by Steinberg with the known system of a data classification and control system as taught by Kanokogi in order to provide a way to determine correlations related to the cause of when manual/automatic control occurs to aid in long term analysis as taught by Steinberg (paragraph [0006]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanokogi et al. (US PGPUB 20190018374) in view of Ushiku et al. (US PGPUB 20030009311).
Regarding Claim 6; Kanokogi teaches; The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pieces of attribute information include information indicating an operation state of the device in which the data has been measured, and the processor further: predicts life of the device by using the acquired data, and weights data indicating a specific state other than data indicating that a normal operation is being performed in predicting the life. (Kanokogi; at least paragraphs [0057], [0116], and [0141]).
Kanokogi appears to be silent on; “…predicts life of the device by using the acquired data, and weights data indicating a specific state other than data indicating that a normal operation is being performed in predicting the life.”
However, Ushiku teaches; “…predicts life of the device by using the acquired data, and weights data indicating a specific state other than data indicating that a normal operation is being performed in predicting the life.” (Ushiku; at least Fig. 5; paragraph [0010]; disclose a system and method for gathering data on a piece of equipment (i.e. data of Kanokogi) and uses that data to determine the predicted life expectancy based on the data which can further determine the load experienced by the device and thus determine when the device is operating at normal operating levels).
Kanokogi and Ushiku are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of data classification and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of determining the predicted life as taught by Ushiku with the known system of a data classification and control system as taught by Kanokogi in order to provide a way to determine life expectancy such that preventative maintenance can be performed to avert unintended downtime which results in a loss of revenue and production capability as taught by Ushiku (paragraph [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 recites: “An information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor that:
acquires, from a device for an operation of a plant, data that is related to the operation of the plant and to which one of pieces of attribute information indicating a state of the device has been assigned;
classifies the acquired data into one of the pieces of attribute information based on the attribute information assigned to the acquired data; and operates the plant by using the data classified into one of the pieces of attribute information,
wherein the pieces of attribute information include information indicating either a situation of the device in which the data has been measured or an operation load of the device,
the processor further:
calculates an operation load of the plant based on the situation of the device or the operation load of the device, and
operates the plant in accordance with the operation load of the plant, and
the processor further, when either the situation of the device or a load related to an
infrastructure of the plant specified by the situation of the device is equal to or greater than a threshold:
causes unused aging equipment or low efficient equipment to operate, and
decreases the load applied to the plant while maintaining production of a product material according to a request from a client with respect to the plant.”
Kanokogi et al. (US PGPUB 20190018374) and Ushiku et al. (US PGPUB 20030009311). Kanokogi teaches a plant monitoring system and method for gathering and classifying segments of data for plant equipment including power output/load of the equipment. This data can then be filtered and utilized to determine optimal control output parameters for operating the system. The reference of Ushiku discloses a system and method for determining the life expectancy of various equipment based upon gathered data. This includes monitoring sensor and loading data that the equipment experiences, and calculating the life expectancy such that maintenance or operational changes can be made in order to avoid failures. However, neither Kanokogi nor Ushiku discloses utilizing gaining of low efficiency equipment to help decrease a loading on the production plant while maintaining production requirements as requested by a client. This allows the system to operate at reduced costs while providing an acceptable product to a customer over the cited prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, see pages 8-10, that in light of the new amendments, the reference of Kanokogi fails to explicitly teach each limitation.
And secondly, see page 10, that the office action fails to provide motivation for combination of the secondary references in the rejection of claims 4 and 6.
The office respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the first argument, the new amendments provide a lot of confusion as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above. However, in light of the offices interpretation as detailed above, it is still believed that the reference of Kanokogi teaches the limitations as presently recited. Without repeating the rejection set forth above, the office believes that limitations can be found in paragraphs [0075]-[0091] of Kanokogi. That is, Kanokogi acquires state information with associated attribute data (see paragraphs [0075]-[0078]) as the system uses an operation state acquirer gather, for example, various state and measured, monitored data from a plurality of valves. Next, with reference to paragraphs [0076]-[0091], the data can be broken up into a plurality of segments, which are analogized to a plurality of functions, wherein a classifier can then classify data in each segment based on associated attribute information with each segment. And finally, paragraph [0091], performs optimization and control of the system utilizing one of the data segments.
In response to applicant’s second argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In order to further prosecution, the office recommends making similar amendments to claims 1 and 10-11 that were made to claim 9 in order to overcome the current rejection and move the case towards allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujimaki (US PGPUB 20100250542): teaches an industrial data classification and optimization system and method for acquiring a plurality of data, classifying, and optimizing based on a plurality of procedures.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117