DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending. Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-079540, filed on 5/13/2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/4/25, have been fully considered but are not persuasive, except where indicated below.
Applicant’s comments on allowability (page 6) are noted. However, claims need to be allowable based on all the relevant statutes, not just 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 that address prior art considerations.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the difference between ‘an abnormality’ and ‘a sign of an abnormality’(page 7) are not persuasive because ‘an abnormality sign’ recites substantially the same language as the unamended claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding training a model or detecting an abnormality (page 7) are persuasive and the claims are no longer rejected on those grounds.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the correlation/decorrelation data and the relationship between various groups (pages 8-9) are persuasive and the claims are no longer rejected on those grounds.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the subject matter recited in original claims 3-5 (pages 9-10) are persuasive and the claims are no longer rejected on those grounds.
Applicant’s argument regarding a ‘sudden change’ (page 10) are not persuasive because the claims continue to recite the same language. To clarify, it is not clear what the metes and bounds are of ‘sudden’, i.e. how quickly does the change have to take place in order to be considered a ‘sudden’ change?
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 10 (page 11) are not persuasive because, as for claim 1, ‘an abnormality sign’ recites substantially the same language as the unamended claims.
Applicant’s comments on the dependent claims (page 11) are moot in view of the continued rejection of independent claims 1 and 10.
Applicant’s argument regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pages 11-12) are moot because the claims are no longer rejected under that statute.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, this claim recites ‘an abnormality’ and ‘an abnormality sign’ and it is not clear what the difference is between these — both would appear to indicate some type of abnormal condition.
In addition, claim 1 recites ‘or decorrelation data having no correlation among the plurality of process amounts in the same group the plurality of process amounts’ and the meaning of ‘the plurality of process amounts’ is unclear in this context.
In, addition, claim 1 recites ‘upon inputting the learning input data’ and it is not clear what these input data are input to.
In, addition, claim 1 recites ‘already subject to the machine learning’ the meaning of which is not clear.
Claim 9 recites ‘sudden change’ and it is unclear what the metes and bound are of a ‘sudden’ change because ‘sudden’ is a relative term (see MPEP 2173.05).
With regard to claim 10, this claim recites ‘an abnormality’ and ‘an abnormality sign’ and it is not clear what the difference is between these — both would appear to indicate some type of abnormal condition.
In, addition, claim 10 recites ‘upon inputting the learning input data’ and it is not clear what these input data are input to.
In, addition, claim 10 recites ‘already subject to the machine learning’ the meaning of which is not clear.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend and none of the dependent claims provide a cure for the indefiniteness of the parent claims.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119