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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a first acquisition unit configured to acquire first information …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “a first acquisition unit configured to acquire first information …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a first acquisition unit configured to acquire first information …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a first acquisition unit configured to acquire first information …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an abnormality detail determination unit configured to determine details of the abnormality …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “an abnormality detail determination unit configured to determine details of the abnormality …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “an abnormality detail determination unit configured to determine details of the abnormality …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " an abnormality detail determination unit configured to determine details of the abnormality …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a second acquisition unit configured to request …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “a second acquisition unit configured to request …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a second acquisition unit configured to request …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a second acquisition unit configured to request …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a cause conjecture unit configured to conjecture a cause…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “a cause conjecture unit configured to conjecture a cause …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a cause conjecture unit configured to conjecture a cause …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a cause conjecture unit configured to conjecture a cause …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a notification means configured to' notify…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “a notification means configured to' notify …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a notification means configured to' notify …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of "means"
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a notification means configured to' notify …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a confirmation unit configured to confirm …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “a confirmation unit configured to confirm …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a confirmation unit configured to confirm …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “a confirmation unit configured to confirm …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “information acquisition unit configured to request …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “information acquisition unit configured to request …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “information acquisition unit configured to request …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “information acquisition unit configured to request …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “an administrator communication unit configured to provide notification…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “an administrator communication unit configured to provide notification …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “an administrator communication unit configured to provide notification …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “an administrator communication unit configured to provide notification …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “an administrator input reception unit configured to update…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “an administrator input reception unit configured to update …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “an administrator input reception unit configured to update …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “an administrator input reception unit configured to update …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 5-6 and 9-10 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.
Claim limitations “a first acquisition unit, an abnormality detail determination unit, a second acquisition unit, cause conjecture unit, notification means, additional information acquisition unit, administrator communication unit and an administrator input reception unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-4 and 7-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites an information processing system comprising: a first acquisition unit configured to acquire first information indicating a state of a control system including a control device in response to an occurrence of a request or an event related to an abnormality that has occurred in the control system; an abnormality detail determination unit configured to determine details of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis of the first information; a second acquisition unit configured to request, in accordance with-the details of the abnormality, a user to provide second information and acquire the second information from the user; a cause conjecture unit configured to conjecture a cause of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis of the first information and the second information; and a notification means configured to notify the user of the conjectured cause of the abnormality.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determine details of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis of the first information. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining details of the abnormality that has occurred can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of requesting, in accordance with-the details of the abnormality, a user to provide second information. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, requesting a user to provide second information can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of conjecture a cause of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis of the first information and the second information. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, conjecturing a cause of the abnormality that has occurred can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a first acquisition unit; a control system including a control device; an abnormality detail determination unit; a second acquisition unit
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: notify the user of the conjectured cause of the abnormality;
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing an information processing system are performed: acquire first information indicating a state of a control system including a control device in response to an occurrence of a request or an event related to an abnormality that has occurred in the control system; acquire the second information from the user
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining details of abnormality and conjuring a cause of abnormality that occurred in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the determination and cause conjuring process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of acquiring conditional information, determining details of abnormality, requesting more information, conjuring a cause of abnormality that occurred and notifying the user of the cause all of which is done in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the first acquisition unit is communicatively connected to the control system and acquires data stored in the control system.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the first acquisition unit acquires the data in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the first acquisition unit acquires the first information in accordance with an instruction from the user.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising a confirmation unit configured to confirm with the user whether or not the abnormality has been eliminated.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… further comprising an additional information acquisition unit configured to request the user to provide additional information and acquire the additional information from the user in a case where it is determined that the abnormality has not been eliminated on a basis of a result of the confirmation made by the confirmation unit, wherein the cause conjecture unit narrows down and conjectures the cause of the abnormality on a basis of the first information, the second inform and the additional information.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the second information is imaging data.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the second information is information acquired in association with at least one of human's five senses.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 5, which depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… provide notification to an administrator and control communication between the administrator and the user in a case where it is determined that the abnormality has not been eliminated on a basis of- a result of the confirmation made by the confirmation unit.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the received condition monitoring data comprises infrared image data and the plurality of non-fault state condition monitoring data comprises infrared image data and the plurality of fault state condition monitoring data comprises infrared image data, and wherein the transformation of the non-fault state condition monitoring data to the fault state condition monitoring data comprises an addition of a hot spot to a non-fault state infrared image.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites An information processing system control method comprising: acquiring first information indicating a state of a control system including a control device in response to an occurrence of a request or an event related-to an abnormality that has occurred in the control system; determining details of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis: of the first information requesting; in accordance with the details of the abnormality, a user to provide second information and acquiring the second information from the user; conjecturing a cause of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis of the first information and the second information; and notifying the user of the conjectured cause of the abnormality.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining details of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis of the first information. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining details of the abnormality that has occurred can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of requesting, in accordance with-the details of the abnormality, a user to provide second information. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, requesting a user to provide second information can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of conjecturing a cause of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis of the first information and the second information. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, conjecturing a cause of the abnormality that has occurred can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a control system including a control device;
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: notifying the user of the conjectured cause of the abnormality;
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of implementing an information processing system are performed: acquiring first information indicating a state of a control system including a control device in response to an occurrence of a request or an event related to an abnormality that has occurred in the control system; acquiring the second information from the user
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining details of abnormality and conjuring a cause of abnormality that occurred in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the determination and cause conjuring process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of acquiring conditional information, determining details of abnormality, requesting more information, conjuring a cause of abnormality that occurred and notifying the user of the cause all of which is done in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki; Hideaki et al. (US Publication #US 20100070130 A1; hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches,
An information processing system (fig.1 #201, fig.13 201A, fig.22 201B) comprising:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire first information (“the data judgment unit 101 receives device information” see par.118) indicating a state (“… the data judgment unit 101 receives device information 121 …” see par.118) of a control system (“The device diagnostic system” see par.117; a diagnostic system can function as a control system) including a control device (“The device diagnostic apparatus 201” see par.117) in response to an occurrence of a request(“the diagnostic database update unit 104 outputs process database update request information.” See par.130) or an event related to an abnormality that has occurred in the control system (“… when the internal state information stored beforehand in the internal state data storage unit 111b includes data that agrees with the internal state information included in the inputted device information, maintenance information indicating whether the target device is "normal" or "abnormal" is read from the maintenance information data storage unit 111c.” see par.122);
an abnormality detail determination unit configured to determine details of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis of the first information (“… state diagnostic unit 103 compares the internal state information included in the inputted device information with the internal state information stored beforehand in the internal state data storage unit 111b, and then outputs the result of the comparison.” See par.122);
a second acquisition unit (“the diagnostic database update unit 104” see par.123) configured to request (“The process database update request information” see, par.130), in accordance with-the details of the abnormality, a user to provide second information and acquire the second information from the user (see par.130);
a cause conjecture unit (“maintenance information input screen 1001” see par.133) configured to conjecture a cause of the abnormality (“a detailed description of the abnormal state” see par.133) that has occurred on a basis of the first information and the second information (see par.133); and
a notification means configured to' notify the user of the conjectured cause of the abnormality (see par.131-132).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first acquisition unit is communicatively connected to the control system (fig.1 shows input unit 202 connected to state diagnostic unit 103) and acquires data stored in the control system (fig.1 shows numerous data acquisition systems (202 and 121) communicatively connected to state diagnostic unit 103 and acquiring data from 111a-b).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the first acquisition unit acquires the data in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied (“The data judgment unit 101 searches whether the operating condition data storage unit 111a in which the operating condition information has been stored beforehand includes information that agrees with operating condition information in the inputted device information 121.” See par.120-121).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first acquisition unit acquires the first information in accordance with an instruction from the user (“…a request which prompts the user to input or select whether or not the target device has been normal during the period.” See par.130).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, further comprising a confirmation unit (the diagnostic database update unit 104) configured to confirm with the user whether or not the abnormality has been eliminated (“The diagnostic database update request screens 801 and 802 and the input unit 202 constitute maintenance information input means.” see par.130-132).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches the information processing system according to claim 5, further comprising an additional information acquisition unit configured to request the user to provide additional information and acquire the additional information from the user in a case where it is determined that the abnormality has not been eliminated on a basis of a result of the confirmation made by the confirmation unit (“The maintenance information input screen 1001 is displayed when a failure has occurred in the target device during the learned temperature out-of-range period C which is displayed on the diagnostic database update request screen 802” see par.131-133),
wherein the cause conjecture unit narrows down and conjectures the cause of the abnormality on a basis of the first information, the second inform and the additional information (“"radiator", "poor cleaning", and "cleaning" are inputted into the fields of the failure period, the abnormal component, the detailed description of the abnormal state, and the detailed description of measures taken respectively.” See par.133).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the second information is information acquired in association with at least one of human's five senses (“…sound data about the sound generated by the target device, vibration data …” hearing and touch are the senses associated. see par.18).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches the information processing system according to claim 5, further comprising an administrator communication unit (“a server 12” par.151) configured to provide notification to an administrator (“an administration office” this implies there’s an administrator; see par.151) and control communication between the administrator and the user (“In addition, the device information 121A stored in the data recording device 9 is periodically transmitted to the server 12 (device diagnostic apparatus) disposed in the administration office through the radio equipment 13.” See par.154) in a case where it is determined that the abnormality has not been eliminated on a basis of- a result of the confirmation (“the abnormal state judgment result "abnormal" is added to the maintenance information corresponding to the internal state information (the water temperature of the radiator) in the period D" see par.136) made by the confirmation unit (see par.136).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the cause conjecture unit includes a database used for conjecturing the cause of the abnormality (“the diagnostic database update unit 104” see par.133), and
the information processing system further includes an administrator input reception unit configured to update the database in accordance with input from the administrator (“the personal computer 11 (device diagnostic apparatus 201B) can be connected to the data recording device 9. Accordingly, the device information 121A stored in the data recording device 9 can be downloaded into the personal computer 11. In addition, the device information 121A stored in the data recording device 9 is periodically transmitted to the server 12 (device diagnostic apparatus) disposed in the administration office through the radio equipment 13. Moreover, the monitor controller 23 can also be configured to play a role of a device diagnostic apparatus. In this case, the device information 121A stored in the data recording device 9 is periodically transmitted to the monitor controller 23 through the second common communication line 27B.” see par.154).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches,
An information processing system (“device diagnostic system” see par.117) control method comprising:
acquiring first information (“the data judgment unit 101” see par.118) indicating a state (“… the data judgment unit 101 receives device information 121 …” see par.118) of a control system (“The device diagnostic system” see par.117; a diagnostic system can function as a control system) including a control device (“The device diagnostic apparatus 201” see par.117) in response to an occurrence of a request (“the diagnostic database update unit 104 outputs process database update request information.” See par.130) or an event related to an abnormality that has occurred in the control system (“… when the internal state information stored beforehand in the internal state data storage unit 111b includes data that agrees with the internal state information included in the inputted device information, maintenance information indicating whether the target device is "normal" or "abnormal" is read from the maintenance information data storage unit 111c.” see par.122);
determining details of the abnormality that has occurred on a basis of the first information (“… state diagnostic unit 103 compares the internal state information included in the inputted device information with the internal state information stored beforehand in the internal state data storage unit 111b, and then outputs the result of the comparison.” See par.122);
requesting; (“The process database update request information” see, par.130), in accordance with-the details of the abnormality, a user to provide second information (“a request which prompts the user to input”) and acquire the second information from the user (see par.130);
conjecturing a cause of the abnormality (“a detailed description of the abnormal state” see par.133) that has occurred on a basis of the first information and the second information (see par.133); and
notifying the user of the conjectured cause of the abnormality (see par.131-132).
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