DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to the amendment filed 11 December 2025. Claims 1-9 and 12-14 are pending. Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent claims. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, and 13 are amended. Claims 10 and 11 are cancelled.
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 Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) and 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections and 112(f) interpretations are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg. 13) that the function of Mori does not involve comparing the production condition at a time of determination to the production condition used to calculate the optimal production condition.
However, Applicant is arguing for functionality that is not yet present in the claims. The claims merely require setting a production condition wherein the production condition at a time of the determination (i.e. determining whether to set the optimal production condition) being identical to the production condition used to calculate the optimal production condition. Mori teaches calculating the inspection standard; determining whether it is appropriate; and then setting that inspection standard. The claims do not require a comparison of production conditions where they can be different. In Mori, the production condition is used to calculate the optimal production condition and it uses current inspection data, i.e. the production condition at a time of the determination being identical to the production condition used to calculate the optimal production condition. Accordingly, Mori teaches the claimed limitations. Further specificity is necessary to overcome the current rejection.
Applicant further argues (pgs. 13-14) that Mori requires user instruction as to whether to permit reflecting new inspection criteria in the inspection device.
However, the limitations of claim 1 do not exclude the functionality of Mori from teaching the claimed limitations. Further specificity is required.
Applicant further argues (pg. 14) that Mori teaches a retrospective evaluation that occurs after implementation to assess whether the implemented changes had the desired effect. However, the limitations of claim 1 are prospective. Further, Mori does not address the problem of unintended or opposite effects.
However, Applicant argues for functionality that is not yet present in the claims and further specificity is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: “where the the optimal production condition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 12 refer to “the optimal value calculator”; however, there is no antecedent basis for this term.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2019/0223337 A1) hereinafter known as Mori.
Regarding independent claim 1, Mori teaches:
A management system for a manufacturing apparatus and an inspection apparatus at a production facility configured to manufacture a product, the management system comprising: at least one memory configured to store a program; and at least one processor communicatively connected to the at least one memory and configured to execute the program to: (Mori: Fig. 1 and ¶[0051]; Mori teaches a management apparatus with a CPU and a memory. ¶[0012] and ¶[0049]-¶[0051] further teach the manufacturing and inspection apparatuses at a production facility for manufacturing a product.)
obtain production data from the manufacturing apparatus and the inspection apparatus in the production facility via a network, the production data including manufacturing data from the manufacturing apparatus, inspection data from the inspection apparatus, and information on a production condition for manufacturing the product, the production condition including at least one of a manufacturing condition for the manufacturing apparatus or an inspection condition for the inspection apparatus; (Mori: Fig. 1 and ¶[0051]; Mori teaches manufacturing and inspection apparatuses connected to the management apparatus via a LAN. Further, ¶[0012], ¶[0023]-¶[0024], ¶[0027]-¶[0028], and ¶[0053] teach an inspection content data acquisition unit that is configured to acquire inspection content data for each inspection item of the product, relating to its quality.)
calculate an optimal production condition based on the production data, the optimal production condition being a production condition optimal to manufacture the product, wherein the optimal production condition is calculated through an inspection simulation based on the manufacturing data and the inspection data; (Mori: Figs. 2, 6, 7 and ¶[0012], ¶[0023], ¶[0025], and ¶[0029]-¶[0033]; Mori teaches an inspection standard calculation unit configured to calculate an inspection standard more appropriate than a current inspection standard. Furthermore, ¶[0025] teaches the appropriate inspection standard can be calculated based on the simulation. Lastly, ¶[0083]-¶[0084] teaches the simulation calculation unit uses training data, which uses manufacturing data and inspection data.)
...
...
...
An embodiment of Mori does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
perform determination as to whether the optimal production condition is to be set as a renewed production condition for the production facility; and (Mori: Figs. 6-8 and ¶[0096] and ¶[0103]; Mori teaches determining whether the inspection standard is appropriate.)
set the optimal production condition for the production facility under a predetermined condition by transmitting the optimal production condition to the production facility via the network for automatic implementation by the production facility, and (Mori: Figs. 2, 6-8 and ¶[0026], ¶[0036], ¶[0040], ¶[0042]-¶[0045], and ¶[0089]; Mori teaches setting the inspection content, which includes information indicating a time at which the setting of the inspection content is approved and permission for setting the inspection content. Fig. 7 and ¶[0099] teach setting the new inspection content and instructing the inspection apparatus. The new inspection content and a time at which the new inspection content is set is stored as history data in the storage unit of the management apparatus.)
wherein the optimal production condition is set as the renewed production condition for the production facility in response to the production condition at a time of the determination being identical to the production condition used to calculate the optimal production condition by the optimal value calculator. (Mori: Figs. 6-8 and ¶[0096] and ¶[0103]; Mori teaches determining whether the inspection content is appropriate; calculating a new inspection standard; and checking whether the inspection is improved.)
Mori is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to improving production quality. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a system for improving production quality which acquires production data and calculates the optimal production condition based on production data with further determining as to whether the optimal production condition is to be set as a renewed production condition. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow the approval or disproval of the new inspection standard, as suggested by Mori: ¶[0099].
Regarding claim 2, Mori further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Mori further teaches:
wherein the optimal production condition for the production facility is set in response to the determination that the optimal production condition is to be set as the renewed production condition. (Mori: Fig. 7; Mori teaches setting the new inspection standard in response to the current inspection content being inappropriate.)
Regarding claim 3, Mori further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Mori further teaches:
further comprising: an output device configured to output at least a result of the determination; and an input device, wherein the the optimal production condition for the production facility is set in response to receiving, with the input device, an instruction to reflect the optimal production condition in the production facility. (Mori: Figs. 2 and 6 and ¶[0034], ¶[0055], ¶[0092], ¶[0103], and ¶[0118]; Mori teaches an output unit displaying a target with a value determined to be a good-quality product and setting-related information. Mori further teaches an input unit. Fig. 8 and ¶[0099] and ¶[0103] teach the user providing their approval. Fig. 8 teaches the user interface buttons “approve” and “disapprove”.)
Regarding claim 4, Mori further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Mori further teaches:
wherein at least one processor is further configured to execute the program to obtain information about whether the optimal production condition is set for the production facility. (Mori: Fig. 6 and ¶[0084]; Mori teaches an inspection achievement data acquisition unit that acquires information regarding an inspection achievement result from the inspection apparatus of each process.)
Regarding claim 5, Mori further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Mori further teaches:
wherein the production data includes information identifying a revision of a production program for information processing to operate the production facility, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the program to determine, in response to the revision of the production program at the time of the determination being identical to the revision of the production program used to calculate the optimal production condition, that the production condition at the time of the determination is identical to the production condition used to calculate the optimal production condition, and determine that the optimal production condition is to be set as the renewed production condition for the production facility. (Mori: Fig. 6 and ¶[0054], ¶[0083], and ¶[0110]; Mori teaches a simulation calculation unit to perform a simulation inspection, which is interpreted as the revision of a production program, which is then used to set the new inspection program after the user checks the base information indicating that the inspection standard is appropriate.)
Regarding claim 6, Mori further teaches the management system according to claim 5.
Mori further teaches:
wherein the production data includes product element information and a revision of the product element information, the product element information being information about a product element included in the product, and the information identifying the revision of the production program includes the revision of the product element information. (Mori: Figs. 6 and 7 and ¶[0054], ¶[0083], and ¶[0110]; Mori teaches a simulation calculation unit to perform a simulation inspection, which is interpreted as the revision of a production program, which is then used to set the new inspection program after the user checks the base information indicating that the inspection standard is appropriate.)
Regarding claim 7, Mori further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Mori further teaches:
wherein the production data includes product element information and information about a revision of the product element information, the product element information being information about a product element included in the product, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the program to determine, in response to the revision of the product element information about a specific product element in the product at the time of the determination being identical to the revision of the product element information about the specific product element in the product used to calculate the optimal production condition, that the production condition at the time of the determination is identical to the production condition used to calculate the optimal production condition, and determine that the optimal production condition is to be set as the renewed production condition for the production facility. (Mori: Figs. 6 and 7 and ¶[0054], ¶[0083], and ¶[0110]; Mori teaches a simulation calculation unit to perform a simulation inspection, which is interpreted as the revision of a production program. The process outline in Fig. 7 teaches using the current inspection standard and calculating the new inspection standard via the simulation data; setting the new inspection standard and checking whether it caused an improvement.)
Regarding claim 8, Mori further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Mori further teaches:
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the program to: calcualte at least an optimal manufacturing condition being a manufacturing condition optimal for manufacturing the product; determine that the optimal manufacturing condition is to be set as a renewed manufacturing condition for the manufacturing apparatus in response to at least the manufacturing condition at the time of the determination being identical to the manufacturing condition used to calculate the optimal manufacturing condition; and set the optimal manufacturing condition for the manufacturing apparatus under the predetermined condition. (Mori: Figs. 1, 5, and 7 and ¶[0027], ¶[0051], and ¶[0068]-¶[0069]; Mori teaches manufacturing apparatuses. Further, Fig. 7 teaches calculating and changing the inspection standard based on the acquired inspection data, which includes the condition of the product.)
Regarding claim 9, Mori further teaches the management system according to claim 1.
Mori further teaches:
wherein the inspection data including an inspection condition for the inspection, and inspection result data being information about a result of the inspection; and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the program to: calculate at least an optimal inspection criterion being an inspection criterion optimal for the inspection; determine that the optimal inspection criterion is to be set as a renewed inspection criterion for the inspection apparatus in response to at least the inspection condition at the time of the determination being identical to the inspection condition used to calculate the optimal inspection criterion; and set the optimal inspection criterion for the inspection apparatus under the predetermined condition. (Mori: ¶[0074]-¶[0076]; Mori teaches inspection apparatuses. Further, Fig. 7 teaches calculating and changing the inspection standard based on the acquired inspection data, which includes the condition of the product.)
Regarding claims 12-14, these claims recite a management apparatus, method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium that performs the function of the management system of claim 1; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118