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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference sign “S102” mentioned in the Specification on page 18, line 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 8, reference sign “221” should be replaced with –222-- to match the reference mentioned in the specification at page 18, line 17 and to be congruent with reference to the “control program 222” in previous Figures 1 and 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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: “an obtaining unit” in claim 1. The obtaining unit is disclosed as part of a computer programmed to perform the recited functions (Fig. 1, PLC 2; Fig. 3, PLC 2; page 9, lines 2-10; page 11, line 27 – page 12, line 28).
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 § 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to an information processing device, which is a product and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites to obtain status data of a plurality of mechanisms in a process carried out in a production line; to detect an abnormality based on the status data obtained by the obtaining unit; to calculate a surrogate model based on the status data at time of detecting the abnormality; and to estimate an abnormality causal factor based on the surrogate model calculated earlier. These limitations require calculations and mathematical operations which fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The additional elements are an obtaining unit, an abnormality detector, a surrogate model calculator, and an estimator. Each of these elements are disclosed as part of a programmed computer.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of a programmed computer amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites further details of the abstract idea. Claim 2 also recites a cause-and-effect model generator, which is also a part of the programmed computer. As discussed above, the recitation of a programmed computer amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore claim 2 is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 3-6 recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 3-6 also recite a transmitter configured to transmit screen data for display. The recitation of the transmitter is post-solution activity which outputs the result of the abstract idea. This post solution activity is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the transmitter does not integrate the abstract into a practical application. Further, transmitting an output for display is post solution activity that has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Therefore, the recitation of the transmitter is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 7-9 recite further details of the abstract idea, but do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 7-9 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 10 recites an adjuster, which is disclosed as part of the of the programmed computer. Therefore, as discussed above with regard to claim 2, the recitation of a programmed computer amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and claim 10 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea similar to that recited in claim 1. Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements. Since there are no additional elements, claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea similar to that recited in claim 1. Claim 12 recites a non-transitory storage medium, which is similar to the programmed computer recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reason.
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, 2, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1752898 to James et al. (James).
Claims 1, 11 and 12
With regard to an obtaining unit configured to obtain status data of a plurality of mechanisms in a process carried out in a production line; James teaches obtaining data from sensors at a model filter and a symbolic data model (Fig. 2, model filter 202, symbolic data model 204; pars. 28, 37).
With regard to an abnormality detector configured to detect an abnormality based on the status data obtained by the obtaining unit; James teaches detecting faults and anomalies (Fig. 2, coherence based fault detection 206, dynamical invariant anomaly detector 208; pars. 46, 64).
With regard to a surrogate model calculator configured to calculate a surrogate model based on the status data at time of detecting the abnormality; James teaches a prognostic assessment and a predictive comparison (Fig. 2, prognostic assessment 212, predictive comparison 214; pars. 81, 87).
With regard to an estimator configured to estimate an abnormality causal factor based on the surrogate model calculated earlier; James teaches a causal system model to determine a cause (Fig. 2, causal system model 216; par. 88).
Claim 2
James teaches a cause-and-effect model generator configured to generate a cause-and-effect model of variables based on a relationship of the plurality of mechanisms, a dependency between a plurality of events associated with the plurality of mechanisms, or a relationship of control of the plurality of mechanisms, wherein the estimator estimates an abnormality causal factor based on the surrogate model and the cause-and-effect model obtained earlier (pars. 264, 265).
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(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0049060 to Hellmann et al. (Hellmann).
Claim 3
James teaches al the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 3 depends. James does not teach a transmitter configured to transmit screen data for display of an estimation result obtained by the estimator.
Hellmann teaches an user interface that can output a failure cause and list and rank countermeasures (pars. 27, 192, 193). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the analysis, as taught by James, to include an user interface, as taught by Hellmann, because then the user would have been able to evaluate and implement countermeasures (Hellmann, pars. 192, 193).
Claim 6
James teaches al the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 3 and 6 depend. James does not teach that the variable of the cause-and-effect model includes a first variable providable with any countermeasure, and a second variable providable with no countermeasure, and the transmitter transmits screen data for display of the first variable and the second variable in a distinguishable manner.
Hellmann teaches an user interface that can output a failure cause and list and rank countermeasures (pars. 27, 192, 193). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the analysis, as taught by James, to include an user interface, as taught by Hellmann, because then the user would have been able to evaluate and implement countermeasures (Hellmann, pars. 192, 193).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Hellmann as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of WO 2020/009655 to Zhang (Zhang).
Claim 4
James and Hellmann teach all the limitations of claim 3 upon which claim 4 depends. James and Hellman do not teach that the transmitter transmits screen data for display of the cause-and-effect model and a coefficient corresponding to each variable of the surrogate model calculated earlier.
Zhang teaches selecting a performance parameter and defining constraints in a model using a GUI (Fig. 5, chiller performance parameter selected; pars. 65-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify analysis combination, as taught by James and Hellmann, to include selecting a performance parameter and defining constraints, as taught by Zhang, because then the model would have been more flexible for representing different conditions.
Claim 5
James and Hellmann teach all the limitations of claim 3 upon which claim 5 depends. James and Hellman do not teach that the transmitter transmits screen data for display of an edge indicating a cause-and-effect relationship between variables of the cause-and-effect model adjusted based on the coefficient corresponding to each variable of the surrogate model calculated earlier.
Zhang teaches selecting a performance parameter and defining constraints in a model using a GUI (Fig. 5, chiller performance parameter selected; pars. 65-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify analysis combination, as taught by James and Hellmann, to include selecting a performance parameter and defining constraints, as taught by Zhang, because then the model would have been more flexible for representing different conditions.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of US Patent Application Publication 2024/0353827 to Lebacher (Lebacher).
Claim 7
James teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 7 depends. James does not teach that the surrogate model calculator calculates the surrogate model based on logistic regression using the status data in neighborhood of an abnormality that has been detected.
Lebacher teaches a surrogate model that uses linear regression (pars. 29, 65, 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify analysis, as taught by James, to include linear regression, as taught by Lebacher, because an well known and explainable method of modeling the system would have been available (Lebacher, pars. 3-6).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Zhang.
Claim 8
James teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends. James does not teach that the abnormality detector calculates an abnormality score changing with time based on the status data, and the surrogate model calculator calculates the surrogate model using the status data in neighborhood of the abnormality that has been detected when the abnormality score calculated earlier is greater than or equal to a predetermined value.
Zhang teaches using multiple sensors and constraints to determine performance (pars. 65-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify analysis, as taught by James, to include multiple sensors and constraints, as taught by Zhang, because then the model would have been more flexible for representing different conditions.
Claim 9
James teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends. James does not teach that the abnormality detector calculates an abnormality score changing with time based on the status data, the transmitter transmits screen data for display of a change with time of the abnormality score calculated earlier at a time point, the information processing device further comprises a time input receiver configured to receive the time point selected and inputted, and the surrogate model calculator calculates the surrogate model using the status data in neighborhood of the status data at the time point received by the time input.
Zhang teaches displaying a performance that changes with time and that allows the user to define a window time (Fig. 5, pars. 67-69). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify analysis, as taught by James, to include a GUI that is configurable, as taught by Zhang, because the model would have been more flexible for representing different conditions.
Claim 10
James teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends. James does not teach an adjuster configured to adjust a parameter of the surrogate model.
Zhang teaches displaying a performance that changes with time and that allows the user to define a window time (Fig. 5, pars. 67-69). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify analysis, as taught by James, to include a GUI that is configurable, as taught by Zhang, because the model would have been more flexible for representing different conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0351218 to Uehara et al. teaches a failure prediction model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857