DETAILED ACTION
This is a first office action in response to application 18/367,932 filed 09/13/2023, in which claims 1-12 are presented for examination. Currently claims 1-12 are pending.
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 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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a process model management system and/or a process model management method. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (i.e. a processor) does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite simply collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Second, the claims can also be considered as reciting managing personal behavior as in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The patentee in this case claimed methods comprising storing user-selected pre-set limits on spending in a database, and when one of the limits is reached, communicating a notification to the user via a device. 792 F.3d. at 1367, 115 USPQ2d at 1639-40. Similarly, as in the instant application, the claims suggest monitoring manufacturing site data, and when a change is determined, providing a notification to a manager. Thirdly, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The Office also notes Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
In regards to further depending claims 2-11, the additionally recited elements in these claims do not appear to integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Thus, the claims fall under providing nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
For example, claims 2, 5, and 9 provide further language suggesting data is compared and providing a response to said comparison. The output result is provided as a notification to person. These claims are directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data because the steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes.
Claims 3, 6, 10 further elaborate on the comparison however provide nothing more than comparing and making a determination, when a “model” deviates based on the comparison, to perform a secondary process. These claims are directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data because the steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes.
Claims 4, 7, and 11 further suggest using the determining to use or not use the prior result and a type of notification. Thus, the claims fall under providing nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 8 further suggests that the result of prior difference determinations to provide notifications. These claims are directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data because the steps providing nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
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: All limitations in claim 12 that begin with the phrase “a procedure for”.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345, 54 USPQ2d 1915, 1917 (Fed. Cir. 2000) The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682. 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. V. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010) in the context of determining possession of a claimed means of accessing disparate databases). In this particular case, the claim 1 recites “generate a synthetic process model that includes both information on the execution order of the tasks included in the actual process model and information on the execution order of the tasks included in the master process model” while claim 12 recites “a procedure for the processor to generate a synthetic process model” however the claimed processes do not appear to be adequately described within the specification as filed for what the procedure is in order to create the claimed synthetic process model. The claim suggests providing inputs in the context of creating the model (i.e. input to a type of algorithm), however, how the model is created or steps performed in the process of creating the model does not appear have been sufficiently disclosed (i.e. the algorithm itself). An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP § 2162- § 2163.07(b). The Office recommends, if possible, clearly defining “a synthetic process model” in the claims.
Further depending claims 2-11 not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims and are rejected under similar rationale.
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 12 is 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.
In connection with 112(a) first paragraph rejection above, If the specification does not provide a disclosure of sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function of a means- (or step-) plus- function limitation in a claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or the sixth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, "the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention" as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 ]. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or the second paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 must be made in addition to the written description rejection. See also MPEP § 2181, subsection II.B.2(a). The Office recommends, if possible, clearly defining “a synthetic process model” in the claims.
Further depending claims 2-11 not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims and are rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibuya et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0220847 A1 hereinafter Shibuya.
Consider Claim 1 and Similar Method Claim 12:
Shibuya discloses a process model management system comprising: (Shibuya, See Abstract.)
a processor and a storage device, wherein the storage device is configured to (Shibuya, [0179], “Further, a part or the entirety of the functions of the information processing apparatus 11 may be realized by, for example, a controller board including an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) with a calculation device, a storage device, a driving circuit, and the like.”)
store actual data indicating actual performance of tasks executed at a manufacturing site and master data including design information on an order of tasks to be executed, and (Shibuya, [0184], “Further, the operation information DB 101 and the maintenance history information DB 102 may be realized by an external device of the information processing apparatus 11. For example, the operation information DB 101 and the maintenance history information DB 102 may be realized by a storage device connected to the network 14.”)
the processor is configured to generate an actual process model including information on an execution order of the tasks based on the actual data, (Shibuya, [0044], “FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating a data configuration example of the operation information DB 101. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the operation information DB 101 stores a data 101a which stores a sensor signal output from the facility 12 and a sensor signal 101b.”)
generate a master process model including information on the execution order of the tasks based on the master data, (Shibuya, [0046], “FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a data configuration example of the maintenance history information DB 102. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the maintenance history information DB 102 stores an alarm 102a which notifies the maintenance work of the facility 12, a date 102b which indicates the generation of the alarm, a maintenance work report 102c which is text information having a free description and is input from the terminal device 13, a cost 102d which is spent for the maintenance work, and a downtime 102e of the facility 12.”)
generate a synthetic process model that includes both information on the execution order of the tasks included in the actual process model and information on the execution order of the tasks included in the master process model, (Shibuya, [0049], [0170-0175], [0171], “The diagnosis model creation unit 109 will be described in detail. The diagnosis model creation unit 109 creates the diagnosis model for estimating the work keyword suggested to the maintenance worker based on the work keyword included in the maintenance history information correlated with the sensor signal as the source of the phenomenon pattern and the phenomenon pattern classified by the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108. The diagnosis model creation unit 109 is operated in the diagnosis model creation phase and is not operated in the maintenance work suggestion phase.”)
when the actual data is changed, detect a difference between a past actual process model generated based on the actual data before change and a new actual process model generated based on the actual data after change, when the master data is changed, detect a difference between a past master process model generated based on the master data before change and a new master process model generated based on the master data after change, (Shibuya, [0056], “The process sequence of the diagnosis model creation phase will be described. First, the abnormality sign detection unit 103 detects the abnormality sign by using the past sensor signal stored in the operation information DB 101. Next, the phenomenon pattern extraction unit 104 extracts the phenomenon pattern by using the same sensor signal. Next, the related information correlation unit 105 correlates the past sensor signal stored in the operation information DB 101 with the maintenance history information stored in the maintenance history information DB 102. Next, the work keyword extraction unit 106 extracts the work keyword from the maintenance history information stored in the maintenance history information DB 102. Next, the phenomenon pattern classification reference creation unit 107 creates a classification reference for classifying the phenomenon pattern by using the work keyword as the teacher based on the correlated information obtained by the related information correlation unit 105. Next, the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108 classifies the phenomenon pattern extracted from the sensor signal by using the classification reference created by the phenomenon pattern classification reference creation unit 107. Next, the diagnosis model creation unit 109 creates a diagnosis model for estimating the work keyword suggested to the maintenance worker from the phenomenon pattern classification result by using the correlated information obtained by the related information correlation unit 105.”)
detect a difference between a past synthetic process model generated based on the actual process model and the master process model before the actual data and the master data are changed and a new synthetic process model generated based on the actual process model and the master process model after one of the actual data and the master data is changed, and output a notification based on the detected difference. (Shibuya, [0057], “The process sequence in the maintenance work suggestion phase will be described. First, the abnormality sign detection unit 103 detects an abnormality sign by using the sensor signal (for example, the current sensor signal) used in the diagnosis target. Next, the phenomenon pattern extraction unit 104 extracts the phenomenon pattern. Next, the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108 classifies the extracted phenomenon pattern by using the classification reference. Next, the maintenance work suggestion unit 110 extracts the work keyword suggested to the maintenance worker by using the phenomenon pattern classification result classified by the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108 and the diagnosis model created by the diagnosis model creation unit 109 and suggests the maintenance work based on the work keyword.”)
Consider Claim 2:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to output, as the notification to a supervisor for the manufacturing site, information indicating content of the detected difference between the past actual process model and the new actual process model. (Shibuya, [0175], “The maintenance work suggestion unit 110 extracts and suggests the work keyword suggested to the maintenance worker by referring to the diagnosis model created in the diagnosis model creation unit 109 based on the phenomenon pattern classified by the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108. For example, the maintenance work suggestion unit 110 obtains the possibility of the work keyword by referring to the diagnosis model based on the diagnosis label obtained in the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108 in the maintenance work suggestion phase and suggests the maintenance work of which the possibility is not zero in high-possibility order.”)
Consider Claim 3:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the new actual process model deviates from the master process model or matches the master process model, based on the difference between the new actual process model and the master process model, when the new actual process model deviates from the master process model, output information indicating content of the difference between the new actual process model and the master process model, and a part to change in the master data to match the changed actual data as the notification to a manager of the master data, and when the new actual process model matches the master process model, output information indicating that the new actual process model matches the master process model as the notification to a manager of the process model. (Shibuya, [0083], “In step S2, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 performs a canonical process on each sensor signal. For example, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 converts the sensor signal so that the average becomes 0 and the variance becomes 1 by using the average and a standard deviation during a predetermined period. For example, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 stores the average and the standard deviation of the sensor signals in a storage device so that the same conversion may be performed in the diagnosis of the abnormality sign. Alternatively, for example, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 may convert the sensor signal so that the maximum value becomes 1 and the minimum value becomes 0 by using the maximum value and the minimum value of the sensor signals during a predetermined period. Further, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 may use the upper-limit value and the lower-limit value set in advance instead of the maximum value and the minimum value. The characteristic vector extraction unit 201 stores the maximum value and the minimum value or the upper-limit value and the lower-limit value of the sensor signals in a storage device so that the same conversion may be performed in the diagnosis of the abnormality sign. The canonical process which is performed on the sensor signal is used to simultaneously treat the sensor signals having different units and scales.”)
Consider Claim 4:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to, when the new actual process model deviates from the master process model, generate a new synthetic process model based on the new actual process model and the master process model, regardless of approval or rejection of the manager of the process model. (Shibuya, [0175], “The maintenance work suggestion unit 110 extracts and suggests the work keyword suggested to the maintenance worker by referring to the diagnosis model created in the diagnosis model creation unit 109 based on the phenomenon pattern classified by the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108. For example, the maintenance work suggestion unit 110 obtains the possibility of the work keyword by referring to the diagnosis model based on the diagnosis label obtained in the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108 in the maintenance work suggestion phase and suggests the maintenance work of which the possibility is not zero in high-possibility order.”)
Consider Claim 5:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to output information indicating content of the detected difference between the past master process model and the new master process model as the notification to a manager of the master data. (Shibuya, [0175], “The maintenance work suggestion unit 110 extracts and suggests the work keyword suggested to the maintenance worker by referring to the diagnosis model created in the diagnosis model creation unit 109 based on the phenomenon pattern classified by the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108. For example, the maintenance work suggestion unit 110 obtains the possibility of the work keyword by referring to the diagnosis model based on the diagnosis label obtained in the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108 in the maintenance work suggestion phase and suggests the maintenance work of which the possibility is not zero in high-possibility order.”)
Consider Claim 6:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the new master process model deviates from the actual process model or matches the actual process model, based on the difference between the new master process model and the actual process model, when the new master process model deviates from the actual process model, output information indicating the content of the difference between the new master process model and the actual process model, and a part to change in the manufacturing process at the manufacturing site to match the changed master data as the notification to a supervisor for the manufacturing site, and when the new master process model matches the actual process model, output information indicating that the new master process model matches the actual process model as the notification to a manager of the process model. (Shibuya, [0083], “In step S2, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 performs a canonical process on each sensor signal. For example, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 converts the sensor signal so that the average becomes 0 and the variance becomes 1 by using the average and a standard deviation during a predetermined period. For example, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 stores the average and the standard deviation of the sensor signals in a storage device so that the same conversion may be performed in the diagnosis of the abnormality sign. Alternatively, for example, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 may convert the sensor signal so that the maximum value becomes 1 and the minimum value becomes 0 by using the maximum value and the minimum value of the sensor signals during a predetermined period. Further, the characteristic vector extraction unit 201 may use the upper-limit value and the lower-limit value set in advance instead of the maximum value and the minimum value. The characteristic vector extraction unit 201 stores the maximum value and the minimum value or the upper-limit value and the lower-limit value of the sensor signals in a storage device so that the same conversion may be performed in the diagnosis of the abnormality sign. The canonical process which is performed on the sensor signal is used to simultaneously treat the sensor signals having different units and scales.”)
Consider Claim 7:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to when the new master process model deviates from the actual process model and approval of the manager of the process model is obtained, generate the new synthetic process model based on the new master process model and the actual process model, and when the new master process model deviates from the actual process model but the approval of the manager of the process model is not obtained, not generate the synthetic process model. (Shibuya, [0175], “The maintenance work suggestion unit 110 extracts and suggests the work keyword suggested to the maintenance worker by referring to the diagnosis model created in the diagnosis model creation unit 109 based on the phenomenon pattern classified by the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108. For example, the maintenance work suggestion unit 110 obtains the possibility of the work keyword by referring to the diagnosis model based on the diagnosis label obtained in the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108 in the maintenance work suggestion phase and suggests the maintenance work of which the possibility is not zero in high-possibility order.”)
Consider Claim 8:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, when detecting a difference between the past synthetic process model and the new synthetic process model, output information for notifying the manager of the process model of which of the actual process model and the master process model the difference is detected, and the content of the detected difference. (Shibuya, [0053], “The diagnosis model creation unit 109 creates a diagnosis model for estimating the work keyword suggested to the maintenance worker from the phenomenon pattern classification result.”)
Consider Claim 9:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to output information for displaying the past actual process model, the new actual process model, the past master process model, the new master process model, the past synthetic process model, and the new synthetic process model. (Shibuya, [0175], “The maintenance work suggestion unit 110 extracts and suggests the work keyword suggested to the maintenance worker by referring to the diagnosis model created in the diagnosis model creation unit 109 based on the phenomenon pattern classified by the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108. For example, the maintenance work suggestion unit 110 obtains the possibility of the work keyword by referring to the diagnosis model based on the diagnosis label obtained in the phenomenon pattern classification unit 108 in the maintenance work suggestion phase and suggests the maintenance work of which the possibility is not zero in high-possibility order.”)
Consider Claim 10:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to output information for displaying information in different modes indicating, among the tasks included in the synthetic process model, the execution order of the tasks included only in the actual process model, the execution order of the tasks included only in the master process model, and the execution order of the tasks included in both the actual process model and the master process. (Shibuya, [0093], “A method of setting the threshold value in step S11 will be described. The threshold value calculation unit 204 sorts the abnormality measure of the entire characteristic vector of the learning period in ascending order and obtains a value in which the ratio becomes about 1. The threshold value calculation unit 204 calculates the threshold value by a process in which an offset is added from the obtained value an integer times. When the offset is 0 and the multiplying factor is 1, the obtained value becomes the threshold value. Although not illustrated in the drawings, the calculated threshold value is stored while being correlated with the learned data.”)
Consider Claim 11:
Shibuya discloses the process model management system according to claim 10, wherein the display in the different modes includes at least one of displaying using different shapes, and displaying using different colors.
Miyamoto however teaches that it was a known technique to those of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide user interface having different shapes and color and therefore teaches wherein the display in the different modes includes at least one of displaying using different shapes, and displaying using different colors. (Miyamoto, [0054], “When the user selects 4M information (first information) of the predetermined task from the user interface 7, the association data search unit 12 searches for other 4M information (second information) of the task associated with the 4M information (first information) on the basis of identification information assigned to the 4M information (first information) and displays the searched 4M information (second information) on the user interface 7 by hatching, color coding, or the like to provide the 4M information to the user. In addition, the association data search unit 12 transmits a connection relation of the selected 4M information (first information) and the searched 4M information (second information) to the analysis data accumulation unit 14. An example of a method of searching the 4M information by the association data search unit 12 will be described later.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide displaying using different shapes, and displaying using different colors as this was a known technique in view of Miyamoto and would have been utilized for the art recognized purpose of providing readily identifiable information to the user. (Miyamoto, [0054])
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon which is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited in a current or previous PTO-892. The prior art cited in a current or previous PTO-892 reads upon the applicants claims in part, in whole and/or gives a general reference to the knowledge and skill of persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Applicant, when responding to this Office action, should consider not only the cited references applied in the rejection but also any additional references made of record.
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests support be shown for any new or amended claims. More precisely, indicate support for any newly added language or amendments by specifying page, line numbers, and/or figure(s). This will assist The Office in compact prosecution of this application. The Office has cited particular columns, paragraphs, and/or line numbers in the applied rejection of the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within each claim, however other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider the cited reference(s) in its entirety and not only the cited portions as other sections of the reference may expand on the teachings of the cited portion(s).
Applicant Representatives are reminded of CFR 1.4(d)(2)(ii) which states “A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1) ), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2), must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.” When an unsigned or improperly signed amendment is received the amendment will be listed in the contents of the application file, but not entered. The examiner will notify applicant of the status of the application, advising him or her to furnish a duplicate amendment properly signed or to ratify the amendment already filed. In an application not under final rejection, applicant should be given a two month time period in which to ratify the previously filed amendment (37 CFR 1.135(c) ).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J JANSEN II whose telephone number is (571)272-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Normally Available Monday-Friday 9am-4pm EST.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on 571-272-3017. 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 Jansen II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights