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
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of claim 7 under 112(b), and as noted by Applicant on page 12 of the response, the amendment to claim 7 overcomes the rejection, which is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101 specific to claim 17-20 for reciting non-statutory subject matter, Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 of the response are persuasive and the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-20 under 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants arguments for the following reasons.
On pages 12-15 of the response, Applicant contends that amended claim 1 includes a combination of elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by virtue of an improvement to existing technology. In support, Applicant cites the contrasting fact patterns and resultant decisions in Flook and Diehr as supporting Applicant’s contention. Applicant notes on page 13 of the response that “… the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claims eligible because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed.” Applicant then points to the contrasting case Diehr in which the claim recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent, noting the finding that these specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber.
On page 14 of the response, Applicant contrasts Applicant’s claim 1 to Flook, noting that Applicant’s claims require a computer system to receive sensor data and direct different sets of machines to perform an activity depending on which machine requires maintenance. The Examiner submits that while the claim in Flook was found lacking in terms of improvement to a technical field due to inadequate integration of the addition element with the processes characterizing the field, Applicant’s claim 1 does not appear to be directed to any particular field of use. For example, considering the factors set forth in MPEP 2106.05(b), the technology recited in claim 1 is characterized very generally such that a “field-of-use” is not evident (e.g., technical industry itself, and/or in terms of type/configuration of sensors, types of data collected/processed, equipment types/configurations, etc.).
On page 14 of the response, Applicant compares Applicant’s independent claims with Diehr contending that “[l]ike the claims in Diehr, the amended independent claims recite specific limitations that go beyond linking a judicial exception to a field of use.” In support, Applicant notes that the claimed computer system generates a mapping of the machine to their functionalities, determines minimum functionalities needed to perform the activity, determines which sets of the machines are capable of performing the activity based on the mapping, and generates a maintenance plan including identifying a machine that needs maintenance and selecting a set of machines that does not include the identified machine. Applicant further asserts that these techniques cause machines controlled by the computer system to operate differently than they would using conventional techniques, which can result in improved outcomes such as enabling the machines to perform activities without maintenance interruptions.
As note above in reference to Flook, the Examiner submits that Applicant’s claims do not appear to apply to any particular field of use and such lack of particularized technical field application appears evident by comparison the claims at issue in Diehr. The claim in Diehr applies particularized sensing in the form of timing combined with temperature sensing in a particularize manner to a particularized, field-specific structures curing mold cavity and press. In contrast, the functions recited by Applicants independent claims are computer processing determinations that are based on non-particularized “sensor data” obtained with respect to non-particularized “machines” such that processing of “sensor data” does not entail any particular improvement to a technical field. Furthermore, the functional steps are implemented by a generic computer processing system as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), such that the additional elements are insufficient in combination with the mental steps to prevent monopolization of the mental process functions over a vast array of plausible applications.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejections of claims 1-20 under 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more are maintained.
Regarding the rejections of independent claims 1, 12, and 17 under 103, and as noted by Applicant on page 16 of the response, the limitations introduced by amendment including determining a minimal level of maintenance for a set of machines current performing the activity based on sensor data and generating a maintenance plan that includes selecting a set of machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities that does not include a machine determined to require maintenance are not taught by the previous applied combination of references Shinge (US 2022/0405717 A1) and Sobalvarro (US 2022/0121181 A1). Based on further search and analysis, new grounds for rejecting claims 1, 12, and 17 under 103 as unpatentable over Shinge in view of Sobalvarro, and in further view of Garrow (US 7,457,763 B1) are set forth herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 lines 2-3, “at least one device monitoring machines” should read “at least one device monitoring machine.” Claims 12 and 17 include the same minor editorial issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, substantially representative also of independent claims 12 and 17, recites in part, “directing, by the computer system, a first set of the machines to perform an activity” and “directing, by the computer system and according to the maintenance plan, the selected set of the machines to perform the activity while the identified machine is undergoing the required maintenance,” neither of which appears to be disclosed with reasonable clarity as being part of the invention described in Applicant’s original disclosure.
Applicant’s original disclosure describes a computer system (e.g., computer system 110 in FIG. 1) as implementing the maintenance scheduling and underlying activities associated therewith ([0025] describing computing environment 100 that includes computer 101 as involved in “performing the inventive methods”). However, none of the methods/embodiments depicted and/or described in Applicant’s specification and figures (or original claims) appear to disclose a computer system directing a set of machines to perform an activity including directing the machines, according to the maintenance plan.
The Examiner acknowledges that the specification generally addresses the concept of a set of machines performing an activity and also discloses generating maintenance schedules/plans that account for machine functionalities and also maintenance planning that excludes a machine from being scheduled to implement an activity ([0074]). However, Applicant’s original disclosure does not appear to disclose that the invention may include using a computer system to actually direct the machines to perform an activity in accordance with the described maintenance planning/scheduling. Consequently, the Examiner finds that neither of “directing, by the computer system, a first set of the machines to perform an activity” and “directing, by the computer system and according to the maintenance plan, the selected set of the machines to perform the activity while the identified machine is undergoing the required maintenance,” are disclosed by Applicant’s original disclosure with reasonable clarity. Therefore, the original disclosure fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected for the same reasons.
Independent claims 12 and 17 include substantially the same elements that lack support in Applicant’s original disclosure as claim 1 and are likewise rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 13-16 depend from claim 12 and claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and are likewise rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each of these claims is directed to the abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1, substantially representative also of independent claims 12 and 17, recites:
“[a] computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, sensor data from at least one device monitoring machines controlled by the computer system;
directing, by the computer system, a first set of the machines to perform an activity;
generating, by the computer system, a knowledge corpus for the machines, wherein the knowledge corpus comprises a mapping of the machines to respective functionalities of the machines;
determining, by the computer system, one or more sets of minimum functionalities required to perform the activity;
determining, by the computer system and based on the mapping, sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities;
determining, by the computer system, a minimal level of maintenance for the first set of the machines, wherein the determining the minimum level of maintenance comprises evaluating the sensor data;
generating, by the computer system, a maintenance plan based on the minimal level of maintenance for the first set of the machines wherein the generating the maintenance plan comprises:
identifying a machine from the first set of machines that is required to undergo maintenance; and
selecting, from the sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities, a set of the machines that does not include the identified machine; and
directing, by the computer system and according to the maintenance plan, the selected set of the machines to perform the activity while the identified machine is undergoing the required maintenance.”
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above and the remaining features are “additional elements.”
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 recites a method and claim 12 recites a system (machine), and each therefore falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portions of claim 1 fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The recited functions:
“generating” “a knowledge corpus for the machines, wherein the knowledge corpus comprises a mapping of the machines to respective functionalities of the machines;
determining” “one or more sets of minimum functionalities required to perform the activity;
determining” “based on the mapping, sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities;
determining” “a minimal level of maintenance for the first set of the machines, wherein the determining the minimum level of maintenance comprises evaluating the sensor data;
generating” “a maintenance plan based on the minimal level of maintenance for the first set of the machines wherein the generating the maintenance plan comprises:
identifying a machine from the first set of machines that is required to undergo maintenance; and
selecting, from the sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities, a set of the machines that does not include the identified machine,”
may be performed as mental processes.
Generating a knowledge corpus that maps machines to respective functionalities of the machines may be performed via mental processes (e.g., observing and accumulating/learning the functions of machines). Determining one or more sets of minimum functionalities required to perform an activity may be performed via mental processes, determining based on the mapping, sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities, and determining, including via evaluation of sensor data, a minimal level of maintenance for the machines may individually and in combination (e.g., as a series of determinations) be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgement/opinion). Generating a maintenance plan for one or more of the machines based on the minimal level of maintenance for the machines may also be performed via mental processes (e.g., conceiving of maintenance plan in accordance with evaluation of the determined minimal level of maintenance), including generating the maintenance plan by identifying a machine from the first set of machines that is required to undergo maintenance (e.g., evaluation and judgement) and selecting, from the sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities, a set of the machines that does not include the identified machine (e.g., evaluation of the set of machines and judgement in selecting a set that excludes the identified machine).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether the claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception” (MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
MPEP § 2106.04(d) sets forth considerations to be applied in Step 2A, Prong Two for determining whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claim 1 and applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most applicable of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology, none of the “additional elements” including that the method is “computer-implemented,” “receiving, by a computer system, sensor data from at least one device monitoring machines controlled by the computer system,” “directing, by the computer system, a first set of the machines to perform an activity,” “directing, by the computer system and according to the maintenance plan, the selected set of the machines to perform the activity while the identified machine is undergoing the required maintenance,” and that the processing steps are performed by a “computer system,” appear to integrate the abstract idea in a manner that technologically improves any aspect of a device or system that may be used to implement the highlighted step or a device for implementing the highlighted step such as a signal processing device or a generic computer. Receiving, by a computer system, sensor data from at least one device monitoring machine controlled by the computer system represents high-level data collection having no particularized relation to the functions falling within the judicial exception and therefore constitutes insignificant extra solution activity that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Directing, by the computer system, a first set of the machines to perform an activity, represents high-level, non-specialized computer implementation of routine machine activity (computer controlled machine operations) having no particularized functional relation to the functions falling within the judicial exception and therefore constitutes insignificant extra solution activity that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, directing, by the computer system and according to the maintenance plan, the selected set of the machines to perform the activity while the identified machine is undergoing the required maintenance, does not embody an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technical field improvement because it merely conveys computer-based (instruction based) high-level control of machine activities that does not appear to entail any such improvement and therefore also constitutes insignificant extra solution activity that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, the additional elements are configured and implemented in a conventional (generalized computer implementation) rather than a particularized manner of determining production and maintenance requirements for machines.
Regarding a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, claim 1 does not include any such transformation or reduction. Instead, claim 1 as a whole entails a series of functions that may be performed individually and/or in combination by mental processes with “computer-implemented” representing convention, routine data processing activity for implementing the judicial exception, such that the additional element fails to provide a meaningful integration of the judicial exception (functions for determining information relevant to production and related maintenance) in an application that transforms an article to a different state. Instead, the additional element represents extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, and as explained in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in claim 1 constitute insignificant extra solution activity and therefore do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. Furthermore, the additional elements appear to be generic and well understood as evidenced by the disclosures of Shinge (US 2022/0405717 A1), Sobalvarro (US 2022/0121181 A1) and Ueki (US 2021/0089928 A1), each of which teach a substantially similar data processing (computer-implemented) platform for processing information relating to machine activity configurations, operations, and maintenance and in which Sobalvarro and Ueki teach using sensors for monitoring machines.
As explained in the grounds for rejecting claim 1 under 103, Shinge teaches “a computer-implemented method,” as does Sobalvarro ([0039]-[0040]). Shinge and Sobalvarro further teach use of equipment monitoring information for equipment that may be collected via operation condition inputs (sensors) (Shinge: [0042], [0080]-[0081] use of “operation history” for condition based maintenance (as distinct from time based maintenance) [0045] describing dynamic operation information that may be used; Sobalvarro: Table I listing speeds and payloads as “Attributes”) as does Ueki ([0008] known in the prior art to use sensors for monitoring failures and remaining life).
Therefore, the additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 17 recite substantially the same elements falling within the judicial exception as claim 1, and include no additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 12 further recites the additional element that the system includes “one or more computer processors,” which entails conventional, routine functionality of a generic computer system and therefore constitutes insignificant extra solution activity. Similarly, claim 17 further recites that the apparatus comprises “a compute readable storage medium having program instructions embodied thereon” to be “executable by a server,” which also entails convention, routine functionality of a generic computer system implemented as a server and therefore constitutes insignificant extra solution activity (there is no particularized significance to the server configuration relating to the elements constituting the judicial exception and instead a server configured as a processing node in the system was well-known in the art as disclosed by Shinge ([0037]) and Wallace (EP 4053656A2) (FIG. 1 server 18; [0040], [0042], [0044]).
Therefore, independent claims 12 and 17 are also not patent eligible under 101.
Claims 2-11 depending from claim 1, claims 13-16 depending from claim 12, and claims 18-20 depending from claim 17 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm that includes the abstract idea of the respective independent claim (Step 2A, Prong One). None of dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two), and all fail the “significantly more” test under the step 2B for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
Claims 2-6, 9-10, 13-15, 18-19 further recite functions that clearly may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation and judgment) and include no further additional elements that computer-implementation in claim 10.
Claims 7 and 11 further characterizes the content of the maintenance plan (characterizes the data generated via the judicial exception) and therefore also falls within the judicial exception within no additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8, representative also of claims 16 and 20, recites three functions (analyzing, identifying, and generating) that may be performed via mental processes and further recites “incorporating the adjustments into the maintenance plan,” which the Examiner finds to fall within the mental processes exception because it can be performed via mental processes (e.g., determining a different maintenance plan using judgement). Even if this element was found to fall outside the mental processes exception (e.g., considered to entail a tangible adjustment of maintenance data), it entails routine, conventional data processing activity (data outputs replacing other/previous outputs) that constitutes insignificant extra solution activity.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 therefore also constitute ineligible subject matter under 101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinge (US 2022/0405717 A1) in view of Sobalvarro (US 2022/0121181 A1) and in further view of Garrow (US 7,457,763 B1).
As to independent claims 1, 12, and 17, Shinge teaches “a computer-implemented method (method implemented by computer implemented system depicted in FIG. 1; [0035]),” “a system having one or more computer processors (FIG. 1 computer implemented system; FIG. 2 computation device 104; FIG. 4 computation device 304),” and “a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions (FIG. 1 computer implemented system (inherently entails computer-readable storage medium such as memory required for processing); FIG. 2 computation device 104 connected to memory 103; FIG. 4 computation device 304 connected to memory 303) executable by a server to cause the server to perform a method (FIG. 1 depicting networked system; [0037] system may be implemented in a networked configuration in which a server device receives and processes data from user), each configured to implement the method comprising:
“receiving, by a computer system,” “data from at least one device monitoring machines (FIGS. 4 and 9 and [0082] analysis system 300 contains/stores operation history data 325 (the operation data has been received (e.g., from user terminals 200 per [0082]); [0042] analysis system 300 uses past operation history (must be received) to determine temporal changes in cumulative damage and failure probability)”
“determining, by the computer system, one or more sets of” “functionalities required to perform the activity ([0039] user terminal distribute production plan; FIG. 7 depicting production plan database 127 and FIG. 8 depicting remaining life records including records indicating processes (functionalities) required for respective production items that each contribute to the overall production process/activity; [0073]-[0074]);
determining, by the computer system” “sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of” “functionalities ([0077] describing indication of damage accumulation for a device of the target production process (indicates that known/determined devices (machines) are used to implement the production process). Examiner notes that an initial determination of devices/machines for implementing the functionalities is inherently entailed in the described implementation of and damage accumulation monitoring for the devices/machines);
determining, by the computer system, a minimal level of maintenance for the” “the machines ([0008] condition-based modeling for determining maintenance requirements (e.g., timing) including determining over time (variable range) whether remaining life/failure probability requires a change in maintenance timing (i.e., may need to be performed earlier or may be postponed (minimized in a time interval) based on conditions that indicate failure probability/remaining life (indicative of maintenance at least minimally required for continued functioning); FIG. 12 blocks s2 and s3 depicting determination of remaining life information for devices and FIG. 13 blocks s12, s13 and s14 depicting determination of condition-based maintenance; [0102]), wherein the determining the minimum level of maintenance comprises evaluating the” “data ([0008] and [0042] failure probability used to determine condition-based (minimum level) maintenance);
generating, by the computer system, a maintenance plan based on the minimal level of maintenance for” “the machines (FIG. 13 blocks s14 and s15; [0108]-[0110] condition-based maintenance timing adopted and implemented as recommendation), wherein the generating the maintenance plan comprises:
identifying a machine from the” “machines that is required to undergo maintenance ([0037], [0040], [0069], [0125], [0131] maintenance plan determined for target devices).”
Shinge does not expressly teach “directing, by the computer system, a first set of the machines to perform an activity,” and “generating, by the computer system, a knowledge corpus for the machines, wherein the knowledge corpus comprises a mapping of the machines to respective functionalities of the machines.”
Sobalvarro discloses a method for optimizing a factory schedule and factory layout (Abstract) that includes directing, by a computer system, a first set of machines to perform an activity (FIG. 1 depicting a computer system comprising processor 110 and memory 115 configured control physical factory 160, which per [0043] and Table 1 includes multiple machines, via optimized layouts 125 and schedules 130; [0040]-[0041]) and generating a knowledge corpus for the machines, wherein the knowledge corpus comprises a mapping of the machines to respective functionalities of the machines (Table 1 associating objects (machines) with respective functions; [0040] describing processing of the objects in Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Sobalvarro’s teaching of directing activity for a set of machines (e.g., production/manufacturing) via computer control (automated) to the method taught by Shinge such that the machines are automated in some manner to implement activities and that consequently, the steps of “determining … a minimal level of maintenance,” “generating … a maintenance plan based on the minimal level of maintenance,” and “identifying a machine … that is required to undergo maintenance” are performed with respect to “the first set of machines.”
The motivation would have been to enhance efficiency of the system (e.g., production/manufacturing) via automation as suggested by Sobalvarro.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Sobalvarro’s teaching of generating a knowledge corpus that maps the machines to respective functionalities to the method taught by Shinge as modified by Sobalvarro such that in combination the method includes generating such mapping and that consequently, the step of “determining … sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities” would be based on such mapping.
The motivation would have been to enable implementation of automated (controlled by the information) machine operations and adjustments to such operations in a manner that effectuates the functions required for operation as suggested by Sobalvarro.
Shinge appears to further teach “determining one or more sets of minimum functionalities required to perform an activity,” because as explained above Shinge teaches a set of processes required for performing an activity, which inherently includes a minimum set of such functionalities required to perform the activity.
Furthermore, Sobalvarro discloses a method for optimizing a factory schedule and factory layout (Abstract) that includes determining a set of minimum functionalities required to perform an activity (FIG. 1 constraints and requirements (for factory production) 140; [0046] layout optimization includes receiving a work order that specifies operations to be performed (functionalities) and the objective function to be maximized in accordance with the work order (activity). The selective determination of particular operations among all available for implementing the work order activities constitutes determining a set of minimum functionalities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Sobalvarro’s teaching of determining a set of minimum functionalities required to perform an activity such as by selectively determining which operations to implement for layout corresponding to a particular work order to the method taught by Shinge such that the combined method includes determining one or more sets of minimum functionalities required to perform an activity. In such combination, the method would consequently include determining machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of “minimum” functionalities.
The motivation would have been to optimize efficient allocation of system resources for implementing specific activities such as may be specified in work orders as suggested by Sobalvarro.
Regarding the generating of the maintenance plan as including “selecting, from the sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities, a set of the machines that does not include the identified machine,” and the method further including “directing, by the computer system and according to the maintenance plan, the selected set of the machines to perform the activity while the identified machine is undergoing the required maintenance,” Sobalvarro discloses that maintenance scheduling may be accounted for in determining optimized production scheduling ([0044] and Table 1 objects corresponding to machines (and per [0017] and [0046] used for layout and production scheduling) includes maintenance schedule data), discloses directing, by a computer system according to a maintenance plan, the selected set of the machines to perform an activity (FIG. 1 depicting a computer system comprising processor 110 and memory 115 configured control physical factory 160, which per [0043] and Table 1 includes multiple machines, via optimized layouts 125 and schedules 130; [0040]-[0041]), and further discloses in the same object-based association, the potential need for machine replacement by an equivalent machine may be accounted for in the machine objects used for determining optimized layouts/scheduling ([0044] and Table 1 indicating “equivalent objects for replacement” as an object attribute).
Furthermore, Garrow discloses a predictive maintenance method for eliminating or reducing equipment downtime (Abstract) and that includes a scheduler that may determine to preserve a maintenance schedule by using an alternate component to be used as a substitute for/during maintenance (col. 5 lines 12-24 and col. 12 lines 14-22 describing use/revision of a maintenance schedule in which an alternate component is used as a substitute for a component under maintenance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Garrow’s teaching of using substitute components during maintenance to the method taught by Shinge as modified by Sobalvarro and including Sobalvarro’s teaching of computer-controlled machine activity based on a maintenance schedule and that maintenance scheduling is accounted for in production scheduling including potential machine replacement, such that in combination the maintenance scheduling includes “selecting, from the sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities, a set of the machines that does not include the identified machine,” and the method further including “directing, by the computer system and according to the maintenance plan, the selected set of the machines to perform the activity while the identified machine is undergoing the required maintenance.”
The motivation would have been to eliminate or reduce downtime of the machine-implemented system as disclosed by Garrow.
Regarding receiving, by a computer system, “sensor” data from at least one device monitoring machines “controlled by the computer system” and wherein the determining the minimum level of maintenance comprises evaluating the “sensor” data, Garrow further teaches receiving sensor data from a monitoring machine (col. 7 lines 26-36 data processing system 100 collects (receives) performance data from an operational data source 14 that may be a sensor associated with the equipment; col. 2 lines 58-66 sensor is incorporated into/with the equipment (equivalent of computer-controlled “device monitoring machine” depicted in Applicant’s FIG. 5)) in which the sensor data is used for determining required maintenance (col. 2 lines 58-66 sensor data and col. 7 lines 26-36 performance data analyzer may receive sensor data indicating performance condition; FIG. 4 performance data used for predicting required maintenance activity). Regarding the device monitoring machines being “controlled by the computer system,” as noted above Sobalvarro discloses the monitored equipment being controlled by a computer system (FIG. 1 depicting a computer system comprising processor 110 and memory 115 configured control physical factory 160, which per [0043] and Table 1 includes multiple machines, via optimized layouts 125 and schedules 130; [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Garrow’s teaching of receiving sensor data from a monitoring machine for determining required (minimum needed) maintenance to the method taught by Shinge, as modified by Sobalvarro to include target equipment that is computer-controlled such that in combination the method includes “receiving, by a computer system, sensor data from at least one device monitoring machines controlled by the computer system” and “wherein the determining the minimum level of maintenance comprises evaluating the sensor data.”
Such a combination would amount to selecting a known design option for collecting and applying information that relates to equipment condition and is therefore useful for making maintenance decisions to achieve predictable results. Furthermore, a particular motivation would have been to collect and apply information that is particularly relevant to dynamic equipment operating condition to optimize maintenance decision-making as suggested by Garrow.
As to claims 2, 13, and 18, the combination of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow teaches the method of claim 1, system of claim 12, and program product of claim 17, and further teaches “wherein generating the maintenance plan comprises:
analyzing execution plans for the sets of the machines capable of supporting the one or more sets of minimum functionalities (Shinge: FIG. 7 production plan database 127 including records showing scheduled production amounts for respective processes (functionalities), that per [0077] are associated with respective devices/machines); [0059] production plan applied for implementing functions (i.e., is analyzed)); and
determining, from the analyzing, a downtime of at least one of the machines (Shinge: FIG. 7 production plan database 127 including records corresponding to processes (functionalities), that per the grounds for rejecting claim 1 are associated with respective devices/machines, in which the records (e.g., for Quenching K) includes indicated no production (no activity) dates).”
As to claim 3, the combination of Shinge, Sabolvarro, and Garrow teaches “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein selecting the set of machines comprises:
determining whether there are any sets from the one or more sets of minimum functionalities that involve only machines that do not need to undergo maintenance (Shinge: [0008]-[0009] remaining life information for particular devices used in determining maintenance timing adjustments within a variable range; FIG. 13 block s14. Examiner notes that the individualized determinations of when (sooner or later) to perform maintenance for particular devices that implement the processing functions inherently entails a determination that a given device for a corresponding production process does not need to undergo maintenance for at least some period of time).”
As to claims 4, 14, and 19 the combination of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 12, and the program product of claim 17, and Shinge further teaches, pursuant to determining functionalities for performing the activity,
“determining current functionalities of the first set of the machines performing the activity (Shinge: FIG. 8 depicting Remaining Life Information records for particular processes (functionalities) that indicate operational data including cumulative damage (monitoring operational data for a particular process inherently entails a determination that the process is operating/performing activity; FIG. 9 Operation History including records indicating particular product processes (functionalities e.g., Cutting X) for which production operation was recorded (i.e., the functionality that performed the activities were determined)); and
determining one or more combinations of functionalities from the current functionalities and the mapped functionalities in the knowledge corpus that are capable of performing the activity (Shinge: FIG. 7 Production Plan including records identifying production processes (functionalities) that per [0077] are associated with respective machines. Examiner notes that the “one or more combinations of functionalities from the current functionalities and the mapped functionalities” may comprise one or more functionalities from the “mapped functionalities” and any number including none of the functionalities from the “current functionalities”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Shinge’s teaching of determining current functionalities performing an activity, determining capable functionalities of one or more machines, and determining one or more combinations of functionalities from the current functionalities and the mapped functionalities for performing the activity pursuant to determining functionalities for performing the activity to the method taught by Shinge as modified by Sobalvarro in which such determinations regarding machine operation and capabilities are made to determine one or more sets of minimum functionalities for performing an activity, such that in combination these steps are performed for determining one or more sets of minimum functionalities for performing an activity.
The motivation would have been to utilize available activity performance data and machine capability data for optimizing efficient allocation of system resources for implementing specific activities.
As to claim 5, the combination of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow teaches “[t]he method of claim 4, wherein determining the current functionalities comprises:
identifying which functionalities are programmed to perform the activity (Shinge: FIG. 3 depicting user terminal 200 in which production plan 225 (functionalities for performing production activities) is stored in memory for processing by computation device 204; [0059]).”
As to claims 6 and 15, the combination of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow teaches the method of claim 4 and the system of claim 14, and further teaches “wherein determining one or more combinations of functionalities that are capable of performing the activity comprises:
identifying one or more tasks that make up the activity (Shinge: FIG. 7 production plan database including records indicating production processes (tasks) making up production activity);
determining one or more functionalities that are capable of completing the one or more tasks (Shinge: [0077] describing indication of damage accumulation for a device of the target production process (indicates that known/determined devices (machines) are used to implement the production processing). Examiner notes that an initial determination of devices/machines for implementing the functionalities is inherently entailed in the described implementation of and damage accumulation monitoring for the devices/machines); and
creating sets of the one or more functionalities that are capable of completing the one or more tasks (Shinge: FIG. 7 production plan database including records indicating production processes (tasks) for implementing/completing production activity).”
As to claim 7, the combination of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow teaches “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the generating the maintenance plan further comprises selecting, based on the knowledge corpus, a time to perform maintenance on the one or more of the machines (Shinge: FIG. 6 maintenance plan DB including records indicating starting dates and completion dates for implementing corresponding maintenance events; Abstract disclosing condition-based maintenance implementation timing (i.e., maintenance timing is adjusted based on the condition-based maintenance determinations); FIG. 13 blocks s11 and s12 adjusting maintenance timing in accordance with remaining life and maintenance list; [0101]-[0102]. Regarding the selection of a time to perform the maintenance “based on the knowledge corpus,” (i.e., a knowledge corpus that includes a mapping of machines to respective machine functionalities), the Examiner notes the overall method implemented by the teachings of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow as combined for claim 1 includes an expanded knowledge corpus that includes the portion of the knowledge corpus contributed by Sobalvarro (maps machines to respective functions) and other knowledge such as Shinge’s tracking of remaining life and maintenance list such that the timing is implemented by this overall knowledge corpus maintained and used in the overall method.).
As to claims 8, 16, and 20 the combination of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 12, and the program product of claim 17, and further teaches “the generating the maintenance plan further comprising:
analyzing an existing maintenance plan (Shinge: Abstract and [0008] method implements adjustments in variable range for pre-determined maintenance timing; [0005] time-based maintenance (TBM) as basis; [0039] obtain basis maintenance plan; [0040] analysis system generates information on temporal changes in failure probabilities of devices subject to basis maintenance plan; FIG. 6 depicting “regular” maintenance plan);
identifying a problem likely to be caused by the existing maintenance plan (Shinge: [0040] and [0042] analysis system determines temporal changes in failure probability of devices subject to the (basis) maintenance plan; [0078]-[0079] analysis for determining failure probabilities; FIG. 13 block s11);
generating an adjustment to the existing maintenance plan that addresses the problem (Shinge: Abstract the timings in existing maintenance plan are modified in a variable range based on condition-based maintenance processing (i.e., maintenance timings are determined/adjusted) to address condition issues that per [0040], [0042], and [0078]-[0079] may be remaining life corresponding to failure probabilities; FIG. 13 blocks s12, s13, and s14, [0102], [0108]); and
incorporating the adjustment into the maintenance plan (Shinge: FIG. 13 blocks s14 and s15, [0108] and [0110]).”
As to claim 9, the combination of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow teaches “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein determining the minimal level of maintenance comprises:
analyzing interdependencies between activities and the machines (Shinge: FIG. 7 production plan records associate overall production activity with specific production processes (cleaning, quenching, etc.) such that the generation of the records constitutes an analysis of the interdependencies between overall production activity and the specific production processes. Examiner notes that the systemic awareness (per [0077]) of devices that performs the specific production processes results in the analyzed interdependencies between the activities and the specific production processes being functionally equivalent to analyzed interdependencies between the activities and the machines; [0039] and [0059] production plan provided to maintenance plan assistant device (production plan processed for determining maintenance of equipment performing the production processes including in the production plan); [0074] production plan applicable to “target” period that per [0101] is period in which maintenance plan assistance device 100 is determining factors (e.g., damage suppression) for determining the conditional maintenance; FIG. 13 block s10 production process used as input for determining adjustments to maintenance timing); and
determining whether one or more of the machines are used to accomplish multiple activities (Shinge: FIG. 7 production plan, that as indicated above is used for determining the minimum level of maintenance, records indicate production processes, which per [0077] are known by the system as being implemented by respective devices/machines, and are for accomplishing multiple activities).
As to claim 10, the combination of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow teaches “[t]he method of claim 1,” and Shinge teaches “determining, by the computer system and based on new” “data from monitoring the selected set of machines while performing the activity, that one or more machines of the selected set of machines need maintenance ([0008] and [0042] device condition relevant to maintenance (e.g., remaining life) reflect temporal changes in failure probabilities used for condition-based maintenance planning (i.e., temporally evolving (new) RUL data used to monitor and determine maintenance requirements).”
Garrow further teaches that sensor data may be used for monitoring equipment condition and used for determining required maintenance (i.e., maintenance determined on an as-needed basis) (col. 2 lines 58-66 and col. 7 lines 26-36 performance data analyzer may receive sensor data indicating performance condition; FIG. 4 performance data used for predicting required maintenance activity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have applied Garrow’s use of sensor data as the source for monitoring equipment condition to the method taught by Shinge, which teaches using “new” (temporally evolving) data for monitoring equipment condition, as modified by Sobalvarro and Garrow (to include sensor data input for claim 1), such that in combination the method includes using new/evolving sensor data for monitoring the selected set of machines and determining need for maintenance for one or more of the machines based thereon.
Such a combination would amount to selecting a known design option for collecting and applying information that relates to equipment condition and is therefore useful for making maintenance decisions to achieve predictable results. Furthermore, a particular motivation would have been to collect and apply information that is particularly relevant to dynamic equipment operating condition to optimize maintenance decision-making as suggested by Garrow.
As to claim 11, the combination of Shinge, Sobalvarro, and Garrow teaches “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein generating the maintenance plan further includes one or more of determining functionalities of the identified machine (Shinge: FIG. 6 depicting time-based maintenance (TBM) records (i.e., records forming the basis for the subsequent condition-based adjustments) indicating production processes for maintenance), predicting a time to perform the maintenance (Shinge: FIG. 13 block s14 determine adjusted maintenance timing), and generating an activity execution plan for the selected set of machines while the identified machine undergoes maintenance.”
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 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 MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is (571)272-2507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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 W. BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857