DETAILED ACTION
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-14, 17-18, 21, 23-24, 27, and 29, the applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest the claim limitations with respect to independent claim 1 below. Independent claim 7 is substantially similar to independent claim 1. Dependent claims 1-6, 8-14, 17-18, 21, 23-24, 27, and 29 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claims 1 and 7, respectively. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art describe the claim limitations as briefly outlined below and as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 7 below.
wherein the factor represents events, processes, or states indicating that a deterioration in stability is attributable to an external intervention rather than an intrinsic problem with the production plant.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to Kruppa not teaching or suggesting a deterioration in stability is attributable to an external intervention. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kruppa describes the analysis of the values can be traced to a change in injection speed. Applicant’s arguments on page 13 describe an external factor “as a change in setpoint or input values”. Kruppa describes a change in a setpoint (i.e., a change in injection speed). If Applicant intends for an external factor to have a different meaning than described in Kruppa, Examiner suggests amending the claim to state the same.
Kruppa: see the change in injection speed as described in paragraph 0069; “Therefore, the value jump from cycle 25 to cycle 26 constitutes an anomaly which, however, is not a singular anomaly but rather constitutes an ongoing anomaly. Therefore, this does not concern an outlier, but rather—as already mentioned above—a value jump which, for example, if the value relates to a viscosity, can be traced back to a change in the injection speed of the injection-moulding machine.” Paragraph 0069
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since the cited prior art describe the limitations in these claims.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-14, 17-18, 21, 24, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0008774 (Kruppa) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes a method for visualizing the stability of a process state of a production plant including a molding machine operating in cycles and a computing unit, the method comprising using the computing unit to: (Kruppa: “The invention relates to a method for the automatic process monitoring and for the diagnosis of a piece-based process and a machine that performs the process, in particular an injection-moulding machine, or a set of machines that performs the process.” Paragraph 0001)
determine a value of a plurality of selected process variables , and (Kruppa: see the new value of a process variable as illustrated in figure 4; “By way of example, this is illustrated by means of a process variable (index 1) in a representative manner for any desired data source, in particular for process indices or process parameters or the measurement values thereof. Such a data source (index 1) delivers values x.sub.0 . . . x.sub.j of the process variable and is fed to a reference generator and to an anomaly detection.” Paragraph 0055)
determine for the value of each of the plurality of selected process variables a deviation or rate of change, (Kruppa: “By way of example, it is established that a current value x.sub.0 of the process variable (index 1) is characterized or evaluated as an anomaly when more than three reference standard deviations lie between the value x.sub.0 of the process variable (index 1) which is to be assessed and the reference mean value. The reference mean value can be e.g. the mean value which is part of the current reference values r.sub.1 . . . r.sub.n and/or calculated from the past values x.sub.1 . . . x.sub.j pf the process variable.” Paragraph 0055)
determine a stability of a current process state based on the determined deviation or rate of change of each of the plurality of selected process variables, (Kruppa: see the determination of inter alia stability as illustrated in figure 4; “The cause analysis is configured as a so-called user-oriented combination of the anomaly reports and also of the subsequently explained stability reports and is necessary as such as essential to the invention.” Paragraph 0063; “Together with the comparison, an evaluation takes place of additional criteria which can take place for example by means of the evaluation indices b.sub.1 . . . b.sub.i. Such an additional criterion can be, for example, the stability of the process.” Paragraph 0079)
visualize process states determined for different points in time and/or cyclesvia a chart such that a trajectory of the stability of process states for a predetermined period of time and/or over several cycles is visible in the chart, and (Kruppa: see the chart as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “During the first 24 cycles the value x, which can be for example a pressure value, a viscosity or another value of an injection moulding process, therefore generally speaking a value of a process variable, is arranged within a value range of 20 to 21. A mean value reference (dot-and-dash line) is assigned to these values x and a mean value standard deviation (dashed line). Starting from cycle 25, a value jump upwards takes place into the range between 23 and 24, wherein in the further course starting from cycle 25 all values lie in this range.” Paragraph 0068)
visualize a reference indicating that, to a certain point in time or for a certain period of time, a factor relevant for evaluating a result of the stability existed, (Kruppa: see the chart as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “Therefore, the value jump from cycle 25 to cycle 26 constitutes an anomaly which, however, is not a singular anomaly but rather constitutes an ongoing anomaly. Therefore, this does not concern an outlier, but rather—as already mentioned above—a value jump which, for example, if the value relates to a viscosity, can be traced back to a change in the injection speed of the injection-moulding machine.” Paragraph 0069)
wherein the factor represents events, processes, or states indicating that a deterioration in stability is attributable to an external intervention rather than an intrinsic problem with the production plant. (Kruppa: see the change in injection speed as described in paragraph 0069; “Therefore, the value jump from cycle 25 to cycle 26 constitutes an anomaly which, however, is not a singular anomaly but rather constitutes an ongoing anomaly. Therefore, this does not concern an outlier, but rather—as already mentioned above—a value jump which, for example, if the value relates to a viscosity, can be traced back to a change in the injection speed of the injection-moulding machine.” Paragraph 0069)
Claim 2:
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the factor relevant for evaluating of the result of the trajectory of the stability is:
a special operation mode of the production plant, and/or
a target value change and/or
a change in the configuration of the production plant, and/or (Kruppa: see the chart as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “Therefore, the value jump from cycle 25 to cycle 26 constitutes an anomaly which, however, is not a singular anomaly but rather constitutes an ongoing anomaly. Therefore, this does not concern an outlier, but rather—as already mentioned above—a value jump which, for example, if the value relates to a viscosity, can be traced back to a change in the injection speed of the injection-moulding machine.” Paragraph 0068)
a change by the user, and/or
a change in the control mode, and/or
a change of a sequence of motions, and/or
active alarms of the molding machine or of a peripheral device that may be existing, and/or
a change of an operating mode of a peripheral device, and/or
manual or automatic maintenance or service measures, and/or
comments edited by a user.
Claim 3:
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 1,
wherein the visualization of the stability of process states is shown as a bar having a length representing a trajectory of time or cycles, (Kruppa: see the chart with cycles along the length as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “During the first 24 cycles the value x, which can be for example a pressure value, a viscosity or another value of an injection moulding process, therefore generally speaking a value of a process variable, is arranged within a value range of 20 to 21. A mean value reference (dot-and-dash line) is assigned to these values x and a mean value standard deviation (dashed line). Starting from cycle 25, a value jump upwards takes place into the range between 23 and 24, wherein in the further course starting from cycle 25 all values lie in this range.” Paragraph 0068)
wherein points of time or time spans of different stability are visualized by: markings or alphanumeric information below and/or above and/or within the bar, and/or a different graphic design of portions of the bar.(Kruppa: see the chart with cycles along the length and process variable between cycles 1-24 and then a change at from cycle 25 to cycle 26 as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “During the first 24 cycles the value x, which can be for example a pressure value, a viscosity or another value of an injection moulding process, therefore generally speaking a value of a process variable, is arranged within a value range of 20 to 21. A mean value reference (dot-and-dash line) is assigned to these values x and a mean value standard deviation (dashed line). Starting from cycle 25, a value jump upwards takes place into the range between 23 and 24, wherein in the further course starting from cycle 25 all values lie in this range.” Paragraph 0068)
Claim 4:
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 1, further comprising a special mode of operation of the production plant including :
a change in production mode,
a change in components of a production cell including a tool or peripheral devices, (Kruppa: see the chart as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “Therefore, the value jump from cycle 25 to cycle 26 constitutes an anomaly which, however, is not a singular anomaly but rather constitutes an ongoing anomaly. Therefore, this does not concern an outlier, but rather—as already mentioned above—a value jump which, for example, if the value relates to a viscosity, can be traced back to a change in the injection speed of the injection-moulding machine.” Paragraph 0068)
a change in operating personnel,
a change in a control mode,
a change in operating procedure,
carrying out maintenance,
comments by a user,
exceeding of monitoring or warning limits,
rejects,
run-in cycles or automatic process optimizations by assistance systems,
activity of peripheral devices,
carrying out regular operations automatically, and
control mode of a flow controller or control mode of a process controller,
presence of alarms at the molding machine or a peripheral device.
Claim 5:
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the visualization of the reference is carried out only if there is an impairment of a stability of the process state at a certain point in time or for a certain time span. (Kruppa: “Such a plurality of reports/warnings/alarms is then channelled according to the invention through a cause analysis and prepared in a way which is easily understandable for a user/operator, or is passed on to systems (controls) which react in an automated manner. The cause analysis is configured as a so-called user-oriented combination of the anomaly reports and also of the subsequently explained stability reports and is necessary as such as essential to the invention. The operator/user or the person carrying out the process is mostly only interested in the causes of the process variable change, not so much in the individual process variable change as such.” Paragraph 0063; see the chart as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “During the first 24 cycles the value x, which can be for example a pressure value, a viscosity or another value of an injection moulding process, therefore generally speaking a value of a process variable, is arranged within a value range of 20 to 21. A mean value reference (dot-and-dash line) is assigned to these values x and a mean value standard deviation (dashed line). Starting from cycle 25, a value jump upwards takes place into the range between 23 and 24, wherein in the further course starting from cycle 25 all values lie in this range.” Paragraph 0068; “In a preferred embodiment of the method according to the invention, a result of the cause analysis and/or of the fault diagnosis is outputted at an output device for an operator, or a result of the cause analysis/fault diagnosis is further processed in an automated manner. This can take place e.g. in that the result of the cause analysis is made available to a machine control and/or to a control of a set of machines and/or to a control for influencing a machine environment, e.g. a factory hall, e.g. its heating/air-conditioning or suchlike. Hereby, it is successful either to make it particularly apparent to the operator which causes for a particular anomaly are present, or an automated averting of these anomalies can be successfully achieved when for example a machine control or a machine hall control or a control for a set of machines react accordingly to results of the cause analysis.” Paragraph 0029)
Claim 7:
The cited prior art describes a device for visualizing a stability of a process state of a production plant comprising a cyclically operating molding machine, the device comprising: (Kruppa: “The invention relates to a method for the automatic process monitoring and for the diagnosis of a piece-based process and a machine that performs the process, in particular an injection-moulding machine, or a set of machines that performs the process.” Paragraph 0001)
a display device (Kruppa: “This diagnosis is then sent to the operator via the machine display or also via a network/internet to e.g. a mobile device such as a smartphone or a tablet computer and is displayed there if applicable.” Paragraph 0075)
a computing unit in data connection with the display device via a data connection or configured to be brought into a data connection with the display device, and (Kruppa: “The method according to the invention can be carried out readily e.g. via an interface on an injection-moulding machine, wherein the interface sends characteristic values for each cycle to an external or also internal computer system e.g. of a processing unit/control on or in an injection-moulding machine. Such a computer system contains for example algorithms for the evaluation of different anomalies on the basis of the automatically formed reference.” Paragraph 0075)
the computing unit being configured to time-continuously or time-discretely determine a value of a plurality of selected process variables of the production plant and, (Kruppa: see the new value of a process variable as illustrated in figure 4; “By way of example, this is illustrated by means of a process variable (index 1) in a representative manner for any desired data source, in particular for process indices or process parameters or the measurement values thereof. Such a data source (index 1) delivers values x.sub.0 . . . x.sub.j of the process variable and is fed to a reference generator and to an anomaly detection.” Paragraph 0055)
compare a value of each selected process variable or a variable derived therefrom with one or more reference values, and (Kruppa: “The reference generator contains a so-called current reference with current reference values r.sub.i . . . r.sub.n and thereby the anomaly detection is able to establish an extraordinary value through comparison of the process variable (index 1) with the current reference values r.sub.1 . . . r.sub.n and/or with past values x.sub.1 . . . x.sub.k of the process variable.” Paragraph 0055)
in each case determine a deviation or a rate of change, (Kruppa: “By way of example, it is established that a current value x.sub.0 of the process variable (index 1) is characterized or evaluated as an anomaly when more than three reference standard deviations lie between the value x.sub.0 of the process variable (index 1) which is to be assessed and the reference mean value. The reference mean value can be e.g. the mean value which is part of the current reference values r.sub.1 . . . r.sub.n and/or calculated from the past values x.sub.1 . . . x.sub.j pf the process variable.” Paragraph 0055)
determine a stability of a current process state based on the determined plurality of deviations and/or rates of change, (Kruppa: see the determination of inter alia stability as illustrated in figure 4; “The cause analysis is configured as a so-called user-oriented combination of the anomaly reports and also of the subsequently explained stability reports and is necessary as such as essential to the invention.” Paragraph 0063; “Together with the comparison, an evaluation takes place of additional criteria which can take place for example by means of the evaluation indices b.sub.1 . . . b.sub.i. Such an additional criterion can be, for example, the stability of the process.” Paragraph 0079)
visualize process states determined for different points in time and/or cycles by a chart such that a trajectory of the stability of process states for a predetermined period of time and/or over several cycles is visible in the chart, and (Kruppa: see the chart as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “During the first 24 cycles the value x, which can be for example a pressure value, a viscosity or another value of an injection moulding process, therefore generally speaking a value of a process variable, is arranged within a value range of 20 to 21. A mean value reference (dot-and-dash line) is assigned to these values x and a mean value standard deviation (dashed line). Starting from cycle 25, a value jump upwards takes place into the range between 23 and 24, wherein in the further course starting from cycle 25 all values lie in this range.” Paragraph 0068)
visualize a reference indicating that at a certain point in time or for a certain period of time, a factor relevant for evaluating a result of the trajectory of the stability existed (Kruppa: see the chart as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “Therefore, the value jump from cycle 25 to cycle 26 constitutes an anomaly which, however, is not a singular anomaly but rather constitutes an ongoing anomaly. Therefore, this does not concern an outlier, but rather—as already mentioned above—a value jump which, for example, if the value relates to a viscosity, can be traced back to a change in the injection speed of the injection-moulding machine.” Paragraph 0069)
wherein the factor represents events, processes, or states indicating that a deterioration in stability is attributable to an external intervention rather than an intrinsic problem with the production plant. (Kruppa: see the change in injection speed as described in paragraph 0069; “Therefore, the value jump from cycle 25 to cycle 26 constitutes an anomaly which, however, is not a singular anomaly but rather constitutes an ongoing anomaly. Therefore, this does not concern an outlier, but rather—as already mentioned above—a value jump which, for example, if the value relates to a viscosity, can be traced back to a change in the injection speed of the injection-moulding machine.” Paragraph 0069)
Claim 8:
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
Claim 13:
The cited prior art describes a production plant in data-transmitting connection with the device according to claim 7 a data connection. (Kruppa: “The invention relates to a method for the automatic process monitoring and for the diagnosis of a piece-based process and a machine that performs the process, in particular an injection-moulding machine, or a set of machines that performs the process.” Paragraph 0001; “The method according to the invention can be carried out readily e.g. via an interface on an injection-moulding machine, wherein the interface sends characteristic values for each cycle to an external or also internal computer system e.g. of a processing unit/control on or in an injection-moulding machine. Such a computer system contains for example algorithms for the evaluation of different anomalies on the basis of the automatically formed reference. The patterns of resulting anomalies are interpreted by the second algorithm and are compiled to form a diagnosis. This diagnosis is then sent to the operator via the machine display or also via a network/internet to e.g. a mobile device such as a smartphone or a tablet computer and is displayed there if applicable. There, e.g. they can also be collected or also received over a greater number of machines and sorted, so that the method according to the invention for example with simultaneous occurrence of one and the same causes on a plurality of machines also enables a simplified cause analysis and cause research and maintenance in larger collections of machines, e.g. in a set of machines, in a simple manner.” Paragraph 0075)
Claim 14:
The cited prior art describes a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising commands to cause a computer to perform the method according to claim, when executing the program. (Kruppa: “The invention relates to a method for the automatic process monitoring and for the diagnosis of a piece-based process and a machine that performs the process, in particular an injection-moulding machine, or a set of machines that performs the process.” Paragraph 0001; “The method according to the invention can be carried out readily e.g. via an interface on an injection-moulding machine, wherein the interface sends characteristic values for each cycle to an external or also internal computer system e.g. of a processing unit/control on or in an injection-moulding machine. Such a computer system contains for example algorithms for the evaluation of different anomalies on the basis of the automatically formed reference. The patterns of resulting anomalies are interpreted by the second algorithm and are compiled to form a diagnosis. This diagnosis is then sent to the operator via the machine display or also via a network/internet to e.g. a mobile device such as a smartphone or a tablet computer and is displayed there if applicable. There, e.g. they can also be collected or also received over a greater number of machines and sorted, so that the method according to the invention for example with simultaneous occurrence of one and the same causes on a plurality of machines also enables a simplified cause analysis and cause research and maintenance in larger collections of machines, e.g. in a set of machines, in a simple manner.” Paragraph 0075)
Claim 17:
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the production plant further includes a peripheral device. (Kruppa: “devices for the monitoring and/or measuring of process variables” claim 13)
Claim 18:
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 1, further comprising using the computing unit to compare a current value of each selected process variable or a variable derived from each selected process variable with one or more reference values. (Kruppa: “The reference generator contains a so-called current reference with current reference values r.sub.i . . . r.sub.n and thereby the anomaly detection is able to establish an extraordinary value through comparison of the process variable (index 1) with the current reference values r.sub.1 . . . r.sub.n and/or with past values x.sub.1 . . . x.sub.k of the process variable.” Paragraph 0055)
Claim 21:
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 3, wherein the computing unit further visualizes a degree of instability by an intensity of a color, a number of instable process variables, or by a normed and summed up distance of actual values to reference values. (Kruppa: see the chart with cycles along the length and process variable between cycles 1-24 and then a change at from cycle 25 to cycle 26 as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraphs 0067-0070; “During the first 24 cycles the value x, which can be for example a pressure value, a viscosity or another value of an injection moulding process, therefore generally speaking a value of a process variable, is arranged within a value range of 20 to 21. A mean value reference (dot-and-dash line) is assigned to these values x and a mean value standard deviation (dashed line). Starting from cycle 25, a value jump upwards takes place into the range between 23 and 24, wherein in the further course starting from cycle 25 all values lie in this range.” Paragraph 0068)
Claim 24:
Claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
Claim 27:
Claim 27 is substantially similar to claim 21 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 12, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0008774 (Kruppa) (cited by Applicant) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0391422 (Giessauf) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 6:
Kruppa does not explicitly describe logical groups as described below. However, Giessauf teaches the logical groups as described below.
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 1, wherein
each selected process variable is assigned to a logical group by the computing unit, and at least two different logical groups are provided, and (Giessauf: “Each selected process variable is assigned to at least one logical group by the computing unit; at least two different logical groups are provided; and for each logical group, a state of the logical group is evaluated by the computing unit based on the process variables assigned to the logical group and/or is visualized by a display device.” abstract)
a state of each of the at least two logical groups is assessed and/or visualized by the computing unit based on the process variables assigned to this logical group. (Giessauf: “In regard to a visualization or evaluation apparatus according to the invention it is provided that various logical groups can be visualized and/or evaluated and that each selected process variable is associated with at least one of the logical groups and for each logical group a state of the logical group can be visualized and/or evaluated on the basis of the process variables associated with that logical group.” Paragraph 0055)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kruppa, namely, automatic process monitoring and diagnosis for an injection moulding process, with the known techniques of Giessauf, namely, visualizing and evaluating a process state for an injection moulding machine, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Kruppa to process and visualize data with the teachings of Giessauf to process and visualize data would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved data processing and visualization system (i.e., the combination of the cited references provides for the processing and visualizing data using various techniques and organizations for an injection moulding process based on the teachings of processing and visualizing data of Kruppa and based on the teachings of organizing data for visualization of Giessauf).
Claim 23:
Kruppa does not explicitly describe logical groups as described below. However, Giessauf teaches the logical groups as described below.
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 6, wherein logical groups are arranged in at least two hierarchy levels such that a first logical group of a lower hierarchy level is assigned to a second logical group of a higher hierarchy level. (Giessauf: see the groupings of process variables as illustrated in figure 9; “Each selected process variable is assigned to at least one logical group by the computing unit; at least two different logical groups are provided; and for each logical group, a state of the logical group is evaluated by the computing unit based on the process variables assigned to the logical group and/or is visualized by a display device.” abstract)
Kruppa and Giessauf are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
Claim 29:
Claim 29 is substantially similar to claim 23 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 11,709,478 describes collecting and displaying data for a control system.
U.S. Patent No. 11,487,848 describes process abnormality identification using measurement violation analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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 E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights