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 .
IDS
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 10, 2023 and November 17, 2023 are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawing
The drawing filed on September 8, 2023 is objected to because of the following minor issues: in Figs. 1-4, blank box units should be labeled as to their respective function for better illustration.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §112
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because:
in reference to claim 1: the instant claim recites the limitations "the current version " in page 18, line 17, step g., “the manufacturing process” on page 2, the last two lines in the claim, there are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the phrase “a new unseen manufacturing process” seems to suggest the idea is beyond the view of the monitoring apparatus, and simply defining it as “a supplemental manufacturing process” is a better characterization. In line 22, “the context embedder unit” should read “the context embedding unit,” in order to fix an antecedent issue.
With regard to claim 2: the instant claim recites “the trained version of the prediction unit”, there is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. It should read “a trained version of the prediction unit.”
With regard to claim 3: the instant claim recites ““the configured value estimation unit.”, there is insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. It should read “a configured value estimation unit.”
With regard to claim 4: the instant claim recites “the context embedding unit”, which refers to “a context embedding unit” recited in page 18, line 10 of claim 1; however, claim 1 also included “the context embedder unit” on line 22 of claim 1, claim 4 inherits those improper labeling, and creates antecedent issue.
With regard to claims 5-10: depend on claim 1 of the instant application and inherits the attributes of claim 1 and include similar antecedent issues.
In reference to claim 11: the instant claim recites the limitations “the subset of data samples”, “the current version of the prediction unit”, and “the context embedder unit” respectively (see pages 20-21, steps f and g), there are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the phrase “a new unseen manufacturing process” seems to suggest the idea is beyond the view of the monitoring computer-implemented method, and simply defining it as “a supplemental manufacturing process” is a better characterization.
With regard to claim 12: the instant claim recites the phrase “performing the steps of claim 10 when said product is run on said digital computer”; however, claim 10 does not include “steps”, and is only directed to the sensor data. However, claim 11 includes steps a through h.
With regard to claim 13: the instant claim recites “the validation loss indicator” and “the current version of the prediction unit” (see page 21, lines 23-24), there are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the phrase “a new unseen manufacturing process” seems to suggest the idea is beyond the view of the assistance system, and simply defining it as “a supplemental manufacturing process” is a better characterization.
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §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.
In reference to claims 1-13: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
Claim 1: A monitoring apparatus for quality monitoring of a [supplemental] manufacturing process, …supplemented to a set of predefined manufacturing processes of an industrial manufacturing scenario, comprising at least one processor configured to perform:
a) providing an initial version of a prediction unit,
b) obtaining a set of unlabeled input data samples recorded at the supplemented manufacturing process,
c) aggregating an embedding indicator indicating an association between the data samples of the supplemented manufacturing process by feeding the set of unlabeled input data samples into a context embedding unit,
d) aggregating a value indicator for each data sample of the set of unlabeled input data samples by feeding the embedding indicator and the set of unlabeled input data samples into a value estimation unit,
e) selecting a subset of data samples of the set of unlabeled input data samples depending on the value indicator and outputting a labelling request to a labelling unit,
f) receiving labels for the subset of data samples in the labelling unit,
g) training the current version of the prediction unit based on the labelled subset resulting in a trained version of the prediction unit, and
h) outputting a monitoring result for the set of unlabeled input data samples by the trained version of the prediction unit indicating the quality of the supplemented manufacturing to control the manufacturing process, wherein the context embedder unit is configured as a recurrent neural network aggregating the information of all the data samples in the set into a vector that encodes the manufacturing process.
Step 2A
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of the recited steps “a”, “b”, “c”, “d”, “e”, “f”, “g” and “h” in bold fonts represent the abstract idea. These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, aggregating an embedding indicator and aggregating a value indictor, as noted in steps “c” and “d” are values fed into a functional block such as value estimation unit, like a mathematical model or algorithm). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the apparatus comprising “at least one processor”, having “a prediction unit”, “context embedding unit”, “value estimation unit”, “labeling unit”, and “outputting a monitoring result”. However, these steps also include additional limitation that are generic in nature, such as a processor and a mathematical or computational algorithm abstract; and also includes insignificant extra solution activity, namely outputting the result of the abstract idea.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites that the apparatus includes specific algorithmic units, such as estimating, labeling, prediction, and outputting units. However, these units are merely a generic processing component that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which do not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). The processor merely establishes a field-of-use and broadly recites the “the at least one processor [carrying through all the algorithmic units, such as the prediction, the embedding and the estimation unit'' as an object on which the process operates rather than being a particular machine which implements the process steps (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Finally, outputting a monitoring result; however, this step is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, outputting the result of the mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: monitoring result for the set of unlabeled unput data samples”. The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. The claim “[monitors] result for the set of unlabeled unput data samples' as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 11 is analogous to claim 1, except that claim 11 is directed to a computer implemented method. No additional analysis needed, the same can be said about the analysis of claim 11. Claim 11 is therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101 as well.
Dependent claim 2: the instant claim is directed to a generic data sample validation and would be considered mathematical abstract or mental process.
Dependent claim 3: the instant claim is directed to adapting a generic context embedding unit based on loss indicator and the value estimation unit; it would be considered mathematical abstract or mental process.
Dependent claim 4: the instant claim is directed to training the generic context embedding unit and would be considered mathematical abstract or mental process.
Dependent claim 5: the instant claim is directed to training and optimization of the processes and variables noted in the instant claim 1 and would be considered mathematical abstract or mental process.
Dependent claim 6: the instant claim is directed to an optimization rule which is stochastic gradient descent rule, which would be considered mathematical abstract or mental process.
Dependent claim 7: the instant claim is directed to the initialization of an algorithm directed to a pre-trained prediction unit or algorithm and would be considered mathematical abstract or mental process.
Dependent claim 8: the instant claim is directed to an interface to accept labeling variable from an end user, and would be considered insignificant extra solution activity, namely inputting a variable into a system.
Dependent claim 9: the instant claim is directed to indicating the intended purpose of the abstract idea; however, it does not talk or indicate how these abstract steps would be integrated into a milling process.
Dependent claim 10: the instant claim is directed to showing the intended purpose of various attributes related to a milling process; however, those abstract ideas are not integrated to the steps of the computational analysis or the mental process.
Dependent claim 12: the instant claim is directed to having a memory, a processor and a software to carry through the steps of claim 10, but these would be considered generic elements. However, these units are merely a generic processing component that is invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Dependent claim 13: the instant claim is directed to an assistance system and includes training the prediction unit and optimizing the value estimator which are considered a mathematical abstract and/or human thought process.
Art of Interest
Borowski et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,188,068, hereon Borowski) discloses a monitoring system and method for monitoring an operation to predict a fault in the operational operation. The monitoring is accomplished using a number of sensors directed to measuring aspects of the manufacturing system (these are supplemented manufacturing process or sensor data), and detecting trends indicating a potential fault of the system according to a prediction model. The prediction model is updated during online operation of the monitoring system (see Borowski, Abstract).
The instant application differs in that “…aggregates a value indicator for each sample of the set of unlabeled input data samples by feeding the embedding indicator and the set of unlabeled input data samples into a value estimation unit …selecting a subset of data samples of the set of unlabeled input data samples depending on the value indictor and outputting a labelling request to a labeling unit …receiving labels for the subset of data samples in the labeling unit [and] …training [a] current version of the prediction unit based on the labeled subset resulting in a trained version of the prediction unit,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pal (U.S. PAP 2019/0354096) discloses a system to detect an anomaly in the process or machine by comparing against a normal standard test value set by an automated rule engine. The system automatically set different rules for the optimal operation of the process and the machine. The system operates independently without assistance from the system controllers for automated detection of the process, machine parameters, rule setting and predictive maintenance and process quality assurance (see Abstract).
Neumann (U.S Patent No. 11,139,064) discloses a system for generating a body degradation reduction program including a computing device configured to receive at least a degradation marker, retrieve a body degradation profile as a function of the at least a degradation marker, assign the body degradation profile to a degradation category, identify, using the degradation category and the body degradation profile, a plurality of nutrition elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857