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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 3-8, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to Claims 1-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of 02/02/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant discloses Moreover, Takahashi does not explicitly state that the threshold is a similarity threshold. Indeed, Takahashi only discloses, at best, a threshold value set in advance, but does not explicitly disclose that it is a similarity threshold based on "one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set, the one or more similarity signatures encoding one or more physical characteristic of the product" (emphasis added). It is further noted that Takahashi does not disclose one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshot.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1-3, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Rao et al. (WO2022016108A1, 2022-01-20).
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 supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US20210247754A1, 2021-08-12) herein referred to as Takahashi, in view of Rao et al. (WO2022016108A1, 2022-01-20) herein referred to as Rao.
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi teaches a computer-implemented method for inferring an emerging problem in product manufacturing [0061-0065], the method comprising:
obtaining a time-ordered set comprising one or more snapshots of a product and one or more similarity thresholds, a snapshot representing a distribution of a physical signal measured from a product [[0035-0036] (i.e. position, pressure); 0048; 0055-0059; 0083-0083];
obtaining at least one recent snapshot, the at least one recent snapshot being time-ordered after at least one snapshot of the time-ordered set (Fig. 5; [0057]);
retrieving a subset of one or more snapshots from the time-ordered set, the one or more snapshots being time-ordered before the at least one recent snapshot and satisfying, with respect to the at least one recent snapshot, a similarity above at least one of the one or more similarity thresholds [0134; 0137; 0173-0174]; and
determining a trend from the retrieved subset and a baseline, the trend being a time distribution of the snapshots of the retrieved subset with respect to the baseline [0184-0189].
Takahashi fails to specifically teach each of the one or more similarity thresholds being based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set, the one or more similarity signatures encoding one or more physical characteristic of the product; thereby improving a sensitivity of the inference of the emerging problem in product manufacturing.
However, in a related field, Rao teaches each of the one or more similarity thresholds being based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set, the one or more similarity signatures encoding one or more physical characteristic of the product [0035; 0054]; thereby improving a sensitivity of the inference of the emerging problem in product manufacturing [0029;0051; 0054]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Rao by including: the limitations above in order to maintain or increase quality of the previous product.
Regarding Claim 2, The combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the trend further comprises computing the time distribution with respect to the baseline by determining a ratio between the one or more snapshots of the subset and a predetermined baseline time-ordered set, the predetermined baseline time-ordered set being a predetermined time-ordered set of snapshots of the product (Takahashi: [0184-0189]).
Regarding Claim 3, The combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the trend further comprises computing the time distribution by fitting the snapshots of the retrieved subset to a time-series distribution, and comparing the computed time distribution to one or more predetermined baseline values (Takahashi: [0173-0174; 0180]).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the trend further comprises computing the time distribution by defining a function that takes the one or more snapshots of the subset as input, the output of the function being compared to a probability distribution that determines a ratio between one or more values of the output of the function and one or more predetermined baseline values of the probability distribution (Takahashi: [0184-0185]).
Regarding Claim 5, The combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more similarity thresholds are each based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set (Takahashi: [0081-0082]).
Regarding Claim 6, The combination teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more similarity thresholds are additionally based on a predetermined threshold on a number of the one or more snapshots of the product comprised in the time-ordered set (Takahashi: [0081-0082]).
Regarding Claim 7, The combination teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more similarity signatures are obtained from a neural network architecture applied to a respective snapshot of the product (Takahashi: [Abstract; 0092]).
Regarding Claim 8, The combination teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more similarity signatures encode one or more of: information on the distribution of the product; information of the response of the product to a physical stimulation; and/or a text description of the product (Takahashi: [Fig. 6-9; 0065; 0132; 0210-0213]).
Regarding Claim 12, Takahashi teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program that when executed by a computer causes the computer to implement [0054] method for inferring an emerging problem in product manufacturing [0061-0065], the method comprising:
obtaining a time-ordered set comprising one or more snapshots of a product and one or more similarity thresholds [[0035-0036] (i.e. position, pressure); 0048; 0055-0059; 0083-0083];
obtaining at least one recent snapshot, the at least one recent snapshot being time-ordered after at least one snapshot of the time-ordered set (Fig. 5; [0057]);
retrieving a subset of one or more snapshots from the time-ordered set, the one or more snapshots being time-ordered before the at least one recent snapshot and satisfying, with respect to the at least one recent snapshot, a similarity above at least one of the one or more similarity thresholds [0134; 0137; 0173-0174]; and
determining a trend from the retrieved subset and a baseline, the trend being a time distribution of the snapshots of the retrieved subset with respect to the baseline [0184-0189].
Takahashi fails to specifically teach each of the one or more similarity thresholds being based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set, the one or more similarity signatures encoding one or more physical characteristic of the product; thereby improving a sensitivity of the inference of the emerging problem in product manufacturing.
However, in a related field, Rao teaches each of the one or more similarity thresholds being based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set, the one or more similarity signatures encoding one or more physical characteristic of the product [0035; 0054]; thereby improving a sensitivity of the inference of the emerging problem in product manufacturing [0029;0051; 0054]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Rao by including: the limitations above in order to maintain or increase quality of the previous product.
Regarding Claim 13, Takahashi teaches a system comprising: a processor coupled to a memory [0072] and a graphical user interface [0071], the memory having recorded thereon a computer program for inferring an emerging problem in product manufacturing that when executed by the processor causes the processor [0061-0065] to be configured to:
obtain a time-ordered set comprising one or more snapshots of a product and one or more similarity thresholds [[0035-0036] (i.e. position, pressure); 0048; 0055-0059; 0083-0083];
obtain at least one recent snapshot, the at least one recent snapshot being time-ordered after at least one snapshot of the time-ordered set (Fig. 5; [0057]);
retrieve a subset of one or more snapshots from the time-ordered set, the one or more snapshots being time-ordered before the at least one recent snapshot and satisfying, with respect to the at least one recent snapshot, a similarity above at least one of the one or more similarity thresholds [0134; 0137; 0173-0174];; and
determine a trend from the retrieved subset and a baseline, the trend being a time distribution of the snapshots of the retrieved subset with respect to the [0184-0189].
Takahashi fails to specifically teach each of the one or more similarity thresholds being based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set, the one or more similarity signatures encoding one or more physical characteristic of the product; thereby improving a sensitivity of the inference of the emerging problem in product manufacturing.
However, in a related field, Rao teaches each of the one or more similarity thresholds being based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set, the one or more similarity signatures encoding one or more physical characteristic of the product [0035; 0054]; thereby improving a sensitivity of the inference of the emerging problem in product manufacturing [0029;0051; 0054]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Rao by including: the limitations above in order to maintain or increase quality of the previous product.
Regarding Claim 14, The combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining the trend further comprises computing the time distribution by fitting the snapshots of the retrieved subset to a time-series distribution, and comparing the computed time distribution to one or more predetermined baseline values. (Takahashi: [0173-0174; 0180]).
Regarding Claim 15, The combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining the trend further comprises computing the time distribution by defining a function that takes the one or more snapshots of the subset as input, the output of the function being compared to a probability distribution that determines a ratio between one or more values of the output of the function and one or more predetermined baseline values of the probability distribution (Takahashi: [0184-0185]).
Regarding Claim 16, The combination teaches the method of claim 3, wherein determining the trend further comprises computing the time distribution by defining a function that takes the one or more snapshots of the subset as input, the output of the function being compared to a probability distribution that determines a ratio between one or more values of the output of the function and one or more predetermined baseline values of the probability distribution (Takahashi: [0184-0185]).
Regarding Claim 17, The combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the one or more similarity thresholds are each based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set (Takahashi: [0081-0082]).
Regarding Claim 18, The combination teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the one or more similarity thresholds are each based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set (Takahashi: [0081-0082]).
Regarding Claim 19, The combination teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the one or more similarity thresholds are each based on one or more similarity signatures of the one or more snapshots of the time-ordered set (Takahashi: [0081-0082]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi and Rao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vagman et al. (US20150248755A1, 2015-09-03) herein referred to as Vagman.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising computing one or more labels for each of the one or more snapshots corresponding to the determined trend, the computing including: obtaining metadata from each of the one or more snapshots, each respective metadata including at least one range of physical values of the product and being representative of the emerging problem; and associating, to each of the one or more snapshot, data pieces each corresponding to the obtained metadata (Takahashi: [Fig. 6-9; 0065; 0132]; Rao: [0038-0039])
Although it is believed by the examiner that the combination teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9, one could argue that the combination fails to specifically teach each respective metadata including at least one range of physical values of the product and being representative of the emerging problem. In lite of continuing prosecution, the examiner provides another reference that teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 9, Vagman teaches computing one or more labels for each of the one or more snapshots corresponding to the determined trend [0017; 0108], the computing including: obtaining metadata from each of the one or more snapshots [0038-0040; 0108], each respective metadata including at least one range of physical values of the product and being representative of the emerging problem [0108; 0115]; and associating, to each of the one or more snapshot, data pieces each corresponding to the obtained metadata [0108].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi and Rao to incorporate the teachings of Vagman by including: each respective metadata including at least one range of physical values of the product and being representative of the emerging problem in order to assist the user in identifying trends in quality or iterations of systematic problems.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination further teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising obtaining a first distribution of the obtained metadata over the retrieved snapshots and a second distribution of the obtained metadata over the dataset, and associating data pieces each corresponding to obtained metadata for which the obtained first and second distributions are different (Vagman: [0108-0118]).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination further teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising performing a consistency check of the obtained metadata with metadata of the recent snapshot (Vagman: [0038; 0044]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights