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 . Claims 1-20 filed on 11/27/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 11/27/2023 and 3/20/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/27/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 11/27/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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 5 and 13 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.
The terms “relevant excursion” and “irrelevant excursion” in claims 5 and 13 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term relevant excursion” and “irrelevant excursion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, there is no way to ascertain as to what constitutes as a relevant/irrelevant excursion in the present context. There is no metes or bounds providing guidance as to how to determine whether a detected excursion would fall within which category. As such, in order to further prosecution, any art that detects multiple excursions will be interpreted to read on the present limitation until further corrections are made.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “identifying at least one excursion corresponding to sensor data obtained from a manufacturing system;” and “initiating an excursion screening process to screen the at least one excursion using an excursion screening model, wherein the excursion screening model is trained to classify the at least one excursion;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of identifying excursion/fault in received sensor data and further classifying the excursion/fault, which are both limitations which can readily be performed using the human mind and thus, fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites, “causing a screening output resulting from the screening process to be displayed on a user device.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just simply displays a result of the method and thus merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering manufacturing sensor data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected using the same rationale. Claim 9 includes the additional limitations of, “a memory device” and “a processing device”, which as generally recited, represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 17 recites, “determining whether at least one excursion is detected by the one or more excursion detection models;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, represents merely determining/identifying an excursion/fault within received data which can reasonably be performed using the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 17 further recites, “in response to determining that at least one excursion is detected by the one or more excursion detection models, training an excursion screening model to classify the at least one excursion based on the at least one excursion, wherein the excursion screening model is independent of the one or more excursion detection models.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, merely trains a model which is representative of adjusting data values within a process and thus, just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claim 17 recites, “obtaining sensor data from a set of sensors of a manufacturing system;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, claim 17 recites, “initiating excursion detection using the sensor data and one or more excursion detection models;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, provides a description of a generic step of initiating excursion detection which simply ties the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or problem solving area (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering manufacturing sensor data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claim 18, further includes limitations describing classifying data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, is something that can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus, falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2, 7, 10, 15, and 19-20, includes limitations of performing a corrective action without providing clear description, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, can broadly be interpreted as merely applying the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and further, limitations of displaying resulting data, which also analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claims 3 and 11, each include limitations describing gathering of data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, claims 4-6, 8, 12-14, and 16, each includes limitations describing how model is trained to classify as well as various details regarding the display characteristics presented to a user, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering manufacturing sensor data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
***Examiner Note: with regards to claims 2 and 10, each describe performing a corrective action, however, are not descriptive as to what the “corrective action” actually is. The office recommends expanding upon this to include a positive control feature for a machine/device, for instance, (only if the specification provides support) as a way to help overcome the current rejection. Feel free to reach out for an interview to help overcome this rejection if necessary.***
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al. (US PGPUB 20190277913) in view of Cantwell (US PGPUB 20200210873).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9; Honda teaches; A method, comprising:
identifying at least one excursion corresponding to sensor data obtained from a manufacturing system; (Honda; at least Abstract; Fig. 7; paragraphs [0059]-[0060]; disclose obtaining sensor data from a manufacturing system and identifying excursions within the collected data)
initiating an excursion screening process to screen the at least one excursion using an excursion screening model, wherein the excursion screening model is trained to classify the at least one excursion; and (Honda; at least paragraphs [0070]-[0073]; disclose using a trained screening algorithm (i.e. model) in order to classify the detected excursions)
Honda appears to be silent on; causing a screening output resulting from the screening process to be displayed on a user device.
However, Cantwell teaches; causing a screening output resulting from the screening process to be displayed on a user device. (Cantwell; at least paragraphs [0062]-[0065]; disclose identifying/classifying excursions in time series data and further displaying the results to a user via a graphical user interface).
Honda and Cantwell are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, excursion detection and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of displaying the excursion data as taught by Cantwell with the known system of an excursion detection and control system of Honda in order provide a method which alerts a user such that corrective action can take place when an excursion is detected as taught by Cantwell (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 10; the combination of Honda and Cantwell teach; The method of claim 1, further comprising causing a corrective action to be performed to address at least one relevant excursion identified by the screening output. (Cantwell; at least paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11; the combination of Honda and Cantwell teach; The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the at least one excursion further comprises: obtaining the sensor data from a set of sensors of the manufacturing system; and initiating excursion detection using one or more excursion detection models, wherein the excursion screening model is independent of the one or more excursion detection models. (Honda; at least paragraphs [0031] and [0070]-[0071]).
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 18; the combination of Honda and Cantwell teach; The method of claim 1, wherein the excursion screening model is trained to classify the at least one excursion using pattern matching. (Honda; at least paragraphs [0080] and [0145]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13; the combination of Honda and Cantwell teach; The method of claim 1, wherein the screening output indicates that the at least one excursion comprises at least one of: a relevant excursion or an irrelevant excursion. (Honda; at least paragraphs [0070]-[0071]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14; the combination of Honda and Cantwell teach; The method of claim 1, wherein the screening output visually depicts any relevant excursions of the at least one excursion and visually hides any irrelevant excursions of the at least one excursion. (Honda; at least paragraphs [0070]-[0071]; Cantwell; at least paragraphs [0062]-[0065]).
Regarding Claims 7, 15, and 20; the combination of Honda and Cantwell teach; The method of claim 1, wherein causing the screening output to be displayed on a user device further comprises causing a set of lists to be displayed via a user interface, and wherein the set of lists comprises at least one of: a watch list, an ignore list or a false alarm list. (Cantwell; at least paragraphs [0062]-[0063]; disclose a system and method for detecting and classifying excursions in a manufacturing process, wherein the system further can display text, graphs, charts, alerts, etc. to a user based on the detected conditions).
The combination of Honda and Cantwell do not expressly disclose, “…a set of lists to be displayed via a user interface, and wherein the set of lists comprises at least one of: a watch list, an ignore list or a false alarm list.”.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display as taught by Cantwell and Honda to include the specific options as disclosed as these are simple modifications that one of ordinary skill in the art could perform and further the applicant has not disclosed that the specific options provides an advantage, used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with display as provided by Cantwell and Honda as the prior art still provides contextual data for a user to review that can readily be categorized by a user to fall within one of the listed categories presented.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the references of Honda and Cantwell to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7 and 15.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16; the combination of Honda and Cantwell teach; The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the user device, feedback data used to refine the excursion screening model. (Cantwell; at least paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding Claim 17; Honda teaches; A method, comprising: obtaining sensor data from a set of sensors of a manufacturing system; (Honda; at least paragraphs [0007] and [0031]; disclose obtaining sensor data from a plurality of sensors in a manufacturing system)
initiating excursion detection using the sensor data and one or more excursion detection models; (Honda; at least Fig. 7; paragraphs [0059]-[0060]; disclose initiating excursion detection on plurality of sensor data from input data sources)
determining whether at least one excursion is detected by the one or more excursion detection models; and (Honda; at least Abstract; Fig. 7; paragraphs [0059]-[0060]; disclose obtaining sensor data from a manufacturing system and identifying excursions within the collected data)
Honda appears to be silent on; in response to determining that at least one excursion is detected by the one or more excursion detection models, training an excursion screening model to classify the at least one excursion based on the at least one excursion, wherein the excursion screening model is independent of the one or more excursion detection models.
However, Cantwell teaches; in response to determining that at least one excursion is detected by the one or more excursion detection models, training an excursion screening model to classify the at least one excursion based on the at least one excursion, wherein the excursion screening model is independent of the one or more excursion detection models. (Cantwell; at least paragraphs [0028], [0039], [0046], and [0069]; disclose detecting one or more excursions, training an excursion model to classify the excursions, and wherein the method utilizes separate models for detection/screening).
Honda and Cantwell are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, excursion detection and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of training classification and detection models as taught by Cantwell with the known system of an excursion detection and control system of Honda in order provide a method which alerts a user such that corrective action can take place when an excursion is detected as taught by Cantwell (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 19; the combination of Honda and Cantwell teach; The method of claim 17, wherein training the excursion screening model further comprises: causing a screening output resulting from the screening process to be displayed on a user device, wherein the screening output indicates that the at least one excursion comprises at least one of: a relevant excursion or an irrelevant excursion; and (Honda; at least paragraphs [0070]-[0071]; Cantwell; at least paragraphs [0062]-[0065]).
receiving, from the user device, feedback data used to refine the excursion screening model. (Cantwell; at least paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iskandar et al. (US PGPUB 20220019863): disclose a system and method for detecting anomalies in sensor data for a manufacturing system using a scoring system to determine the likelihood of an actual anomaly occurring.
Schulze et al. (US PGPUB 20170261971): disclose an unsupervised fault detection system for a manufacturing system that classifies and ranks sensor data to detect various faults/anomalies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117