DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed January 16, 2024. Claims 1-7 are currently pending, of which claims 1-7 are currently rejected.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bingham et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0324862; hereinafter “Bingham”).
As per claim 1, Bingham teaches an information processing device comprising a memory, and a processor coupled to the memory (See Bingham paras. [0235-238]), wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a data set including a combination of state data representing a time series of states when a target object is worked combined with at least one of performance data representing a performance of the target object, data representing a structure or physical property of the target object, or process data representing a process setting value when the target object is worked (See Bingham Fig. 9B and paras. [0147-153]: monitoring components and retrieving performance metrics, with time-series data associated with the monitored performance event);
generate a principal component value of each of a plurality of items of the state data in the acquired data set by executing principal component analysis on the plurality of items of state data (See Bingham paras. [0118] and [0153]: identifying sub-optimal performance versus average values across a period of time. This further includes statistical analysis on the data set of components, including identifying “extrema (e.g., indicative of a worst or best performance), a mean, a median, a mode, a standard deviation or a range. The high-level statistic can be defined based on a fixed definition and/or input (e.g., such that a reviewer can define a high-level statistic of interest).”); and
output information representing a relationship between principal component values of the plurality of items of state data, and the at least one of the performance data, the data representing the structure or physical property, or the process data (See Bingham Figs. 6A-6C and paras. [0118-119]: displaying performance metrics, allowing a user to identify sub-optimal performance versus average values across a period of time; para. [0090]: statistics can be generated based on the collection of performance metrics).
As per claim 3, Bingham further teaches the information processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to output, as the information representing the relationship, information representing a correlation between the principal component values and at least one of a value expressed in the performance data, a value expressed in the data representing the structure or physical property, or a value expressed in the process data (See Bingham para. [0090]: statistics can be generated based on the collection of performance metrics; paras. [0154-156]: statistics can be analyzed using a correlation analysis to determine performance events, and the correlation results presented to a reviewer).
As per claim 6, the claim is directed to a method that implements the same features as the device of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 7, the claim is directed to a recording medium that implements the same features as the device of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham as applied above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0244006).
As per claim 2, Bingham further teaches the information processing device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: output data representing a two-dimensional map including plot points of the principal component values of the state data as the information representing the relationship (See Bingham Figs. 6A-6C and paras. [0118-119]: displaying performance metrics, allowing a user to identify sub-optimal performance versus average values across a period of time).
However, while Bingham graphs the data, Bingham does not change a color of any of the graph points.
Lee teaches change a color of the plot points representing the principal component values according to at least one of a value expressed in the performance data, a value expressed in the data representing the structure or physical property, or a value expressed in the process data (See Lee Fig. 3 and paras. [0048-49]: different colors can be used to express equipment state information, where the state information is based on measurement values of monitoring items. For example, “the Alert State(N) is a state that the assessed status or the measurement values of monitoring item approaches alarm set value. The Alert state is expressed with Orange color…”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the performance charting of Bingham with the color changes of Lee. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose user interface monitoring of component/equipment performance, and Lee further enhances the displayed information of Bingham by allowing the user to quickly identify components that are having issues, especially when there could be a large amount of information to observe and monitor (See Lee paras. [0007-08] and [0010]).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham as applied above, and further in view of Jones et al. (U.S. 2016/0062820; hereinafter “Jones”).
As per claim 4, Bingham teaches the information processing device of claim 1. However, while Bingham teaches outputting relationship information, Bingham does not explicitly teach a regression equation.
Jones teaches wherein the processor is configured to output, as the information representing the relationship, information representing a regression equation between the principal component values and at least one of a value expressed in the performance data, a value expressed in the data representing the structure or physical property, or a value expressed in the process data (See Jones paras. [0024], [0035], [0048], and [0090]: forecasting curves to fit the performance data, including by using linear regression fits to the data showing time between failure or performances).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the relationship information and component statuses of Bingham with the linear regression of Jones. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose correlation of component performance, and Jones further enhances the relationships of Bingham by allowing the user to simplify the identification of trends and even predict future issues so that those issues may be avoided (See Jones paras. [0008-10]).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham/Lee as applied above, and further in view of Jones.
As per claim 5, Bingham/Lee teaches the information processing device of claim 2. However, while Bingham/Lee teaches the plot points and the 2D map, Bingham/Lee does not teach unknown data.
Jones teaches wherein the processor is configured to identify unknown data representing a plot point different from already existing plot points on the two-dimensional map, and to transform the unknown data into the state data (See Jones paras. [0024], [0035], and [0048-50]: forecasting results (unknown data) based on actual data and also recognize when that forecasted data will reach a certain state).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the performance plots of Bingham/Lee with the forecasting of Jones. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose correlation of component performance, and Jones further enhances the relationships of Bingham/Lee by allowing the user to simplify the identification of trends and even predict future issues so that those issues may be avoided (See Jones paras. [0008-10]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patty (U.S. 6,646,660) discloses presenting process control performance data in a chart display interface, including parameter relationships between various components/tools and respective recipes (See Patty Fig. 3 and col. 4:35-67 to 5:1-32).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118