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 .
Contingent Limitations
Claims 5, 6 and 7 comprise contingent limitations recited in phrases “when…”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The conditions followed the phrase “when” may not be met, hence the corresponding steps may not be required to be conducted. Therefore, these limitations have no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 (II) for details.
It is assumed Applicant intends to make the limitations to have patentable weight in the claim, so the phrase “when” in claims 5, 6 and 7 should be amended to “in response to”.
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 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:
“profile extraction module”, “intensity determiner” and “energy consumption instability identifier” in claim 12.
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.
The claimed “profile extraction module”, “intensity determiner” and “energy consumption instability identifier” have been construed as processors as described in the specification on page 11.
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 Objections
In claim 8, the phrase “the total supplied steam amount and of the process line” should be amended to “the total supplied steam amount [[and]] of the process line”, to correct the grammatical error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite limitation “energy intensity per product, which is a ratio of an amount of energy consumed to produce the product, based on the profile”, which causes ambiguity. The term “ratio” needs two quantities to compare with each other. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “energy intensity per product, which is a ratio of an amount of energy consumed to produce the product to units of the product produced, based on the profile”. Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are also rejected for the same reason since they depend on claims 1 or 12 thus have inherited the same deficiency.
Claim 2 recites limitation “comparative intensity”, and claim 3 recites limitation “determining comparative consumption energy intensity”. It is unclear if these limitations recited in claims 2 and 3 refer to the same thing. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation in claim 2 has been construed as “comparative consumption energy intensity”, and the limitation in claim 3 has been construed as “determining the comparative consumption energy intensity”.
Claim 7 recites a limitation “at least one of steam energy intensity and electrical energy intensity by performing at least one of the steam energy intensity calculation and the electrical intensity calculation”. The plain meaning of phrase “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B” (for more details please see Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017) and/or SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). It is assumed Applicant intends to include a situation that only one calculation is performed, for continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “at least one of steam energy intensity [[and]] or electrical energy intensity by performing at least one of the steam energy intensity calculation [[and]] or the electrical intensity calculation”.
Claim 13 recites limitation “comparative intensity”, and limitation “determining comparative consumption energy intensity”. It is unclear if these limitations refer to the same thing. For continuing examination purpose, the limitations in claim 13 have been construed as “comparative consumption energy intensity”, and “determining the comparative consumption energy intensity”.
Claim 15 recites a limitation “at least one of steam energy intensity and electrical energy intensity by performing at least one of the steam energy intensity calculation and the electrical energy intensity calculation”. The plain meaning of phrase “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B” (for more details please see Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017) and/or SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). It is assumed Applicant intends to include a situation that only one calculation is performed, for continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “at least one of steam energy intensity [[and]] or electrical energy intensity by performing at least one of the steam energy intensity calculation [[and]] or the electrical energy intensity calculation”.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over IWAMI (JP 2016130904 A, hereinafter as “IWAMI”).
Regarding claim 1, IWAMI teaches:
A method of analyzing energy consumption stability, the method
comprising:
extracting a profile comprising a production history of a product ([0056-0057]: the unit 21 generates a profile comprising production date and time data of a product) and process operation information of a process line or process equipment used to produce the product ([0056-0057]: the unit 21 also generates a profile comprising energy consumption data of a production line used to produce the product);
determining energy intensity per product, which is a ratio of an amount of energy consumed to produce the product to units of the product produced, based on the profile ([0061]: unit 22 determines “energy consumption rate”, i.e., energy intensity per product, based on the profile); and
identifying consumption stability of energy consumed to produce the product based on the energy intensity per product ([0069] and [0171]: the unit 23/23c classifies the energy consumption rate to be within or outside of a reference value, to identify consumption stability of energy consumption for energy optimization as recited in [0008, 0010]).
IWAMI teaches specifically (underlines are added by Examiner for emphasis):
[0008] According to the above configuration, the energy consumption rate of the predetermined amount of the product can be calculated. Therefore, it is possible to grasp which product is produced when the energy consumption rate is high.
[0010] According to the above configuration, the energy consumption rate classified within the reference value indicates that the production line has produced a predetermined amount of product with energy consumption equal to or less than the reference value. On the other hand, the energy consumption rate classified as outside the reference value indicates that the production line has produced a predetermined amount of product with an energy consumption greater than the reference value. That is, the total energy consumption classified as outside the reference value, which is the sum of the energy consumption units classified as outside the reference value in the predetermined period, includes a room for reduction in energy consumption corresponding to the number of products. Therefore, the display control unit displays the total energy consumption classified within the reference value, which is the sum
of the energy consumption per unit classified within the reference value in the predetermined period, and the total energy consumption classified outside the reference value, which is the sum of the energy consumption per unit classified outside the reference value in the predetermined period, whereby it is possible to grasp the room for reduction of the energy consumption in the predetermined period.
[0056]
(Data Acquisition Unit)
The data acquisition unit 21 acquires consumed energy data from the energy measurement sensor 5 via the communication unit 13, and acquires a production trigger from the object passage detection sensor 6. The data acquisition unit 21 generates energy consumption time-series data in which the acquired energy consumption data is arranged in time series. Further, the data acquisition unit 21 generates production date and time data in which dates and times indicated by the acquired production triggers are arranged in time series. The data acquisition unit 21 outputs the generated energy consumption time-series data and production date and time data to the basic unit calculation unit 22. The energy consumption data and the production
trigger acquired by the data acquisition unit 21 are referred to as measurement data.
[0057] When the management device 1 manages a plurality of production lines 3, the data acquisition unit 21 acquires the energy consumption data and the production trigger for each production line 3, and generates the energy consumption time-series data and the production date and time data for each production line 3.
[0061]
(Basic Unit Calculation Unit)
The basic unit calculation unit 22 receives the energy consumption time-series data and the production date and time data from the data acquisition unit 21, and calculates an energy basic unit based on the received energy consumption time-series data and production date and time data. Specifically, the energy consumption rate calculation unit 22 calculates the energy consumption rate, which is the energy consumed by the production line 3 to produce one product, by integrating the energy consumption from a certain date and time to the next date and time indicated by the production date and time data, assuming that the production line 3 has produced one product between the time points indicated by the production date and time data. The basic unit calculation unit 22 regards the date and time indicated by the production
date and time data as the production start date and time, and generates energy basic unit time-series data in which energy basic unit data in which the date and time indicated by the production date and time data is associated with the calculated energy basic unit is arranged in time series. The basic unit calculation unit 22 outputs the generated energy basic unit time-series data to the classification unit 23. Hereinafter, the date and time indicated by the energy basic unit data is referred to as a basic unit start date and time. That is, the basic unit start date
and time is the date and time when the measurement of the energy consumption indicated by the energy basic unit is started. In addition, in the production date and time data, the date and time next to the original unit start date and time is the original unit end date and time. The basic unit end date and time is a date and time when the measurement of the energy consumption indicated by the energy basic unit is ended.
[0069] The classification unit 23 may classify each piece of energy basic unit data included in the energy basic unit time-series data at least within the reference value or outside the reference value. In this case, when the energy consumption rate indicated by the energy consumption rate data is equal to or less than the energy consumption rate reference value 32, the classification unit 23 classifies the energy consumption rate data within the reference value, and when the energy consumption rate is greater than the energy consumption rate reference value 32, the classification unit 23 classifies the energy consumption rate data outside the reference value.
[0171] On the other hand, when the production period is equal to or less than the production determination reference 36, the classifying unit 23c further determines whether or not the energy consumption rate indicated by the energy consumption rate is equal to or less than the energy consumption rate reference 32. When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the production period is equal to or less than the production determination thresholds 36, and the energy basic unit is equal to or less than the energy basic unit reference values 32, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "within reference". In addition, when the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the production period is equal to or less than the production determination reference 36, and the energy basic unit is greater than the energy basic unit reference 32, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit as "non-reference".
Regarding claim 2, IWAMI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
performing pre-processing to extract the profile ([0056-0057]: pre-processing is performed to extract profile comprising production date and time data, and energy consumption data); and
setting a specific comparison period to generate comparative consumption energy intensity to be compared with the energy intensity per product ([0171]: “When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the production period is equal to or less than the production determination thresholds 36, and the energy basic unit is equal to or less than the energy basic unit reference values 32, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "within reference". In addition, when the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the production period is equal to or less than the production determination reference 36, and the energy basic unit is greater than the energy basic unit reference 32, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit as "non-reference"”. This teaches to set a “production plan time”, i.e., a specific comparison period, for the energy basis unit reference value 32).
Regarding claim 3, IWAMI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
the identifying of the consumption stability comprises determining the comparative consumption energy intensity based on a profile extracted for the comparison period, comparing the comparative consumption energy intensity with the energy intensity per product, and identifying the consumption stability according to a comparison result ([0171]: “When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the production period is equal to or less than the production determination thresholds 36, and the energy basic unit is equal to or less than the energy basic unit reference values 32, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "within reference". In addition, when the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the production period is equal to or less than the production determination reference 36, and the energy basic unit is greater than the energy basic unit reference 32, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit as "non-reference"”. This teaches to identify within “reference” or “non-reference” based on the comparison result).
Regarding claim 4, IWAMI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
selecting the product (FIG. 2 and [0047]: select product produced by production line 3);
setting process hierarchy structure information for each process line that produces the product (FIG. 2 and [0047]: production line 3 comprises production facilities 2A to 2D ;
setting process-measurement point mapping information to extract measurement information collected from a point of an activity equipment or a processing machine designated as an analysis target in a process activity that produces the product ([0047]: “Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”); and
setting analysis time information, which is a time interval to extract the profile among pieces of time information from a time the product started to be produced to a time production of the product is completed ([0056]: “the data acquisition unit 21 generates production date and time data in which dates and times indicated by the acquired production triggers are arranged in time series. The data acquisition unit 21 outputs the generated energy consumption time-series data and production date and time data to the basic unit calculation unit 22. The energy consumption data and the production trigger acquired by the data acquisition unit 21 are referred to as measurement data”).
Regarding claim 5, IWAMI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
extracting a production profile of a production period comprising a production history of the product ([0056-0057]: “from a certain date and time to the next date and time indicated by the production date and time data, assuming that the production line 3 has produced one product between the time points indicated by the production date and time data”);
determining whether production amount is measurable in the process line or each of processes ([0043]: “the production line 3 functionally divides a production process of a product and executes one of the divided processes. The production line 3 is a functional group including one or more production facilities 2. That is, the production process of the product includes one or more production lines 3. The division unit of the production process of the product may be arbitrary”. Depending on whether a production line 3 comprising one or more production facilities 2, the production amount is measurable in the production facility or in the production line);
extracting production information of the process line by measuring production of the process line in response to production amount being measurable in the process line (as shown in FIG. 2 and [0047-0048], the production line 3 comprises production facilities 2A-2D, so the sensor 6 detects the production of the process line);
extracting production information of each of the processes by measuring product amount of the process line in response to production amount being measurable in each of the processes ([0043] and [0047-0048]: when the production line 3 comprises one production facility, the sensor 6 detects the production of the production facility/process); and
extracting product production amount during an analysis period as total amount for the designated product production based on the production information of the process line or the production information of each of the processes ([0063]: “When the production trigger indicates a predetermined amount production period that is a period taken to produce a predetermined amount of product, the basic unit calculation unit 22 may calculate an energy basic unit that is energy consumed in the production of the predetermined amount of product in the production line 3. The predetermined amount production period is a period from the production start time (original unit start date and time) of a predetermined amount of product indicated by the production date and time data (production time data) to the production start time (original unit end date and time) of the next predetermined amount of product”).
Claim 12 recites a system conducting the operational steps of the method in claim 1 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites a system conducting the operational steps of the method in claim 3 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 3.
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.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWAMI in view of MINOWA (US 20220152901 A1, hereinafter as “MINOWA”).
Regarding claim 6, IWAMI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
determining whether a process interruption history exists during the production period based on the production profile ([0166]: “In the first embodiment, if the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, all are classified as "in production", but actually, the production activity of the production line 3 is not performed as scheduled (for example, due to a sudden failure of the production facility 2 or the like), and the production line 3 may not perform the production activity even within the production plan time. In the present embodiment, the energy consumption in a period in which the production line 3 does not perform the production activity within the production plan time is classified as "standby". Accordingly, the energy consumption of the production line 3 can be classified with high accuracy in accordance with the actual situation”);
extracting, the profile, and product amount of the process line or the process equipment during the production period, in response to the process interruption history not existing ([0170]: “To be specific, the classifying unit 23c reads, from the storage unit 12c, the planned production time 31, the energy consumption rate reference 32, and the production determination thresholds 36 for determining whether or not the energy consumption rate corresponds to "in production". The classifying unit 23c determines whether or not the basic unit start date and time indicated by the energy basic unit date is within the production plan time indicated by the production plan time date 31. When the basic unit start date and time is not within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby". On the other hand, when the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c further determines whether or not the production period from the original unit start date and time to the original unit end date and time is equal to or less than the production determination reference value 36. When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time but the production period is longer than the production determination reference value 36, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby"”. This teaches when there is no “sudden failure” existing, the energy consumption rate is calculated based on extracted profile and labeled as “production”); and
extracting, the profile, and product amount of the process line or the process equipment during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur, in response to the process interruption history existing ([0170]: “To be specific, the classifying unit 23c reads, from the storage unit 12c, the planned production time 31, the energy consumption rate reference 32, and the production determination thresholds 36 for determining whether or not the energy consumption rate corresponds to "in production". The classifying unit 23c determines whether or not the basic unit start date and time indicated by the energy basic unit date is within the production plan time indicated by the production plan time date 31. When the basic unit start date and time is not within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby". On the other hand, when the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c further determines whether or not the production period from the original unit start date and time to the original unit end date and time is equal to or less than the production determination reference value 36. When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time but the production period is longer than the production determination reference value 36, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby"”. This teaches when there is “sudden failure” existing, that time period is labeled as “standby”. The energy consumption rate is calculated based on extracted profile during normal operation period and labeled as “production”).
IWAMI teaches all the limitations except extracting production information comprising information on a type of a product produced in the process line or the process equipment, a detailed specification of the product.
However, MINOWA teaches in an analogous art:
extracting information on a type of a product, a detailed specification of the product ([0027]: “in step S105, the molding control unit 110 acquires information for specifying the specification of a molded product to be molded. Specifically, the molding control unit 110 acquires type information of the molded product to be molded, material information and metal mold information for molding the molded product, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI based on the teaching of MINOWA, to make the method to further comprise extracting, as production information, information on a type of a product produced in the process line or the process equipment, a detailed specification of the product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help “manage the production”, as MINOWA suggests in [0003].
Regarding claim 14, IWAMI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
extract a production profile of a production period comprising a production history of the product ([0056-0057]: “from a certain date and time to the next date and time indicated by the production date and time data, assuming that the production line 3 has produced one product between the time points indicated by the production date and time data”);
determine whether a process interruption history exists during the production period based on the production profile ([0166]: “In the first embodiment, if the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, all are classified as "in production", but actually, the production activity of the production line 3 is not performed as scheduled (for example, due to a sudden failure of the production facility 2 or the like), and the production line 3 may not perform the production activity even within the production plan time. In the present embodiment, the energy consumption in a period in which the production line 3 does not perform the production activity within the production plan time is classified as "standby". Accordingly, the energy consumption of the production line 3 can be classified with high accuracy in accordance with the actual situation”);
extract, the profile, and production amount of the process line or the process equipment, during the production period, when the process interruption history does not exist ([0170]: “To be specific, the classifying unit 23c reads, from the storage unit 12c, the planned production time 31, the energy consumption rate reference 32, and the production determination thresholds 36 for determining whether or not the energy consumption rate corresponds to "in production". The classifying unit 23c determines whether or not the basic unit start date and time indicated by the energy basic unit date is within the production plan time indicated by the production plan time date 31. When the basic unit start date and time is not within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby". On the other hand, when the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c further determines whether or not the production period from the original unit start date and time to the original unit end date and time is equal to or less than the production determination reference value 36. When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time but the production period is longer than the production determination reference value 36, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby"”. This teaches when there is no “sudden failure” existing, the energy consumption rate is calculated based on extracted profile and labeled as “production”); and
extract, the profile, and production amount of the process line or the process equipment during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur, when the process interruption history exists ([0170]: “To be specific, the classifying unit 23c reads, from the storage unit 12c, the planned production time 31, the energy consumption rate reference 32, and the production determination thresholds 36 for determining whether or not the energy consumption rate corresponds to "in production". The classifying unit 23c determines whether or not the basic unit start date and time indicated by the energy basic unit date is within the production plan time indicated by the production plan time date 31. When the basic unit start date and time is not within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby". On the other hand, when the original unit start date and time is within the production plan time, the classifying unit 23c further determines whether or not the production period from the original unit start date and time to the original unit end date and time is equal to or less than the production determination reference value 36. When the basic unit start date and time is within the production plan time but the production period is longer than the production determination reference value 36, the classifying unit 23c classifies the energy basic unit into "standby"”. This teaches when there is “sudden failure” existing, that time period is labeled as “standby”. The energy consumption rate is calculated based on extracted profile during normal operation period and labeled as “production”).
IWAMI teaches all the limitations except extracting production information comprising information on a type of a product produced in the process line or the process equipment, a detailed specification of the product.
However, MINOWA teaches in an analogous art:
extracting information on a type of a product, a detailed specification of the product ([0027]: “in step S105, the molding control unit 110 acquires information for specifying the specification of a molded product to be molded. Specifically, the molding control unit 110 acquires type information of the molded product to be molded, material information and metal mold information for molding the molded product, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI based on the teaching of MINOWA, to make the system wherein the profile extraction module is configured to further comprise extracting, as production information, information on a type of a product produced in the process line or the process equipment, a detailed specification of the product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help “manage the production”, as MINOWA suggests in [0003].
Claims 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWAMI in view of Anderson (US 20150178865 A1, hereinafter as “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 7, IWAMI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
determining whether heat ([0044]: “The production facility 2 operates by consuming arbitrary energy such as electricity, gas, and heat, and is a facility directly related to the production activity of the product”) energy intensity calculation for steam consumption is required;
determining whether electrical energy intensity calculation for electricity consumption is also required in response to the heat energy intensity calculation being required ([0045]: “When the production line 3 (production facility 2) operates with a plurality of types of energy sources, the management device 1 may convert various energy amounts into the same unit …”); and
determining whether the electrical energy intensity calculation for electricity consumption is required in response to the steam energy intensity calculation being not required ([0044]: “In the present embodiment, the production facility 2 is assumed to operate with electric energy”. This teaches to calculate only for electricity consumption),
wherein the determining of the energy intensity per product comprises determining at least one of steam energy intensity or electrical energy intensity by performing at least one of the steam energy intensity calculation or the electrical intensity calculation ([0061]: unit 22 determines “energy consumption rate”, i.e., energy intensity per product).
IWAMI teaches all the limitations except steam energy.
However, Anderson teaches in an analogous art that steam energy is used together with electrical energy ([0003]: “Building energy use can be measured by total electricity, steam and natural gas consumption over a period of time, for example in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month. The kilowatt-hour can serve as a billing unit for energy delivered to consumers by electric utilities. The energy demand of a building can be measured by the rate of energy consumption by the building”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI based on the teaching of Anderson, to make the method wherein steam energy is also required. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help provide energy, as Anderson suggests in [0003].
Regarding claim 9, IWAMI-Anderson teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
extracting electricity supply supplied to each of the process lines when determining the electrical energy intensity for the process line ([0047]: “The energy measurement sensor 5 measures the energy consumption of the production facility 2 for each production line 3. Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”);
calculating total electricity supply for the process lines based on electricity supply used in each of the process lines during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur ([0057] and [0170]); and
determining the electrical energy intensity of the process line based on the total electricity supply of the process line and total product production amount ([0061]).
Regarding claim 11, IWAMI-Anderson teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
extracting electricity supply supplied to each of the processes when determining the electrical energy intensity for each of processes in the process line ([0047]: “The energy measurement sensor 5 measures the energy consumption of the production facility 2 for each production line 3. Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”; IWAMI teaches the production line 3 can comprise only one production facility ([0043]);
calculating total electricity supply for the process lines based on electricity supply used in each of the processes during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur ([0057] and [0170]); and
determining the electrical energy intensity of the process based on the total electricity supply of the process and total product production amount ([0061]).
Claims 15, 17 and 19 recite a system conducting operational steps of the method in claims 7, 9 and 11 respectively with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claims 15, 17 and 19 are rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claims 7, 9 and 11, respectively.
Claims 8, 10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IWAMI in view of Anderson, and in further view of Misbah (US 20080214805 A1, hereinafter as “Misbah”).
Regarding claim 8, IWAMI-Anderson teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
calculating a total supplied electrical energy used in each of the process lines during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur ([0057] and [0170]); and
determining the energy intensity of the process line based on the total supplied electrical energy amount of the process line and total product production amount ([0061]).
IWAMI-Anderson teaches all the limitations except extracting a supply flow rate supplied to each of process lines when determining the steam energy intensity for the process line; calculating a total supplied steam amount for the process line based on a supply flow rate used in each of the process lines during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur; and determining the steam energy intensity of the process line based on the total supplied steam amount of the process line and total product production amount.
However, Misbah teaches in an analogous art to calculate a total supplied steam amount based on a supply flow rate ([0038]: “the total volume of steam dosed during deodorization is determined by the deodorization time, temperature and pressure, the steam mass flow rate and the heating and cooling profiles”).
Since IWAMI teaches to “convert various energy amounts into the same unit” when “the production line 3 (production facility 2) operates with a plurality of types of energy sources”, and since IWAMI teaches to determine total energy consumption in the production line 3 ([0047]: “The energy measurement sensor 5 measures the energy consumption of the production facility 2 for each production line 3. Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI-Anderson based on the teaching of Misbah, to make the method to further comprise extracting a supply flow rate supplied to each of process lines when determining the steam energy intensity for the process line; calculating a total supplied steam amount for the process line based on a supply flow rate used in each of the process lines during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur; and determining the steam energy intensity of the process line based on the total supplied steam amount of the process line and total product production amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help manage the steam energy, as Misbah suggests in [0038].
Regarding claim 10, IWAMI-Anderson teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
IWAMI further teaches:
calculating a total supplied electrical energy used in each of the processes during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur ([0057] and [0170]); and
determining the energy intensity of the process based on the total supplied electrical energy amount and of the process and total product production amount ([0061]).
IWAMI-Anderson teaches all the limitations except extracting a supply flow rate supplied to each of processes when determining the steam energy intensity for each of processes in the process line; calculating a total supplied steam amount for the process based on a supply flow rate used in each of the processes during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur; and determining the steam energy intensity of the process based on the total supplied steam amount of the process and total product production amount.
However, Misbah teaches in an analogous art to calculate a total supplied steam amount based on a supply flow rate ([0038]: “the total volume of steam dosed during deodorization is determined by the deodorization time, temperature and pressure, the steam mass flow rate and the heating and cooling profiles”).
Since IWAMI teaches to “convert various energy amounts into the same unit” when “the production line 3 (production facility 2) operates with a plurality of types of energy sources”, and since IWAMI teaches to determine total energy consumption in the production line 3 ([0047]: “The energy measurement sensor 5 measures the energy consumption of the production facility 2 for each production line 3. Specifically, the energy measurement sensor 5 measures the total energy consumption of the one or more production facilities 2 included in the production line 3 for each predetermined period”, and since IWAMI teaches the production line 3 can comprise only one production facility ([0043]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IWAMI-Anderson based on the teaching of Misbah, to make the method to further comprise extracting a supply flow rate supplied to each of processes when determining the steam energy intensity for each of processes in the process line; calculating a total supplied steam amount for the process based on a supply flow rate used in each of the processes during a normal operation period in which a process abnormality or a process interruption does not occur; and determining the steam energy intensity of the process based on the total supplied steam amount of the process and total product production amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to help manage the steam energy, as Misbah suggests in [0038].
Claims 16 and 18 recite a system conducting operational steps of the method in claims 8 and 10 respectively with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claims 16 and 18 are rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claims 8 and 10, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. 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.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115