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 .
In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1, 7-9, and 14-15 for further examination. As a result, claims 2-5 and 10-13 are withdrawn from further prosecution.
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) 1, 7, 9, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 2019/0264573) in view of Miller (US 8032340).
Nagano et al. discloses a plant monitoring device for monitoring a plant, the plant monitoring device comprising:
a measured data acquisition unit configured to acquire measured data of a plurality of
variables indicating a state of the plant every predetermined period (paragraph [0008]: The acquisition unit is configured to acquire measurement values being measurement values of a target device. FIG. 3, step S1: Acquire sensor value and command value);
a comparison unit configured to compare a deviation index value indicating a deviation
between a reference data set, which is a set of reference data related to the plurality of variables,
and the measured data with a diagnostic threshold value for performing an abnormality diagnosis
of the plant (FIG. 3, steps S4-S5: Comparing Mahalanobis Distance (MD) to the threshold value, wherein Mahalanobis Distance indicates the difference between a reference sample and a newly obtained sample (paragraph [0047]));
a reference data update unit configured to update the reference data set (paragraph [0076]: The unit space of the Mahalanobis Distance is updated); and
an operation mode switching unit configured to switch an operation mode of the plant
monitoring device between a monitoring mode, in which the plant is monitored on the basis of a
comparison result by the comparison unit (FIG. 3: steps S1-S4 read on the monitoring mode in which the senor data is acquired, the MD is calculated for further comparing to the threshold), and a learning mode, in which the reference data update unit incorporates, into the reference data set, at least the measured data when the deviation index value is greater than the diagnostic threshold value, wherein the operation mode switching unit is configured to switch the operation mode from the monitoring mode to the learning mode when the deviation index value is greater than the diagnostic threshold value and a learning mode transition condition is satisfied during an operation of the plant monitoring device in the monitoring mode (FIG. 3: When MD is greater than the threshold value (S5), it switches to the learning mode (steps S6-S10), in which it learns the likelihood of occurrence cause of abnormality).
Nagano et al. however does not teach wherein in the learning mode, the reference data update unit incorporates, into the reference data set, at least the measured data.
Miller discloses a method for generating a model for modeling a process plant, comprising a monitoring mode in which data set is received and compared to a validity range (FIG. 14, steps 644 and 648), and a learning mode in which the received data set is incorporated into the data for training the model (FIG. 14, steps 668, 672, and 676), wherein the monitoring mode is switched to the learning mode when the received data set is outside the validity range (FIG. 14, step 648).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano’s method to incorporate the received data set into the training data for training and updating the model to gain the accuracy in the abnormality prediction in the process plant as taught by Miller (FIG. 14).
Regarding to claim 7: wherein the learning mode transition condition includes that the plant monitoring device receives a command for switching the operation mode to the learning mode (Nagano et al., FIG. 3: The monitoring mode (steps S1-S4) is switched to the learning mode (steps S6-S10)).
Regarding to claim 9: wherein the operation mode switching unit is configured to switch the operation mode from the learning mode to the monitoring mode when the deviation index value is equal to or less than the diagnostic threshold value during an operation of the plant monitoring device in the learning mode (Miller, FIG. 14: When the deviation is not significant (step 660), it goes back to the monitoring mode by acquiring the data set (step 644)).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 2019/0264573) in view of Miller (US 8032340), and further in view of Ohkubo (US 20070090690).
Nagano et al., as modified, discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except wherein the operation mode switching unit is configured to switch the operation mode from the learning mode to the monitoring mode during an operation of the plant monitoring device in the learning mode after a lapse of a predetermined time since the switching of the operation mode from the monitoring mode to the learning mode.
Ohkubo discloses an operation for determining an abnormality comprising a monitoring mode including obtaining measurement data for determining the deviation between the measurement data and the target data and comparing the deviation with a reference (FIG. 4, steps S30 and S32), and a learning mode including counting elapsed time (FIG. 4, steps s34 and S36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano’s method, as modified, to include counting elapsed time since the deviation exceeds a reference to continue over a predetermined time period to gain the accuracy of the abnormality determination as taught Ohkubo (paragraph [0065]).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights