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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/30/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/30/23, 11/19/24 and 3/21/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: relationship identifying unit, relationship acquiring unit in claim 1, relationship synthesizing unit in claims 1 and 3, relationship setting unit in claims 4-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving identify a first causal relationship based on data of a connection state and an order relationship of a plurality of machineries that constitute a manufacturing line, the first causal relationship being between the plurality of machineries in a process performed on the manufacturing line, generate a third causal relationship obtained by integrating the first causal relationship and the second causal relationship, the first causal relationship includes a plurality of first nodes provided respectively for a plurality of variables set for the plurality of machineries, and first edge information indicating a connection between the plurality of first nodes, determines whether or not there is a first node corresponding to a variable identical to the variable set in the attribute information of each of the second nodes; puts the second node together with the corresponding first node, when it is determined that there is a first node corresponding to the identical variable; generate the third causal relationship based on the first and the second edge information; set the second causal relationship according to user setting, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), (claims 1-4 and 7-8).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of a relationship acquiring unit configured to acquire a second causal relationship between a plurality of events related to the plurality of machineries in a process performed on the manufacturing line according to user setting; the second causal relationship includes a plurality of second nodes provided respectively for the plurality of events, and second edge information indicating a connection between the plurality of second nodes; wherein the second causal relationship corresponds to a causal relationship between a plurality of events based on a failure mechanism of the plurality of machineries in the process performed on the manufacturing line (claims 1-2 and 6) represent mere data gathering which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The relationship identifying unit, relationship synthesizing unit, relationship setting unit, non-transitory storage medium, a setting screen capable of accepting setting of attribute information including a variable related to an event corresponding to each of the second nodes, the setting screen displays a list selection screen of the plurality of variables used in a program for controlling the plurality of machineries, and updates a listing order of the plurality of variables in the list selection screen according to user selection (claims 1, 3-5 and 8) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. 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 physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited, the relationship identifying unit, relationship synthesizing unit, relationship setting unit, non-transitory storage medium, a setting screen capable of accepting setting of attribute information including a variable related to an event corresponding to each of the second nodes, the setting screen displays a list selection screen of the plurality of variables used in a program for controlling the plurality of machineries, and updates a listing order of the plurality of variables in the list selection screen according to user selection are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)); the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/transmission is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20050138477 to Liddy et al. (hereinafter “Liddy”), in view of US20180348728 to Ota et al. (hereinafter “Ota”), in view of US20060047454 to Tamaki et al. (hereinafter “Tamaki”).
As for claim 1, Liddy substantially discloses an information processing device (Liddy, Fig. 1, [0020]-[0021] and claim 1) see comprising:
a relationship identifying unit configured to identify a first causal relationship based on data of a connection state and an order relationship of a plurality of elements that constitute a system, the first causal relationship being between the plurality of element in a process of the system (Liddy, see Fig. 3A element 72, Fig. 4 and [0025]-[0041]);
a relationship acquiring unit configured to acquire a second causal relationship between a plurality of events related to the plurality of element in a process of the system according to user setting (Liddy, see Fig. 3B element 130, Fig. 6 and [0046]-[0051]); and
a relationship synthesizing unit configured to generate a third causal relationship obtained by integrating the first causal relationship and the second causal relationship (Liddy, see Fig. 3B elements 154, 168, Fig. 7A-Fig. 8B, and [0051]-[0058]).
Liddy does not explicitly disclose machineries that constitute a manufacturing line, relationship between the machineries in a process performed on the manufacturing line, events related to the plurality of machineries in a process performed on the manufacturing line.
However, Ota in an analogous art discloses machineries that constitute a manufacturing line, relationship between the machineries in a process performed on the manufacturing line (Ota, see [0068]-[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Ota into the apparatus of Liddy. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a technique for accurately modelling the causal relationship between a plurality of mechanisms constituting a manufacturing line (Ota, see [0009]).
The combination of Liddy and Ota does not explicitly disclose events related to the plurality of machineries in a process performed on the manufacturing line. However, Tamaki in an analogous art discloses events related to the plurality of machineries in a process performed on the manufacturing line (Tamaki, see [0092]-[0113] and [0215]-[0224]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Tamaki into the above combination of Liddy and Ota. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a product quality control system in which not only the candidates for the cause of variation in the product quality history data is listed from the manufacturing history data but also the complicated connecting structure in the manufacturing history data is searched to arrive at the fundamental cause of quality variation (Tamaki, see [0023]).
Claim 7 is a method claim corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8 is a CRM claim corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Ota further discloses the first causal relationship includes a plurality of first nodes provided respectively for a plurality of variables set for the plurality of machineries, and first edge information indicating a connection between the plurality of first nodes (Ota, see [0111]-[0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Ota into the apparatus of Liddy. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a technique for accurately modelling the causal relationship between a plurality of mechanisms constituting a manufacturing line (Ota, see [0009]).
Tamaki further discloses the second causal relationship includes a plurality of second nodes provided respectively for the plurality of events, and second edge information indicating a connection between the plurality of second nodes (Tamaki, see Fig. 1, [0092]-[0113] and [0215]-[0224]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Tamaki into the above combination of Liddy and Ota. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a product quality control system in which not only the candidates for the cause of variation in the product quality history data is listed from the manufacturing history data but also the complicated connecting structure in the manufacturing history data is searched to arrive at the fundamental cause of quality variation (Tamaki, see [0023]).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Liddy further discloses a relationship setting unit configured to set the second causal relationship according to user setting (Liddy, see Fig. 6, Fig. 8A-Fig 8B and [0044]-[0058]).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Tamaki further discloses the relationship setting unit has a setting screen capable of accepting setting of attribute information including a variable related to an event corresponding to each of the second nodes, and the setting screen displays a list selection screen of the plurality of variables used in a program for controlling the plurality of machineries, and updates a listing order of the plurality of variables in the list selection screen according to user selection (Tamaki, see Fig. 1, [0092]-[0113] and [0215]-[0224]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Tamaki into the above combination of Liddy and Ota. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a product quality control system in which not only the candidates for the cause of variation in the product quality history data is listed from the manufacturing history data but also the complicated connecting structure in the manufacturing history data is searched to arrive at the fundamental cause of quality variation (Tamaki, see [0023]).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Tamaki further discloses wherein the second causal relationship corresponds to a causal relationship between a plurality of events based on a failure mechanism of the plurality of machineries in the process performed on the manufacturing line (Tamaki, see Fig. 1, [0092]-[0113] and [0215]-[0224]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Tamaki into the above combination of Liddy and Ota. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a product quality control system in which not only the candidates for the cause of variation in the product quality history data is listed from the manufacturing history data but also the complicated connecting structure in the manufacturing history data is searched to arrive at the fundamental cause of quality variation (Tamaki, see [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action, is overcome, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20190250599 discloses a method and system for conducting automatically a process failure mode and effect analysis, PFMEA, for a factory adapted to produce a product in a production process using a meta model, MM, stored or loaded in a data storage, wherein the stored meta model, MM, comprises abstract factory model elements modeling an abstract factory, AF, including one or more service declarations modeling abstract services across different factories, wherein each service declaration comprises failure mode declarations for different failure modes.
US20160154911 discloses a common plant model offers the possibility to create a mechanism that allows an easier linking of plant items from an engineering aspect being independent of the system, such as MES, SCADA, DCS, ERP, the engineer is working with. The common plant model includes: a node type model aggregating different aspects for the modeling of a single physical plant item; a number of nodes; a library model with a project library and a global library; and a wiring chart model defining the interaction between interface members of different facets. Each facet has at least one interface member and the logical link among the interface members is a virtual wire defining a connection used to propagate and align facet parameters linked to a specific node. The wiring chart is usable by different users. The SCADA and DCS systems have access to the distinct modeling of their individual needs.
US20150039386 discloses an engineering management system including one or more processors configured to receive input defining one or more requirements for a product. The engineering management system may generate a first risk prevention document based on one or more of the product requirements and receive risk parameter input related to the first risk prevention document. The engineering management system may initiate a problem solver analysis tool based on the first risk prevention document and receive problem parameter input related to the problem solver analysis tool. The engineering management system may determine one or more outputs using the problem solver analysis tool. The engineering management system may populate one or more aspects of the first risk prevention document with the determined outputs based on one or more defined associations between the first risk prevention document and the problem solver analysis tool.
US20090150325 discloses method and computer program product for the root cause analysis of the failure of a manufactured product is disclosed. The present invention includes the development of a knowledge model, based on information obtained from historical warranty claim forms and various manufacturing data sources. The invention also includes processing text information in a free-form text that is obtained from warranty claim forms by using text-tagging and annotation techniques. Thereafter, the knowledge model is converted to a Bayesian network. The present invention provides a user interface to select parameters and corresponding instances from current warranty claim forms. The selected parameters and corresponding instances are used as input evidence for the Bayesian network. The present invention facilitates the process of drawing inferences for root cause analysis of the failure of manufactured products and corresponding probabilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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 E. Fennema can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117