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 FINAL and is in response to the claims filed May 27, 2026. Claims 1-9 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 6, and 7 are currently amended. Claims 8 and 9 are newly presented.
Response to Arguments
Specification
Applicant has amended the title and this new title has been accepted and entered. Therefore, the previous objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim amendments and the previously cited art have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the mappings to Bingham do not teach the “object is worked” as well as two separate performance data that are combined with the time series data. See Remarks 10. Examine respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, “worked” is a very broad term and is subject to an equally broad, yet reasonable, interpretation. The same goes to the scope of what an “object” can be interpreted as. Herein, Bingham’s events are characterized as operations at a given timepoint and that “performance statistic can include a recent or real-time performance statistic.” See Bingham paras. [0149-151] and [0173]. Secondly, Bingham explicitly gathers multiple data points and associates it with time series data. This includes both performance data/events and structure events associated with the time series data. Structure events identify changes in structure of the object. See Id. at Fig. 9B and paras. [0147-153].
Applicant next argues that the “principal component analysis” is not taught by Bingham. See Remarks 10-11. Examiner again respectfully disagrees. Firstly, similar to above “principal component value” is a broad term that will be given an equally broad, yet reasonable interpretation. Secondly, Bingham explicitly defines sub-optimal performance and determining the high-level statistic of interest and the deviation therefrom. Moreover, “sub-optimal” means that there is an optimal performance as well, as something must be compared to the optimal value to determine whether performance is sub-optimal. See Bingham paras. [0118] and [0153].
Finally, Applicant argues that the output of the data is not taught by Bingham either. See Remarks 12. Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Bingham explicitly gathers multiple data types together and associates them with a single time instance. The cited graphs are demonstrations of multiple ways that the data of Bingham is output and presented to a user, including “trend[s] in the values of one or more performance metrics…” See Bingham paras. [0118-119].
It is for at least these reasons and the reasons cited below that the claims remain rejected in this Action.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “acquiring the combination of state data” and it is unclear if it is acquiring a data set including a combination of state data from claim 1 and then further acquiring a second from claim 8, or is it is intending to limit the same acquired data set to all three in claim 8 (the performance data, the structure or physical property, and the process data).
Moreover, it is unclear the combination of data and where that data is required. For simplicity/explanation reasons, Limitation A is when a target is worked, Limitation B is a performance of the target object, Limitation C is a structure or physical property of the target object, and Limitation D is process data representing a process setting value. Claim 1 recites a data set with time series and Limitation A, further combined with B, C, or D. Now, the problem is that claim 8 is stating that the data set is A combined with B, C, and D.
Claim 9 is rejected based on its dependency from above-rejected claim 8.
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, and 6-8 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 two 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. This includes both performance events and structure events associated with the time series data. Structure events identify changes in structure of the object);
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.
As per claim 8, Bingham further teaches the information processing device of claim 1, wherein acquiring the data set further comprises acquiring the combination of state data representing the time series of states when the target object is worked combined with the performance data representing the performance of the target object, the data representing the structure or physical property of the target object, and the process data representing the 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. This includes both performance events and structure events associated with the time series data. Structure events identify changes in structure of the object).
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]).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham as applied above, and further in view of Sayyarrodsari et al. (U.S. 2020/0103878; hereinafter “Sayyarrodsari”).
As per claim 9, Bingham teaches the information processing device of claim 8. However, while Bingham teaches the process setting value, as well as a speed state (See Bingham paras. [0095] and [0147-153]), Bingham does not explicitly teach both a speed and temperature state.
Sayyarrodsari teaches wherein the process setting value comprises speed and temperature of the states when the target object is worked (See Sayyarrodsari paras. [0038] and [0076]: operational parameters include temperature and speed, among others).
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 state values of Bingham with the temperature parameters of Sayyarrodsari. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose monitoring and structuring process data of operational objects. Sayyarrodsari further enhances the values of Bingham by “improv[ing[ systems and methods for analyzing the process data acquired from the industrial automation system in real time or near real time to efficiently monitor the performance of the industrial automation system and increase the efficiency in which the industrial automation system operates” (See Sayyarrodsari paras. [0004-05]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights