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 .
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03.
The claim is to an information processing device, i.e. one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A prong one: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(11) and the October 2019 Update, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
The claim recites:
“…calculates a first index value related to operation of the target equipment based on the process data;
…calculates a second index value related to the operation of the target equipment based on the process data;”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships or mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A prong one: YES).
Step 2A prong two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section lll{A){2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
“An information processing device comprising:
a data acquisition unit that acquires process data of target equipment;
a first index value calculation unit that…
a second index value calculation unit that…
and a display control unit that displays a coordinate space defined by an axis denoting the first index value and by an axis denoting the second index value and a representative point of the process data in the coordinate space on a display unit.”
The information processing device, a first index value calculation unit, a second index value calculation unit, and a display control unit are a recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
The limitations “a data acquisition unit that acquires process data of target equipment;” merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data gathering.
The limitations “a display control unit that displays a coordinate space defined by an axis denoting the first index value and by an axis denoting the second index value and a representative point of the process data in the coordinate space on a display unit” does not integrate the invention into a practical application because it’s just “applying” the abstract idea. It can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the information processing device do not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(1) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'I, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A prong two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05
Regarding the additional elements:
The information processing device, a first index value calculation unit, a second index value calculation unit, and a display control unit are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic components as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The limitation “a data acquisition unit that acquires process data of target equipment;” represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and is recited at high level of generality. These limitation in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. This is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) – receiving or transmitting data over a network.). Maruhashi (US11838934B2) discloses a data information acquisition process to acquire information about data that the application equipment communicates via the at least one wireless system. Further, Feng (US 20210181695 A1) discloses the production data acquiring unit can acquire the production process data of the production equipment in the industrial automation system.
The limitation “a display control unit that displays a coordinate space defined by an axis denoting the first index value and by an axis denoting the second index value and a representative point of the process data in the coordinate space on a display unit” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because it claims mere data outputting. Fuji (US 20210240177 A1) discloses display which range each of the pre-processed learning data determined to be normal, the pre-processed learning data determined to be abnormal, and the pre-processed determination data are distributed on the coordinate space for which the measurement values of each sensor having a high degree of contribution to the determination result are selected as the coordinate axes. Further, Izumi (US 20170109427 A1) discloses displays the positions of the positional coordinates of the respective pieces of the normal data 100 and the abnormal data 101 on the two-dimensional space.
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-6, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 3-5 further defines the display control unit, and claim 6 further defines a reception unit and the display control unit, which have been established to include abstract ideas. There are no additional limitations in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 2-6 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7-9, the claims have similar limitations as claim 1; moreover, claim 7 recites a display device, claim 8 recites an information processing method, claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which are generic computer components and do not practically integrate the invention nor amount to significantly more. The claims 7-9 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘a data acquisition unit that acquires’, ‘a first index value calculation unit that calculates’, ‘a second index value calculation unit that calculates’, a display control unit that displays’, and ‘a reception unit that receives’ in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Obara et al. (WO2020084965A1 -hereinafter Obara -Note: As the Machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Obara teaches an information processing device comprising:
a data acquisition unit that acquires process data of target equipment; (see Abstract; Obara: “an operating condition acquisition unit (12) which is configured to acquire a plurality of operating conditions which each include a plurality of operating parameters for operating the plant.”)
a first index value calculation unit that calculates a first index value related to operation of the target equipment based on the process data; (see “a cost index value acquisition unit (2) which is configured to acquire each cost index value for when the plant is operated in accordance with each of the plurality of operating conditions;”)
a second index value calculation unit that calculates a second index value related to the operation of the target equipment based on the process data; and (see “a score acquisition unit (3) which is configured to compute each score which is evaluation values of the operating conditions based on at least one predicted process value for when the plant is operated in accordance with each of the plurality of operating conditions;”)
a display control unit that displays a coordinate space defined by an axis denoting the first index value and by an axis denoting the second index value (see page 6, paragraphs 6-7; Obara: “on a screen display (scatter diagram) in which a plurality of combinations of scores and cost index values corresponding to each operating condition are plotted on a graph having a score (x axis) and a cost index value (y axis) as two axes, For each operating condition selected as an example, shading such as overlapping of plot points occurs depending on the degree of congestion of plot points… As a result, it is possible to facilitate the determination of the coordinates in which at least one of the cost index value and the score is the maximum or the maximum range in the scatter diagram.” See page 14: “The outline diagram Gs of the above scatter diagram is a figure connected by a straight line passing through a part of a plurality of plot points forming the scatter diagram, and all of the other plot points constituting the scatter diagram are of the figure. It looks like it fits inside. However, the plot points that can be determined as outliers do not have to be inside the figure. In addition, such a figure is obtained by, for example, dividing the x-axis (or the y-axis) into a plurality of sections, and selecting the maximum y value (x value) from one or more plot points included in each of the divided sections.”) and a representative point of the process data in the coordinate space on a display unit. (see page 14, paragraph 4; Obara: “when the x value (or y value) advances in one direction on the x axis (or y axis) from a plot point that is an arbitrary starting point, such as a plot point having a maximum or maximum range or a minimum or minimum range. The outline drawing Gs of the scatter diagram may be created by connecting adjacent plot points in the traveling direction.”) [A plot point reads on ‘a representative point’]
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Obara as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Obara as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Obara as discussed connection with claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara in view of Suzuki et al. (US20110213488A1 -hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 2, Obara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Obara does not explicitly teach: wherein the display control unit further displays time information associated with the process data on the display unit in association with the representative point.
Suzuki from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the display control unit further displays time information associated with the process data on the display unit in association with the representative point. (see [0009]; Suzuki: “key time information acquiring means that acquires key time information related to an occurrence of the specific event selected from the one piece of data selected by the operator;” See [0156]: “Here, the operator operates the mouse 214 (as referred to FIG. 2) to left-click it with the point of cursor 347 (arrow symbol) hit to a curve 348 of low-pressure heater level trend data. In consequence, a dot mark 348 a is displayed on a data point to which the point of cursor 347 (arrow symbol) hits on the curve 348, and time information 349 of the data point is displayed on the vicinity of dot mark 348 a as the key time information.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Obara to include Suzuki’s features of displaying time information associated with the process data on the display unit in association with the representative point. Doing so would easily analyze events, such as a trouble, an abnormal operation, etc. (Suzuki, [0008])
Regarding Claim 6, Obara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Obara does not explicitly teach further comprising: a reception unit that receives selection of time information of the process data, wherein the display control unit displays the representative point of the process data associated with the time information related to the selection received by the reception unit on the display unit.
Suzuki from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
a reception unit that receives selection of time information of the process data, (see [0144]; Suzuki: “Next, the process proceeds to a step S21 from the step S16 or step S20 to accept a key time information input and check whether the input of key time information is completed (step S22).”)
wherein the display control unit displays the representative point of the process data associated with the time information related to the selection received by the reception unit on the display unit. (see [0158]; Suzuki: “After completing the input of key time information, the operator right-clicks the mouse 214 with the cursor hit to the dot mark 348 a to thereby open an analysis event option display window 350 and display an event option name 351A displayed as the “low-pressure heater level extremely high” and an event option name 351B displayed as the “low-pressure heater extracted steam flow rate high” below from a window name 350 a displayed as an “analysis event option” on the analysis event option display window 350, as an example.”)
The same motivation to combine Obara and Suzuki a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 6.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara in view of Kato (US20110161743A1 -hereinafter Kato).
Regarding Claim 3, Obara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Obara does not explicitly teach wherein the display control unit further displays a region divided by a boundary in the coordinate space on the display unit.
Kato from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the display control unit further displays a region divided by a boundary in the coordinate space on the display unit. (see [0078]; Kato: “In the case shown in FIG. 4, the failure period extraction module 110 extracts a failure period 1 and a failure period 2 from a graph 171 a showing the time series change of the abnormality degree. Specifically, the failure period extraction module 110 extracts the failure periods 1 and 2 by using two threshold values of a normal threshold value V1 showing a border where the abnormality degree is considered as normal and a failure threshold value V2 showing a border where the abnormality is considered to show a failure state, while taking the point at which the abnormality degree changes from the abnormality degree of less than the normal threshold value V1 towards the abnormality degree V3 of equal to or larger than the failure threshold value (destroyed correlation) as the start and taking the point to which the abnormality degree of the normal threshold value V1 continues thereafter for a prescribed period as the end.”) [Failure period 1 or failure period 2 reads on ‘a region’ and a failure threshold value V2 and the abnormality degree V3 read on ‘a boundary’]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Obara to include Kato’s features of displaying a region divided by a boundary in the coordinate space on the display unit. Doing so would detect failures generated in the services and present the failure generation point and the causes thereof to the administrator in an easily understandable manner. (Kato, [0020])
Regarding Claim 5, Obara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Obara does not explicitly teach: wherein the display control unit further displays a time-series graph of the first index value and/or the second index value on the display unit.
Kato from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the display control unit further displays a time-series graph of the first index value and/or the second index value on the display unit. (see [0078]; Kato: “In the case shown in FIG. 4, the failure period extraction module 110 extracts a failure period 1 and a failure period 2 from a graph 171 a showing the time series change of the abnormality degree.”)
The same motivation to combine Obara and Kato a set forth for Claim 3 equally applies to Claim 5.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara in view of Mizobuchi et al. (US20210255613A1 -hereinafter Mozobuchi).
Regarding Claim 4, Obara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Obara does not explicitly teach wherein the display control unit further displays a temporal change of the representative point in the coordinate space on the display unit.
Mizobuchi from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the display control unit further displays a temporal change of the representative point in the coordinate space on the display unit. (see [0107]; Mizobuchi: “The spectrogram analysis unit 171 …generates a spectrogram in which characteristics of a temporal change of each frequency component are imaged.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Obara to include Mizobuchi’s features of displaying a temporal change of the representative point in the coordinate space on the display unit. Doing so would easily perform and confirm determination and prediction of an abnormal state of a target device. (Mizobuchi, [0005])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maeda (US 20120041575 A1) discloses a trajectory of a data space is segmented into a plurality of clusters on the basis of temporal changes in the data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117