DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-22 are pending. Claims 2 and 5 are cancelled and claims 21-22 are new.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/1/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive, except where noted below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112 (page 9) are persuasive and the claims are no longer rejected under that statute.
Applicant recites portions of claim 1 and claims 21-22 and ‘respectfully asserts that a human mind cannot practically perform the subject matter of the pending claims. As such, the pending claims do not fall within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas’ (pages 9-11).
It is respectfully submitted that no reasoned argument or evidence is presented in support of this assertion and Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive. It is also noted that, as detailed below in the current rejection of claim 22, this claim is considered to recite additional but insignificant elements and not just an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims provide a ‘provide a technical solution to the technical problems and challenges with traditional OEE technology’ and recite ‘improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technological field’ (pages 11-14).
It is respectfully submitted that while the claimed invention may improve the accuracy of calculated data, an improved system for generating more accurate data is merely an improvement to an abstract idea and eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as cited in MPEP 2106.04, i.e. an improvement to the abstract idea itself (selecting and analyzing data and generating a report) is still merely an abstract idea. Data manipulation alone is also not considered to provide a technical solution to a technical problem and performing data manipulation using a computer is merely applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant cites Desjardins regarding ‘an improvement to computer functionality’ (page 15).
It is respectfully submitted that merely applying the exception with generic computer technology is not considered an improvement to computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. The claims in Desjardins are not analogous to the instant claims because Desjardins provides a specific improvement to machine learning including allowing artificial intelligence systems to use less storage — Desjardins does not merely utilize a computer to perform calculations. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant states that ‘MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) includes applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The subject matter of the pending claims aligns with at least this example consideration’ (page 15) but provides no reasoned argument or evidence in support of this statement. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant states that ‘Under MPEP § 2106.05, the following have been found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception: (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer; and (2) improvements to any other technology or technical field. The pending claims are directed to a particular improvement in OEE technology. Thus, Applicant submits that the pending claims recite "significantly more" than the judicial exception and are subject matter eligible’ (page 15).
It is respectfully submitted that the improvement argument has been addressed above and no reasoned argument or evidence is presented to support the ‘significantly more’ argument. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 (page 16) are moot because the claims are no longer rejected under that statute.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of selecting and analyzing data and generating a report based on the result.
Claim 1 recites a system for implementing variable cycle times for overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) analytics for industrial systems, i.e. a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
dynamically select, from a plurality of cycle times, a first cycle time for a first type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process;
determine, using a first portion of the operational data, a first efficiency metric associated with manufacturing the first type of part, wherein the first portion is associated with manufacturing the first type of part and the first cycle time;
dynamically select, from the plurality of cycle times, a second cycle time for a second type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process, wherein the second cycle time is different from the first cycle time;
determine, using a second portion of the operational data, a second efficiency metric associated with manufacturing the second type of part, wherein the second portion is associated with manufacturing the second type of part and the second cycle time;
determine, based on the first efficiency metric and the second efficiency metric, an OEE of the industrial system associated with performance of the manufacturing process; and
generate… a report, the report indicating the OEE of the industrial system that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), one or more electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), receive operational data describing a manufacturing process of an industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d))), and transmit a report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Note that industrial systems and manufacturing processes are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Rogers U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160222791 [0022], Song U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240032368 [0048] and the references cited below in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), one or more electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), receive operational data describing a manufacturing process of an industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d))), and transmit a report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites ‘determine the OEE of the industrial system based on the first efficiency metric and the second efficiency metric’ (mental process involving evaluation of data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 merely recites that the abstract first efficiency metric is an abstract quality metric and wherein the OEE of the industrial system is an OEE percentage (abstract data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites ‘determine the first efficiency metric by determining a first runtime associated with manufacturing a set of non-scrap parts of the first type of parts; and determining a second runtime associated with manufacturing the first type of parts’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites ‘determine the first efficiency metric based on the first runtime, the second runtime, and the first cycle time’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites ‘determine the first runtime by determining a total number of non-scrap parts included in the set of non-scrap parts of the first type of parts, wherein the first runtime is determined based on the first cycle time and the total number of non-scrap parts included in the set of non-scrap parts’ (mental process involving data processing/analysis). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites ‘determine the second runtime by determining a total number of the first type of parts, wherein the second runtime is determined based on the first cycle time and the total number of the first type of parts’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites a method for implementing variable cycle times for overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) analytics for industrial systems, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
dynamically selecting, with the one or more electronic processors, from a plurality of cycle times, a cycle time for a type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process;
determining, with the one or more electronic processors, a first runtime for non-scrap parts of the type of part;
determining, with the one or more electronic processors, a second runtime associated with manufacturing the type of part;
determining, with the one or more electronic processors, a quality metric associated with manufacturing the type of part using at least a portion of the operational data, wherein the portion of the operational data is associated with manufacturing the type of part, the cycle time, the first runtime, and the second runtime;
determining, with the one or more electronic processors, an efficiency of the industrial system based at least in part on the quality metric; and
generating an efficiency report, the efficiency report indicating the quality metric that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), one or more electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), receiving, with one or more electronic processors, operational data describing a manufacturing process of an industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d))), and transmitting, with the one or more electronic processors, an efficiency report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), one or more electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), receiving, with one or more electronic processors, operational data describing a manufacturing process of an industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d))), and transmitting, with the one or more electronic processors, an efficiency report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites ‘determining a total number of non-scrap parts for the type of part, wherein the first runtime is determined based on the cycle time and the total number of non-scrap parts’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites ‘determining a total number of parts manufactured for the type of part, wherein the second runtime is determined based on the cycle time and the total number of parts manufactured for the type of part’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites ‘determining the quality metric includes determining a quality percentage’ (mental process). The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites ‘determining a performance metric based on a total number of parts manufactured for the type of part, a total runtime for the type of part, and the cycle time; and
determining an availability metric based on the total runtime for the type of part and an available time, wherein the efficiency of the industrial system is based on the performance metric, the availability metric, and the quality metric’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, i.e. an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
dynamically selecting, from a plurality of cycle times, a first cycle time for a first type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process;
determining, using a first portion of the operational data, a first quality metric associated with manufacturing the first type of part. wherein the first portion is associated with manufacturing the first type of part and the first cycle time;
dynamically selecting, from the plurality of cycle times, a second cycle time for a second type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process, wherein the second cycle time is different from the first cycle time;
determining, using a second portion of the operational data, a second quality metric associated with manufacturing the second type of part, wherein the second portion is associated with manufacturing the second type of part and the second cycle time;
generating a report, the report including the first quality metric and the second quality metric that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving operational data describing a manufacturing process of an industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d))), and transmitting a report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) to a display device (insignificant extra-solution elements — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. an electronic processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), an industrial system and manufacturing process (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)), receiving operational data describing a manufacturing process of an industrial system (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d))), and transmitting a report (insignificant extra-solution elements – merely using generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, or see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A and MPEP 2106.05(d)) to a display device (insignificant extra-solution elements — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) for display (intended use) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites ‘determining, based on the first quality metric and the second quality metric, an aggregated quality metric for the industrial system, wherein the report also includes the aggregated quality metric for the industrial system’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites ‘determining, based at least in part on the first quality metric and the second quality metric, an OEE for the industrial system associated with performance of the manufacturing process’ (mental process), wherein the report also includes the OEE for the industrial system (specifying abstract data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites ‘dynamically selecting, from the plurality of cycle times, a third cycle time for a third type of part manufactured by the industrial system as part of the manufacturing process, wherein the third cycle time is different from the first cycle time and the second cycle time; and determining, using a third portion of the operational data, a third quality metric associated with manufacturing the third type of part, wherein the third portion is associated with manufacturing the third type of part and the third cycle time, wherein the report also includes the third quality metric’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites ‘determining a first runtime associated with manufacturing a set of non-scrap parts of the first type of parts; and determining a second runtime associated with manufacturing the first type of parts, wherein the first quality metric is based on the first runtime, the second runtime, and the first cycle time’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites ‘determining a total number of non-scrap parts included in the set of non-scrap parts of the first type of parts, wherein the first runtime is determined based on the first cycle time and the total number of non-scrap parts included in the set of non-scrap parts, and wherein determining the second runtime includes determining a total number of the first type of parts, wherein the second runtime is determined based on the first cycle time and the total number of the first type of parts’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites ‘partition, based on part identifiers included in the operational data, the operational data into a plurality of data segments associated with respective portions of the operational data, wherein a first data segment of the plurality of data segments includes the first portion, and wherein a second data segment of the plurality of data segments includes the second portion, wherein the first efficiency metric is determined using the first data segment and the second efficiency metric is determined using the second data segment.’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 22 recites the one or more electronic processors are configured to: generate a graphical user interface related to the report (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), wherein the graphical user interface is interactive and visually represents at least a portion of the report in graphical form (insignificant extra-solution elements — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)). Note that interactive graphical user interfaces are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Rodriquez U.S. Patent No. 6263346 [col. 3 line 63 – col. 4 line 17]. Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
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 BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights