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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed a response to restriction requirements. On 6/18/26. Claims 1-20 were pending. Claim 10 is canceled with traverse. Thus claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending and rejected. This action is a Non-Final office action.
RESTRICTION
The election of claims 1-9 and 11-20 with traverse was made on 6/18/26. The examiner notes that no arguments to the traversal are made other than that the applicant is preserving the rights to file a divisional and potential rejoinder. The examiner makes the requirement final and agrees that a divisional application or appropriate rejoinder would be acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: see below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is directed to an abnormality detection program. Is this a non-transitory computer readable medium? The current claim type is not on of the recognized claim types such as system, medium or method. Applicant should redraft the pre-amble.
Claim 1 is directed to a device but no device components are explicitly claimed.
Applicant should clarify if the claims are directed to software or a specific device rather than “means plus” type language.
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 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 9 are independent and are directed to a device (system) and a abnormality detection program, which should be redrafted as a non-transitory computer readable medium or system claim depending on what it is supposed to be.
Thus claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of invention Yes, claim 9 as drafted is not directed to a statutory category, though it is believed it may be intended to be non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 1 – yes for claim 1 and no for claim9
Claim 1 is analyzed as representative;
The abstract limitations include
a process value acquirer structured to acquire, during operation of a plant including a plurality of … , a process value of at least one monitoring target … among the plurality of …; a command value acquirer structured to acquire a command value of a control operation amount for controlling the monitoring target …; and an abnormality detector structured to detect an abnormality of the monitoring target … on a basis of a relationship between a fluctuation range of a process value acquired by the process value acquirer and a fluctuation range of a command value acquired by the command value acquirer during a predetermined period.
Here the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation as amental process that could be performed in the mind. If a claim under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation covers of the limitation as amental process then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
The computing or technical elements of claim 1 include the following, “a plurality of devices”, “a monitoring target device.” Claim 1 is applying generic computing elements to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computing components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons. Step 2A prong 1, yes the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of “a plurality of devices”, “a monitoring target device” , applicant claims an “abnormality detector” that is not clearly a device as distinguished from the already mentioned “abnormality detection device”
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high level of generality such that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly these additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of therefore the claims 1-9, 11-20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. Step 2A prong 2 No the claimed additional elements are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and as an ordered combination they do not add significantly more known as inventive concept to the exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the element of using a generic computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
It is noted that applicant specification is directed to industrial conveyors and sensors and avoiding collisions. The claims could be modified to incorporate the specific elements to solve the problem of timing/package passage etc.
Claims 1, 9 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 and 11-20 are rejected because they depend on a rejected independent claim and do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus claims 1-9 and 11-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
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: “process value acquirer”, “command value acquirer” , “abnormality detector”, “monitoring target device” etc. see claims 1,9.
Claims 2-8 and 11-20 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Nakagawa(2018/0285183)
As per claim 1 Nakagawa;
a process value acquirer structured to acquire,
during operation of a plant including a plurality of devices,
a process value of at least one monitoring target device among the plurality of devices; Nakagawa (0080)
a command value acquirer structured to acquire a command value of a control operation amount for controlling the monitoring target device;
Nakagawa (0070)
and
an abnormality detector
structured to detect an abnormality of the monitoring target device
on a basis of a relationship between a fluctuation range
of a process value acquired by the process value acquirer and a fluctuation range of a command value acquired by the command value acquirer during a predetermined period. Nakagawa (044 range change)
claim 9 is similar to claim 1.
As per claim 2, Nakagawa discloses; The abnormality detection device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality detector is structured to detect an abnormality of the monitoring target device using a detection criterion for detecting an abnormality of the monitoring target device on a basis of an index related to a relationship between a fluctuation range of the process value and a fluctuation range of the command value. Nakagawa (0060 index is disclosed related to a relationship)
As per claim 3, Nakagawa discloses; The abnormality detection device according to claim 2, wherein the index is a magnitude or an inclination of a vector having a fluctuation range of the process value and a fluctuation range of the command value as components. Nakagawa (0060)
As per claim 4, Nakagawa discloses; The abnormality detection device according to claim 2, wherein the detection criterion is machine-learned on a basis of a fluctuation range of the process value, a fluctuation range of the command value, and a state of the monitoring target device in a past predetermined period. Nakagawa (0074)
Claim 11 is similar to claim 4.
As per claim 5, Nakagawa discloses; The abnormality detection device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality detector is structured to detect an abnormality of the monitoring target device when a relationship between a fluctuation range of the process value and a fluctuation range of the command value is out of a normal range. Nakagawa (0067-68)
Claim 12 is similar to claim 5
As per claim 6 Nakagawa discloses; The abnormality detection device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality detection device determines an abnormality on a basis of a tendency that a shape of a vector having a fluctuation range of the process value and a fluctuation range of the command value as components becomes horizontally long or vertically long from a shape during a stable operation or becomes large with the same shape. (in applicant spec, 0015-16 command value could be rate of flow or flow rate controls, however, as drafted currently, there is no real meaning because of the “or”, horizontal or vertical stable or large etc). Nakagawa (0077, valve measuring)
Claim 13 is similar to claim 6
As per claim 8 Nakagawa discloses; The abnormality detection device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality detector is structured to detect an abnormality of the monitoring target device further on a basis of a set point of the control operation amount in the predetermined period. Nakagawa (0070-71 monitor based on setting of a normal range and an abnormality based on that range)
Claims 17-20 are similar to claim 8
As per claim 7 Nakagawa discloses; the abnormality detection device according to claim 3, wherein the abnormality detection device displays a temporal change of the shape of the vector on a display device. Nakagawa(0068 temporal pattern)
Claims 14-16 are similar to claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Self-adaption Faster-than-real-time Temperature Prediction Technology of Pumped Storage Power Unit in Start-up State, IEEE, 2020
Research on parallel control strategy of thermal power plant operating parameters, IEEE 2022
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights