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
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 04/07/2026. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered; and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 6, and 12-13 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous Specification Objections has been withdrawn.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03.
The claim is to a method, i.e. one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A prong one: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(11) and the October 2019 Update, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
The claim recites:
“determining… a plurality of successive scatter values which describe a spread of the measured process values within a predetermined time range;
determining… a local scatter minimum of the scatter values;
…determining… a baseline value based on the local scatter minimum, wherein the baseline value correlates to a value of the process parameter at a point in time of the local scatter minimum and does not change up until a new determination of the baseline value,
determining… a health value at a specific point in time, with a predetermined relation of the process value to the baseline value at the specific point in time;
determining… a service state of the printing machine is present based on determining the health value satisfies a predetermined threshold;”
These limitations recite concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the limitations fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A prong one: YES).
Step 2A prong two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section lll{A){2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
“measuring, by at least one processor, a plurality of successive process values of a process parameter which is an indicator of a functionality of a printing machine;
determining, by the at least one processor,
automatically determining, by the at least one processor,
and outputting, by the at least one processor, a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present.”
The processor and automatically determining by the at least one processor are a recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
The limitations “measuring a plurality of successive process values of a process parameter which is an indicator of a functionality of a printing machine;” merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data gathering.
The limitations “outputting, by the at least one processor, a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present” does not integrate the invention into a practical application because it’s just “applying” the abstract idea. It can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the processor and automatically determining by the at least one processor do not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(1) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'I, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A prong two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05
Regarding the additional elements:
“measuring, by at least one processor, a plurality of successive process values of a process parameter which is an indicator of a functionality of a printing machine;
determining, by the at least one processor,
automatically determining, by the at least one processor,
and outputting, by the at least one processor, a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present.”
The processor and automatically determining by the at least one processor are recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic components as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The limitation “measuring a plurality of successive process values of a process parameter which is an indicator of a functionality of a printing machine;” represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and is recited at high level of generality. These limitation in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. This is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) – receiving or transmitting data over a network.). Klages (US12128696) discloses the applicator 100 or the printer 200 may determine (for example, calculate) sequence control parameters based on the measurands (or measured values) and/or transmit the measured values or the parameters to the computer or computer network. Jeran (US 20240241676 A1) discloses the devices measure and transmit analog values of operational parameters of the printing devices to the computing device. Further, Okudera (US11307558B2) discloses measurement data of at least one of vibration and sound during machining of the machine tool.
The limitation “outputting, by the at least one processor, a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because it claims mere data outputting. Ogura (US11677888B2) discloses the printer status management module outputs information, for example, the error message received from the printer, to the first application. Tomomatsu (US8339687B2) discloses outputting various messages, such as the operating status of the printer and ink cartridge and replacement prompts. Further, Imae (US8171149B2) discloses the printer display unit displays and outputs a message indicating a variety of status information items including a device status, etc.
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-11, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 2-11 further defines the method, which have been established to include abstract ideas. There are no additional limitations in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 2-11are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 12, the claim has similar limitations as claim 1; moreover, claim 12 recites a printing machine with a control device, which are generic computer components and do not practically integrate the invention nor amount to significantly more. The claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 13-20 are the claims have similar limitations as claims 2-11, Therefore, the rejections applied to claims 2-11 above also apply to claims 13-20, and as such, they are not patent eligible.
Rejections based on Prior Art
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 10-11, 12, 14-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20190178755A1 -hereinafter Lee) in view of Seidman (US20110098973A1 -hereinafter Seidman) in view of Sharpe et al. (US20140039833A1 -hereinafter Sharpe) in view of Weaver et al. (US20240027947A1 -hereinafter Weaver).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a method comprising:
measuring, by at least one processor (see [0069]; Lee: “The processor executes one or more instructions stored in the memory.”), a plurality of successive process values of a process parameter which is an indicator of a functionality of a printing machine; see [0059]; Lee: “The data collecting unit 110 collects at least one of acceleration data due to a movement of a 3D printer component during the 3D printing process and sound data as collection data through at least one of at least one acceleration sensor (102 to 104) and an acoustic emission sensor 101 attached to the 3D printer.”)
determining, by at least one processor (see [0069]; Lee: “The processor executes one or more instructions stored in the memory.”), a plurality of successive scatter values which describe a spread of the measured process values within a predetermined time range; (see [0061] and Figs. 4A to 4D; Lee: “The feature element of acceleration data extracted by the feature element extracting unit 120 may include the feature element of at least one acceleration data among feature elements of the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis acceleration data.”)
However, Lee does not explicitly teach:
determining, by at least one processor, a local scatter minimum of the scatter values;
automatically determining, by at least one processor, a baseline value based on the local scatter minimum, wherein the baseline value correlates to a value of the process parameter at a point in time of the local scatter minimum and that does not change up until a new determination of the baseline value;
determining, by at least one processor, a health value at a specific point in time, with a predetermined relation of the process value to the baseline value at the specific point in time;
determining, by at least one processor, a service state of the printing machine is present based on determining the health value satisfies a predetermined threshold; and
outputting, by the at least one processor, a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present.
Seidman the same or similar field of endeavor teaches
determining, by at least one processor (see [0007]; Seidman: “The one or more processors can be in communication with one or more storage devices, peripherals and/or communication interfaces.”), a local scatter minimum of the scatter values; (see [0077]; Seidman: “The variability is based on the maximum and minimum values in the distribution of data for the selected metric.”) [The minimum value reads on ‘a local scatter minimum’]
automatically determining, by at least one processor (see [0007]; Seidman: “The one or more processors can be in communication with one or more storage devices, peripherals and/or communication interfaces.”), a baseline value based on the local scatter minimum (see [0003]; Seidman: “Automatic baselining for a selected metric is provided using variability based on a distribution range and arithmetic mean of actual performance data to determine an appropriate sensitivity for boundaries between comparison levels.”), wherein the baseline value correlates to a value of the process parameter at a point in time of the local scatter minimum and that does not change up until a new determination of the baseline value; (see [0006]; Seidman: “In one embodiment, a computer-implemented method is provided that includes accessing performance data associated with a metric of an application, establishing an initial baseline for the metric, modifying the initial baseline based on a calculated variability of the performance data associated with the metric.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Lee to include Sharpe’s features of determining, by at least one processor, a local scatter minimum of the scatter values; automatically determining, by at least one processor, a baseline value based on the local scatter minimum, wherein the baseline value correlates to a value of the process parameter at a point in time of the local scatter minimum and that does not change up until a new determination of the baseline value. Doing so would monitor web-based, and other applications, to ensure they are performing properly or according to expectation. (Seidman, [0001])
However, it does not explicitly teach:
determining, by at least one processor, a health value at a specific point in time, with a predetermined relation of the process value to the baseline value at the specific point in time;
determining, by at least one processor, a service state of the printing machine is present based on determining the health value satisfies a predetermined threshold; and
outputting, by the at least one processor, a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present.
Sharpe the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
determining, by at least one processor (see [0031]; Sharpe: “the processor 200”), a health value at a specific point in time, with a predetermined relation of the process value to the baseline value at the specific point in time; (see [0074]; Sharpe: “The equipment health value is a numerical indication of the deviation of the parameter from its corresponding baseline data. More particularly, the equipment health parameter may be represented as a percentage defining the relative position along the range between the baseline and the corresponding limit(s).”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Lee and Seidman to include Sharpe’s features of determining, by at least one processor, a health value at a specific point in time, with a predetermined relation of the process value to the baseline value at the specific point in time. Doing so would avoid the risk of failures, leaks, fires, and/or other undesirable impacts on the performance and/or safety of the entire system. (Sharpe, [0019])
However, it does not explicitly teach:
determining, by at least one processor, a service state of the printing machine is present based on determining the health value satisfies a predetermined threshold; and
outputting, by the at least one processor, a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present.
Weaver the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
determining, by at least one processor (see [0072]; Weaver: “a processor,”), a service state of the printing machine is present based on determining the health value satisfies a predetermined threshold; and (see [0128]; Weaver: “The cloud device 280 may compare the first score with a first threshold. If the first score satisfies the first threshold, the cloud device may decide to continue printing. If the first score does not satisfy the first threshold, the cloud device may decide that remedial action is required.”)
outputting, by the at least one processor (see [0072]; Weaver: “a processor,”), a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present. (see [0147]; Weaver: “The cloud device 280 may send an alert or notification to the RES 150, indicating the issue and the decision taken. The alert may be presented to a user, on for example a graphical user interface of a device connected to the RES 150.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Lee, Seidman, and Sharpe to include Weaver’s features of determining, by at least one processor, a service state of the printing machine is present based on determining the health value satisfies a predetermined threshold; and outputting, by the at least one processor, a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present. Doing so would avoid delays on the print line. (Weaver, [0006])
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Sharpe further teaches wherein a relationship of the process values to the baseline value for determining the health value is provided by:
- the difference of the two values, (see [0036]; Sharpe: “the equipment health value indicates the relative position of the equipment parameter within the range between its corresponding baseline and limit(s).”)
- by a nonlinear function, or
- by association from a previously stored table. (see [0043]; Sharpe: “The example database 216 of FIG. 2 stores data received via the example asset monitoring application 206 and/or via an operator, which may include baseline data and/or limits for equipment parameters as well as weights associated with alarms for the process parameters.”)
The same motivation to combine Lee, Seidman, and Sharpe a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Seidman further teaches wherein a scatter parameter is the standard deviation. (see [0026]; Seidman: “the range multiple may be a number of standard deviations from a calculated average or mean.”)
The same motivation to combine Lee and Seidman a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Sharpe further teaches wherein the predetermined range represents the most recent values in comparison to the determined point in time. (see [0060]; Sharpe: “the low limit 620 and/or high limit 624 may subsequently be recalculated based on the current baseline data and the current configuration variables described above by selecting the Reset limits button 639 of the configuration tab 420.”. See [0059]: “The baseline 634 in the illustrated example provides the most recent baseline data captured for the corresponding parameter.”)
The same motivation to combine Lee, Seidman, and Sharpe a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Sharpe further teaches wherein the health value is normalized by multiplication with a predefined scaling factor (see [0036]; Sharpe: “the equipment health value for each parameter may be normalized such as, for example, by indicating the relative position of the value of the equipment parameter as a percentage along the defined range.”), whereby the health value at 100 indicates a normally functioning printing machine, and a lower value indicates an imminent service failure of the printing machine. (see [0036]; Sharpe: “That is, the greater the deviation, the lower the percentage. For example, an equipment parameter with a value at its corresponding baseline (i.e., no deviation) would have an equipment health value of 100% (indicating the asset is operating as expected) while an equipment parameter having a value corresponding to limit would have an equipment health value of 0%.”)
The same motivation to combine Lee, Seidman, and Sharpe a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Sharpe further teaches wherein the method has different service states with different predetermined thresholds. (see [0036]; Sharpe: “As different equipment parameters may have different baselines and different limits, in some examples, the equipment health value for each parameter may be normalized such as, for example, by indicating the relative position of the value of the equipment parameter as a percentage along the defined range.”)
The same motivation to combine Lee, Seidman, and Sharpe a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver as discussed connection with claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver as discussed connection with claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver as discussed connection with claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver as discussed connection with claim 10.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Seidman in view of Sharpe in view of Weaver in view of Yang et al. (US20240004374A1 -hereinafter Yang) in view of Abraham et al. (US20030072356A1 -hereinafter Abraham).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Lee further comprising: determining, by at least one processor (see [0069]; Lee: “The processor executes one or more instructions stored in the memory.”)
However, it does not explicitly teach wherein a local scatter maximum of the scatter values is determined before the determination of the local scatter minimum, wherein, if no maximum has been detected, an earliest point in time in the scatter values is set as a maximum, and in that the local scatter minimum to be determined comes chronologically after the maximum.
Yang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein a local scatter maximum of the scatter values is determined (see [0025]; Yang: “For example, between the time point t2 and the time point t5, the first data D1(2)-D1(5) have an increasing trend. Between the time point t5 and the time point t7, the first original sequence OS1 reaches a local maximum value, (i.e., reaches the peak of the first original sequence OS1). The first data D1(5)-D1(7) corresponding to the time points t5-t7 are the local maximum values of the first original sequence OS1.”) before the determination of the local scatter minimum (see [0026]; Yang: “On the other hand, between the time point t13 and the time point t16, the first data D1(13)-D1(16) have a decreasing trend. Between the time point t16 and the time point t18, the first original sequence OS1 reaches a local minimum value, (i.e., reaches the valley of the first original sequence OS1). The first data D1(16)-D1(18) are the local minimum values of the first original sequence OS1.”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee and Sharpe to include Yang’s features of a local scatter maximum of the scatter values is determined before the determination of the local scatter minimum. Doing so would improve the fault detection method of parametric variables, and to process and calculate the time sequences of parameter variables. (Yang, [0006])
However, it does not explicitly teach wherein, if no maximum has been detected, an earliest point in time in the scatter values is set as a maximum, and in that the local scatter minimum to be determined comes chronologically after the maximum.
Abraham the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein, if no maximum has been detected, an earliest point in time in the scatter values is set as a maximum (see [0012]; Abaraham: “The present invention then selects the earliest maximum in the plurality of maxima as the earliest correlation peak.”), and in that the local scatter minimum to be determined comes chronologically after the maximum. (see [011]; Abraham: “In one algorithm, the CPU 114 can detect multiple peaks by looking for “dips” in the correlation response (i.e., samples in which the power is not continually increasing before the maximum power). Each dip represents a local or absolute minimum and indicates multiple peaks in the correlation response.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver to include Abraham’s features of if no maximum has been detected, an earliest point in time in the scatter values is set as a maximum, and in that the local scatter minimum to be determined comes chronologically after the maximum. Doing so would achieve the sensitivity and acquisition time demand. (Abraham, [0007])
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, Weaver, and Abraham as discussed connection with claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Seidman in view of Sharpe in view of Weaver in view of Sippel et al. (US 10963649 B1 -hereinafter Sippel).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the process values are EWMA (exponentially weighted moving average)- smoothed.
Sippel the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the process values are EWMA (exponentially weighted moving average)- smoothed. (see column 16, lines 5-7; Sippel: “the peaks analytic can smooth the series according to the exponentially weighted moving average of the series.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver to include Sippel’s features of the process values are EWMA (exponentially weighted moving average)- smoothed. Doing so would improve ability of the system to analyze and call out different perspectives in the resulting narrative while still performing the analysis operations in an efficient manner. (Sippel, column 4, lines 4-6)
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, Weaver, and Sippel as discussed connection with claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Seidman in view of Sharpe in view of Weaver in view of Wildes (US5319583A -hereinafter Wilder).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein if a plurality of minima has been detected, a minimum is set in that the chronologically oldest minimum is chosen, or in that the minimum is chosen at which the process value corresponding thereto indicates a healthier machine.
Wildes the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein if a plurality of minima has been detected, a minimum is set in that the chronologically oldest minimum is chosen (see column 1, 63-65; Wildes: “Initialization of the filter FIG. 2 is accomplished by initially taking the oldest value in buffer [1] and defining it as being the "minimum". This arbitrarily labelled "minimum" is then compared to the signal value of each subsequent entry in the buffer until a lower value is found.”), or in that the minimum is chosen at which the process value corresponding thereto indicates a healthier machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver to include Wildes’s features of if a plurality of minima has been detected, a minimum is set in that the chronologically oldest minimum is chosen, or in that the minimum is chosen at which the process value corresponding thereto indicates a healthier machine. Doing so would allow a user greater predictability in the system's performance. (Wildes, column 3, lines 18-20)
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, Weaver, and Wildes as discussed connection with claim 7.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Seidman in view of Sharpe in view of Weaver in view of Kobashi (JP2005140596A -hereinafter Kobashi -Note: As the machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein if no minima have been detected, the point in time of the least value of the scatter parameter is selected.
Kobashi the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein if no minima have been detected, the point in time of the least value of the scatter parameter is selected. (see page 3, second paragraph; Kobashi: “when the detection level R of the detection signal is lower than the threshold set in the threshold setting unit 6, the
bottom value holding unit 8b detects a minimum value included in the detection signal having a level lower than the threshold.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, and Weaver to include Kobashi’s features of if no minima have been detected, the point in time of the least value of the scatter parameter is selected. Doing so would appropriately set the threshold value serving as the reference value for the detection level and has a great effect on practical use. (Kobashi, page 2, paragraph 5)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, Weaver, and Kobashi teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above, Kobashi further teaches wherein the minimum must be below a defined threshold. (see page 2, second paragraph; Kobashi: “An extreme value detection unit for sequentially detecting …the minimum value of the detection level below the threshold;”)
The same motivation to combine Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, Weaver, and Kobashi a set forth for Claim 8 equally applies to Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Lee, Seidman, Sharpe, Weaver, and Kobashi as discussed connection with claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument located within the paragraphs 2-3 of the page 14 of the remarks which recites:
“Because claim 1 recites a technological solution to a technological problem, it is eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two for at least the reasons described in the August 2025 Memo.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to any abstract idea, but rather to a practical application that includes improvements to technology, is tied to a particular machine/system (e.g., a printing machine), and applies the improved techniques in a meaningful way beyond generally linking.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations “determining…” recites the abstract idea. “An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
With respect to applicant’s argument located within the third paragraph of the page 15 of the remarks which recites:
“Referring to the claim features discussed above, these features are unconventional, especially in combination with the other aspects of the claims. For example, it is unconventional to measure a plurality of successive process values of a process parameter which is an indicator of a functionality of a printing machine, determine a plurality of successive scatter values which describe a spread of the measured process values within a predetermined time range, determine a local scatter minimum of the scatter values, automatically determine a baseline value based on the local scatter minimum, where the baseline value correlated to a value of the process parameter at a point in time of the local scatter minimum and does not change up until a new determination of the baseline value, determine a health value at a specific point in time, with a predetermined relation of the process value to the baseline value at the specific point in time, determine a service state of the printing machine is present based on determining the health value satisfies a predetermined threshold, and output a message based on determining the service state of the printing machine is present.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations “determining” fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas while the limitation “outputting” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data outputting.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive because of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
With respect to applicant’s argument located within the third paragraph of the page 17 of the remarks which recites:
“Amended independent claim 1 distinguishes over the cited prior art for at least the following reasons.
For example, Sharpe does not disclose or suggest at least the features of, "automatically determining, by the at least one processor, a baseline value based on the local scatter minimum, wherein the baseline value correlates to a value of the process parameter at a point in time of the local scatter minimum and does not change up until a new determination of the baseline value," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner notes that the argument is persuasive, causing the new grounds of rejection. A new reference, namely Seidman, has been relied upon to reject the limitations incorporated in the amendment.
With respect to applicant’s argument located within the second paragraph of the page 19 of the remarks which recites:
“Neither the equipment health value nor the process health value in Sharpe are the same as the claimed health value which has a predetermined relation of the process value to the baseline value at a specific point in time. Sharpe does not disclose or suggest determining a health value at a specific point in time, with a predetermined relation of the process value to the baseline value at the specific point in time, as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
The Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. The understanding of the problem, based on applicant’s description, is determining the health value that is the difference of the process value from the baseline value. Sharpe teaches the equipment health value reads on ‘the health value’. Therefore, Sharpe still reads on the limitation.
With respect to applicant’s argument located within the second paragraph of the page 20 of the remarks which recites:
“Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Lee and Sharpe, as cited against amended independent claim 1, is improper because the subject matter of Sharpe is outside the scope of the invention because it is not within the field of endeavor and it is not reasonably pertinent to the problem solved. "In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection... the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention." See MPEP § 2141.01(a). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See id.”
In response to applicant's argument that Sharpe is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Lee teaches a method and an apparatus for diagnosing health state of a 3D printer which collects collection data in a 3D printing process while Sharpe teaches determining health value based on the one or more monitored equipment parameters, process parameters, and baseline data associated with the one or more equipment parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try determining health value based on baseline data of Sharpe in the method of Lee to avoid the risk of failures, leaks, fires, and/or other undesirable impacts on the performance and/or safety of the entire system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moreira (US11645022) discloses predict when a printer may require service or maintenance to avoid printing low-quality content (e.g., unreadable barcodes, unreadable text, low-resolution images, anomalous images, or other types of low-quality content).
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 VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights