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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to for the following reasons:
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 has erroneously failed to cross out “4” from “any one of claims 1 to 4.” For the purposes of the present examination, the “4” is construed as a typographical error, wherein the examiner recommends amending to remove the number 4. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 alert output unit configured to…create in claim 1.
an alert screen processing unit configured to display in claim 1.
a graph screen processing unit configured to display in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
an alert output unit configured to, when an anomaly of a plant is detected, create alert information including a date and time of occurrence of the anomaly;
an alert screen processing unit configured to display, on a display unit, an alert screen including an alert element based on the alert information; and
a graph screen processing unit configured to display, on the display unit, a trend graph screen in which a temporal change of input data related to a monitoring item of the plant is rendered as a graph,
wherein when the alert element displayed in the alert screen is dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen in a state where the alert screen and the trend graph screen are displayed on the display unit, the graph screen processing unit displays, in the trend graph screen, a graph of input data for a predetermined period including the date and time determined from the dragged and dropped alert element and displays a highlighting element for highlighting the date and time in the trend graph screen.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses when an anomaly of a plant is detected; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation; create alert information including a date and time of occurrence of the anomaly; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable by pen and paper; display, an alert element based on the alert information; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; display, a temporal change of input data related to a monitoring item of the plant is rendered as a graph; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable by pen and paper; wherein when the alert element displayed is in a state displayed displays, a graph of input data for a predetermined period including the date and time determined from the alert element and displays a highlighting element for highlighting the date and time; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable by pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
an alert output unit configured to
an alert screen processing unit configured to
on a display unit,
an alert screen including
a graph screen processing unit configured to
on the display unit,
a trend graph screen in which
in the alert screen
to the trend graph screen
where the alert screen and the trend graph screen are
on the display unit,
the graph screen processing unit
in the trend graph screen
in the trend graph screen.
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
dragged and dropped
dragged and dropped
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-10 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claim 5 is directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 5 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
A plant monitoring method performed by a computer, the plant monitoring method comprising:
when an anomaly of a plant is detected, creating alert information including a date and time of occurrence of the anomaly;
displaying, on a display unit, an alert screen including an alert element based on the alert information;
displaying, on the display unit, a trend graph screen in which a temporal change of input data related to a monitoring item of the plant is rendered as a graph; and
when the alert element displayed in the alert screen is dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen in a state where the alert screen and the trend graph screen are displayed on the display unit, displaying, in the trend graph screen, a graph of input data for a predetermined period including the date and time determined from the dragged and dropped alert element and displaying a highlighting element for highlighting the date and time in the trend graph screen.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 5 discloses when an anomaly of a plant is detected; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation; creating alert information including a date and time of occurrence of the anomaly; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; displaying, an alert element based on the alert information; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; displaying, a temporal change of input data related to a monitoring item of the plant is rendered as a graph; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; when the alert element displayed in the alert screen is in a state displayed displaying, a graph of input data for a predetermined period including the date and time determined from the alert element and displaying a highlighting element for highlighting the date and time; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 5 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 5 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 5 further recites:
performed by a computer
on a display unit, an alert screen including
on the display unit, a trend graph screen in which
to the trend graph screen
where the alert screen and the trend graph screen are
on the display unit,
in the trend graph screen
in the trend graph screen.
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 5 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
dragged and dropped
dragged and dropped
Analyzing this additional element of claim 5 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 5 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hisaji (JP 2019102037 A), hereinafter Hisaji.
Regarding claim 5, Hisaji discloses A plant monitoring method performed by a computer, the plant monitoring method comprising:
when an anomaly of a plant is detected, creating alert information including a date and time of occurrence of the anomaly; The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of creating alert information including a date and time of occurrence of the anomaly is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., when an anomaly of a plant is detected, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; e.g., creating alert information to be performed; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
displaying, on a display unit, an alert screen including an alert element based on the alert information; The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of displaying, on a display unit, an alert screen including an alert element based on the alert information is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., when an anomaly of a plant is detected, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; e.g., displaying an alert screen to be performed; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
displaying, on the display unit, a trend graph screen in which a temporal change of input data related to a monitoring item of the plant is rendered as a graph; and (Hisaji, e.g., see figs. 1-2 illustrating display means (5); see also figs. 3-4 illustrating a trend graph with a temporal change of input data related to a monitoring item of the plant rendered as a graph; see also paras. [0020]-[0021] disclosing the information processing means (3) also has a trend management function that stores and updates trend data based on each process value output from the plant equipment (1) to be monitored and controlled, and displays it on the display device (5) as a trend graph. You can check the status of process values that change over time. The information processing means (3) further includes an event processing section (6) and a trend processing section (7). For example, when an event whose details are desired to be checked is arbitrarily selected from the event list displayed on the display device (5), the event processing unit (6) stores the date and time of the occurrence of this event. The trend processing section (7) displays a trend graph screen on the display means (5), as shown in fig. 3, so that the date and time stored in the event processing section (6) is located at the center of the time axis of the trend graph screen. At this time, since the trend graphs for any other process values are displayed with the date and time stored in the event processing unit (6) located at the center of the time axis of the trend graph, it is possible to see what the plant is like before and after the event occurs; see also para. [0004] disclosing such plant monitoring and control equipment updates trend data and operation history data based on each status signal output from the plant, and displays the trend graph screen; construed by the examiner as related to a monitoring item; e.g., the plant equipment).
when the alert element displayed in the alert screen is dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen in a state where the alert screen and the trend graph screen are displayed on the display unit, displaying, in the trend graph screen, a graph of input data for a predetermined period including the date and time determined from the dragged and dropped alert element and displaying a highlighting element for highlighting the date and time in the trend graph screen. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met; see, e.g., MPEP 2111.04(III); because the step of displaying, in the trend graph screen, a graph of input data for a predetermined period including the date and time determined from the dragged and dropped alert element and displaying a highlighting element for highlighting the date and time in the trend graph screen is only performed if a condition precedent is met; e.g., when the alert element displayed in the alert screen is dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen in a state where the alert screen and the trend graph screen are displayed on the display unit, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require this step; e.g., displaying… to be performed; accordingly, this step does not carry patentable weight.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi (JP 2009180860 A), hereinafter Mitsutoshi.
Regarding claim 1, Hisaji discloses A plant monitoring device comprising:
an alert output unit configured to, when an anomaly of a plant is detected, create alert information including a date and time of occurrence of the anomaly; an alert screen processing unit configured to display, on a display unit, an alert screen including an alert element based on the alert information; and (Hisaji, e.g., see figs. 1-2 and paras. [0018]-[0019] disclosing the information processing means (3); construed as an alert output unit, analyzes the process values from the plant equipment (1) to determine whether a preset alarm condition is satisfied, and when the alarm condition is satisfied, generates alarm data. At the same time, a window display; construed as an alert element, and an alarm sound are output to the display device (5) to notify the alarm occurrence. Further, the information processing means (3) manages and stores events such as operation history data and alarm history data as an event list in association with the date and time of occurrence of each data, and displays it on the display device (5) as an event list screen; see also para. [0021] disclosing the event processing unit (6) as operative to storing the date and time of occurrence).
a graph screen processing unit configured to display, on the display unit, a trend graph screen in which a temporal change of input data related to a monitoring item of the plant is rendered as a graph, wherein when the alert element displayed in the alert screen is selected for the trend graph screen in a state where the alert screen and the trend graph screen are displayed on the display unit, the graph screen processing unit displays, in the trend graph screen, a graph of input data for a predetermined period including the date and time determined from the selected alert element and displays a highlighting element for highlighting the date and time in the trend graph screen. (Hisaji, e.g., see rejection as applied above with regard to paras. [0018]-[0019] and figs. 1-2, wherein figs. 1-2 also illustrate the trend processing section (7) and event processing section (6); see also figs. 3-4 illustrating a trend graph with a measured value on the ordinate and the date and time; construed as a temporal rendering, on the abscissa; see also paras. [0020]-[0021] disclosing the information processing means (3) also has a trend management function that stores and updates trend data based on each process value output from the plant equipment (1) to be monitored and controlled, and displays it on the display device (5) as a trend graph. You can check the status of process values that change over time. The information processing means (3) further includes an event processing section (6) and a trend processing section (7). For example, when an event whose details are desired to be checked is arbitrarily selected from the event list displayed on the display device (5), the event processing unit (6) stores the date and time of the occurrence of this event. The trend processing section (7) displays a trend graph screen on the display means (5), as shown in fig. 3, so that the date and time stored in the event processing section (6) is located at the center of the time axis of the trend graph screen. At this time, since the trend graphs for any other process values are displayed with the date and time stored in the event processing unit (6) located at the center of the time axis of the trend graph, it is possible to see what the plant is like before and after the event occurs; see also para. [0004] disclosing such plant monitoring and control equipment updates trend data and operation history data based on each status signal output from the plant, and displays the trend graph screen; construed by the examiner as related to a monitoring item; e.g., the plant equipment; examiner notes that fig. 4 illustrates a comment and a date and time corresponding to comments, which is construed as a highlight).
Hisaji is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: dragged and dropped.
However, Mitsutoshi further discloses dragged and dropped (Mitsutoshi, e.g., see para. [0026] disclosing by using the mouse on the display screen (drag and drop), you can select the necessary alarm data and event data from List (6)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hisaji with Mitsutoshi’s dragged and dropped for at least the reasons that utilizing a drag and drop function is tantamount to a selection feature, wherein the dragged and dropped element corresponds to an executable action; e.g., see para. [0018] disclosing the data selection means that selects a plurality of data from among the data accumulated in the data storage.
Regarding claim 6, Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as the plant monitoring device according to 4 claim 1. (Hisaji, e.g., see para. [0017] disclosing the information processing means (3) is, for example, a normal computer, consisting of a CPU, a memory, a disk (non-volatile memory), an interface, etc., and is connected to an input means (4) such as a keyboard and a mouse, and a display device (5) such as a CRT device or a liquid crystal monitor has been done).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi, in further view of Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2018106577 A), hereinafter Yoshihiro.
Regarding claim 2, Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The plant monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein when a recovery from an anomaly of the plant is detected, the alert output unit creates alert information including a date and time of the recovery.
However, Yoshihiro further discloses wherein when a recovery from an anomaly of the plant is detected, the alert output unit creates alert information including a date and time of the recovery. (Yoshihiro, e.g., see pg. 4, line 44 – pg. 5, line 6 disclosing the time information display column (61) includes a date date/time column (611) that displays the date/time that is the rightmost date/time of the measurement value graph and the operation state graph, a current mode in which the graph automatically updated, and a past mode in which the graph is not automatically updated; see also pg. 3, lines 38-51 disclosing regarding failure history data, when a certain device has a failure, it is determined that the device is in failure for that period until it is recovered, and conversely, when a certain device has recovered from a failure. After that, it is determined that the device is normal for that period until failure occurs. And the driving | running state graph data production | generation part (241) produces | generates driving | running state graph data based on the driving | running state determined in this way).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi’s device with Yoshihiro’s when a recovery from an anomaly of the plant is detected, the alert output unit creates alert information including a date and time of the recovery for at least the reasons that it is possible to automatically generate graph data for a device in which an event has occurred in a specified time range without the user selecting a display target device one by one, wherein reduction of time and effort required to display a graph relating to the occurrence is accomplished, as taught by Yoshihiro; e.g., see pg. 3, line 52 – pg. 4, line 4.
Regarding claim 8, Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi, in further view of Yoshihiro discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as the plant monitoring device according to claim 2. (Hisaji, e.g., see para. [0017] disclosing the information processing means (3) is, for example, a normal computer, consisting of a CPU, a memory, a disk (non-volatile memory), an interface, etc., and is connected to an input means (4) such as a keyboard and a mouse, and a display device (5) such as a CRT device or a liquid crystal monitor has been done).
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi, in further view of Ayumi et al. (JP 2016115195 A), hereinafter Ayumi.
Regarding claim 3, Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The plant monitoring device according to claim 1, wherein when a plurality of alert elements are dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen from the alert screen, the graph screen processing unit adjusts a time axis range so that each date and time determined from each of the plurality of alert elements is displayed in the trend graph screen.
However, Ayumi et al further discloses: wherein when a plurality of alert elements are dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen from the alert screen, the graph screen processing unit adjusts a time axis range so that each date and time determined from each of the plurality of alert elements is displayed in the trend graph screen. (see rejection as applied to claim 1 disclosing a drag and drop function; see also Ayumi, e.g., see fig. 17 and para. [0096] disclosing fig. 17 is a diagram illustrating an example of the alarm trend graph screen (22). In this way, the display processing unit (14) displays the process value of the point name indicated by the pen number (7) on the alarm trend graph screen (22) as shown in fig. 17. In this case, the display processing unit (14) acquires the process value of the additional point name from the limit value information data storage unit (9) via the related information history setting processing unit (17). This acquires time-series data from the process value history data storage unit (11) using (11) using the point name. Therefore, in addition to the point to be monitored, the process value (sometimes referred to as a parameter value) of an arbitrary point name can be displayed on the alarm trend graph screen (22). While fig. 16 shows an example in which one point is added, multiple points may be added as needed; examiner notes that fig. 17 explicitly illustrates a slider at the bottom of the time axis which may be adjusted each date and time is displayed).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi’s device with Ayumi’s when a plurality of alert elements are dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen from the alert screen, the graph screen processing unit adjusts a time axis range so that each date and time determined from each of the plurality of alert elements is displayed in the trend graph screen for at least the reasons that in this way, the process value (parameter value) of any point name (PID) can be additionally displayed on the alarm trend graph screen; e.g., for apprising the user, as taught by Ayumi; e.g., see para. [0097].
Regarding claim 4, Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi, in further view of Ayumi disclose The plant monitoring device according to claim 3, wherein when the plurality of alert elements are dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen from the alert screen, the graph screen processing unit displays each of the alert elements in the alert screen and each graph displayed in the trend graph screen in association with each other. see rejection as applied to claim 3; e.g., see fig. 17 displaying graph screen wherein each alert element in the alert screen; e.g., see element (24) and each graph displayed in the trend graph screen are in association with each other.
Regarding claim 9, Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi, in further view of Ayumi discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as the plant monitoring device according to claim 3. (Hisaji, e.g., see para. [0017] disclosing the information processing means (3) is, for example, a normal computer, consisting of a CPU, a memory, a disk (non-volatile memory), an interface, etc., and is connected to an input means (4) such as a keyboard and a mouse, and a display device (5) such as a CRT device or a liquid crystal monitor has been done).
Regarding claim 10, Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi, in further view of Ayumi discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as the plant monitoring device according to claim 4. (Hisaji, e.g., see para. [0017] disclosing the information processing means (3) is, for example, a normal computer, consisting of a CPU, a memory, a disk (non-volatile memory), an interface, etc., and is connected to an input means (4) such as a keyboard and a mouse, and a display device (5) such as a CRT device or a liquid crystal monitor has been done).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi, in further view of Yoshihiro, in further view of Ayumi.
Regarding claim 7, Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi, in further view of Yoshihiro is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing The plant monitoring device according to claim 2, wherein when a plurality of alert elements are dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen from the alert screen, the graph screen processing unit adjusts a time axis range so that each date and time determined from each of the plurality of alert elements is displayed in the trend graph screen.
However, Ayumi further discloses: wherein when a plurality of alert elements are dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen from the alert screen, the graph screen processing unit adjusts a time axis range so that each date and time determined from each of the plurality of alert elements is displayed in the trend graph screen. (see rejection as applied to claim 1 disclosing a drag and drop function; see also Ayumi, e.g., see fig. 17 and para. [0096] disclosing fig. 17 is a diagram illustrating an example of the alarm trend graph screen (22). In this way, the display processing unit (14) displays the process value of the point name indicated by the pen number (7) on the alarm trend graph screen (22) as shown in fig. 17. In this case, the display processing unit (14) acquires the process value of the additional point name from the limit value information data storage unit (9) via the related information history setting processing unit (17). This acquires time-series data from the process value history data storage unit (11) using (11) using the point name. Therefore, in addition to the point to be monitored, the process value (sometimes referred to as a parameter value) of an arbitrary point name can be displayed on the alarm trend graph screen (22). While fig. 16 shows an example in which one point is added, multiple points may be added as needed; examiner notes that fig. 17 explicitly illustrates a slider at the bottom of the time axis which may be adjusted each date and time is displayed).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Hisaji in view of Mitsutoshi, in further view of Yoshihiro’s device with Ayumi’s when a plurality of alert elements are dragged and dropped to the trend graph screen from the alert screen, the graph screen processing unit adjusts a time axis range so that each date and time determined from each of the plurality of alert elements is displayed in the trend graph screen for at least the reasons that in this way, the process value (parameter value) of any point name (PID) can be additionally displayed on the alarm trend graph screen; e.g., for apprising the user, as taught by Ayumi; e.g., see para. [0097].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2020/0388146 A1 to Sakata et al. relates to an information processing apparatus, alarm management system, and alarm management method.
US 2020/0327029 A1 to Prakash et al. relates to a process mapping and monitoring using artificial intelligence.
US 2020/0293511 A1 to Bump et al. relates to configuration-free alert monitoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857