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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/633,350 filed on 04/11/2024, claims foreign priority to KR 10-2023-0189868, filed 12/22/2023.
Examiner acknowledges that the certified copy of foreign priority document has been received. However, the certified English translation copy of the original foreign document, which is not written in English, has not been received. There is no requirement to submit certified English translation copy at this stage according to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3). However, should the need of certified English translated copy arise according to the cases mentioned in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3), submission may be requested in the future.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 04/11/2024. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, in Fig. 2, text labels for tables are difficult to see due to blurry fonts and small font sizes. Please provide clear drawings for ease of reading and understanding.
In Fig. 5, legend colors are difficult to distinguish because the drawings are in gray scale. Please use different legend symbols, e.g. rectangle or triangle, for the ease of differentiation.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In par. [0013], the word “collecting” in “ a data collection module configured to collecting data” should be replaced with “collect” for correct grammar. In par. [0059], the phrases “assuming that dataset A includes 39 data items and dataset B
includes 6 data items, dataset A may be grouped into 6 groups. Here, each group name is used as a key value and the number of data items in dataset B increases equal to that of the data A by connecting dataset B to dataset A” are ambiguous and illogical.
The phrase appears to mean “assuming that dataset A includes 36 data items and dataset B includes 6 data items, dataset A may be divided into 6 groups. Here, each group name is used as a key value and the number of data items in otal 7 groups are the sum of the data times of both dataset A and dataset B”.
In par. [0060], the phrase “map the number of data items through repetition of a dataset including fewer data items among the datasets for each group so as to increase the number of data items” lacks the object where to map the number of items making the sentence incomplete. It is not clear where-to the number of items are mapped ro.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–7 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claim 1, the word “collecting” in “a data collection module configured to collecting data” should be replaced with “collect” for correct grammar.
As per claims 2-7, claims are also objected because base claim 1 is objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
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) 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) 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.
The current application includes limitations in claim 1 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claim 1 includes limitations/elements that use generic placeholders, “data collection module”, that are coupled with functional language, configured to “collect data” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structure of the data collection module is interpreted as a component of a general computer (see specification – processor 30, memory 20, data collection module 10 [0056-0057, Fig.1]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claim 2, the limitations/steps “map the number of data items for each group through data connection for each process factor, and to perform data connection based on the continuity between the unit processes” are ambiguous because the object (or target) of mapping the number of items is not specified and “through data connection” in “map the number of data items … through data connection” lacks the antecedent basis as the data connection is not recited earlier. The limitation/step “perform data connection based on the continuity between the unit processes” is recited after the mapping. It is not clear whether the data connections recited later is identical to “through data connection” in the mapping step earlier.
As per claim 8, the limitations/steps “mapping, by the processor, the number of data items for each group through data connection for each process factor; and performing, by the processor, data connection based on continuity between unit processes” are ambiguous as explained in claim 2 above.
As per claims 3-7 and 9-13, claims are also rejected because base claims 1 and 11 are rejected.
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 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 8 recites:
“A method for analyzing manufacturing process data, (8.A) comprising:
arranging, by a processor, datasets for each process factor collected through a data collection module in chronological order; (8.B)
grouping, by the processor, each of the datasets arranged in chronological order based on a number of data items; (8.C)
mapping, by the processor, the number of data items for each group through data connection for each process factor; (8.D)
and performing, by the processor, data connection based on continuity between unit processes. (8.E)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process - Method).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (8.B)– (8.E) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations/Algorithms, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 8: “A method for analyzing manufacturing process data” and “a processor”;
In Claim 2: “an apparatus”, “data collection module”, “a storage device”;
As per claim 8, the additional element in the preamble “A method for analyzing manufacturing process data” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the method with an abstract idea or an intended purpose, i.e. analyzing manufacturing process data.
The limitation/element “a processor” represent a standard component in a general computer and is not particular in the art.
As per claim 2: the additional element in the preamble “An apparatus for analyzing manufacturing process data” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the preamble simply links the apparatus with an abstract idea or an intended purpose, i.e. analyzing manufacturing process data. The limitations/elements “data collection module” and “a storage device” represent standard components in a general computer and they are not particular in the art.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Kim, Bhat, Maggie, Hauser and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (EP 4723270 A2).
As per claim 1, Kim discloses
An apparatus for analyzing manufacturing process data, (system of monitoring a battery manufacturing process [abs], server, process controller, data processing system, analyze manufacturing data [0149]) comprising:
a data collection module configured to collecting data generated from facilities in a battery manufacturing process for each process factor; (search parameter [0058], measuring device and/or an inspector, collect measurement data [0108], inspector, collect inspection data [0112], process conditions and process parameters [0128, Fig. 11], each process, critical-to-parameter ‘CTP’ data related to quality [0164])
a storage device configured to store the collected data; (server configured for storing a … data [0007, 0010, 0016, 0018, 0035, 0038, 0045], side note: conventionally, server includes storage device to store collected data, battery manufacturing system, processor, memory [0071, 0077, Fig. 3])
and a processor operatively coupled to the data collection module and the storage device, and configured to preprocess the data for each process factor collected though the data collection module based on continuity between unit processes. (describing operations of a processor and a memory that are included in a battery manufacturing system [0071, 0077, Fig. 3], a processor … may compress the … data [0132], a processor … generate evaluation data [0132], processors … configured to execute instructions … operations of associating ID EID [0152]).
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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Bhattacha (US 20190095493 A1), hereinafter ‘Bhat’ best understood by the examiner.
As per claim 2, Kim discloses claim 1 set forth above.
Kim further discloses
the processor is configured to preprocess the data for each process factor (operations of a processor and a memory that are included in a battery manufacturing system [0071, 0077, Fig. 3], a processor … may compress the … data [0132], a processor … generate evaluation data [0132], processors … configured to execute instructions … operations of associating ID EID [0152])
by arranging datasets for each process factor collected though the data collection module in chronological order, (time series data, temporarily ordered, each of measurement values of the measurement data may be matched to a time point, and each of inspection values of the inspection data may be matched to a time point. [0115], roll map R1, R2, R21 R3 … shown in order [0324, Fig. 325]).
However, Kim is silent regarding to group each dataset based on a number of data items, to map the number of data items for each group through data connection for each process factor, and to perform data connection based on the continuity between the unit processes.
Bhat discloses to group each dataset based on a number of data items, (allocating a group of data entries from at least one dataset into multiple partitions [abs], event reference … or … identifiers … chronological order [0212], grouping the results such as any combinations of partition … categories or fields [0223], count the number of events, group based on the number of events [0229])
to map the number of data items for each group through data connection for each process factor, (mapping of semantic knowledge about one or more datasets [0309], map procedure [0463, Fig. 12], maintain a mapping between generated unique identifiers and datasets, partitions [0489], mapping of buckets in the subset to partitions [0557, 0563], mapping … operation [0587]) and
to perform data connection based on the continuity between the unit processes. (connects to one or more indexers 206 of the data intake [0156], locally … externally stored and managed data collection, two ERP processes … that connect to respective … virtual indices … Hadoop … and a relational database management system ‘RDBMS’ [0158], a pair of keywords connected by a symbol [0194]).
Bhat is in the same large dataset analysis art, which facilitating analyzing dataset like Kim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Kim in view of Bhat to preprocess the data for each process factor by arranging datasets for each process factor collected though the data collection module in chronological order, to group each dataset based on a number of data items, to map the number of data items for each group through data connection for each process factor, and to perform data connection based on the continuity between the unit processes with a rationale to effectively tracking process events in a battery manufacturing process, analyzing manufacturing data to identify problem conditions in a timely manner (see Kim – battery manufacturing process [0005], analyze, identify problem conditions [0149]).
As per claim 8, Kim discloses
A method for analyzing manufacturing process data (a method for monitoring a battery manufacturing process, and a method for tracking a process event in a battery manufacturing process [0001], analyze manufacturing data [0149]).
Kim in view of Bhat discloses the remaining limitations as shown in claim 2 above.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Bhat in view of Hirata (US 20120002317 A1) best understood by the examiner.
As per claims 3 and 9, Kim and Bhat disclose claim 2 and 8 set forth above.
Although Bhat discloses the grouping/partitioning of the dataset based on the number of events (group based on the number of events [0229]), the set forth combined prior art is silent regarding group each of the datasets based on the number of data items in a dataset comprising fewest data items.
Hirata discloses the data is written in units of this group including the smallest required number of sub datasets [0071, Fig. 4C]).
Hirata is also concerned about storing/retrieving the dataset to/from a computer readable media with synchronization similar to the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Hirata to determine the number of data items in each of the datasets arranged in chronological order and group each of the datasets based on the number of data items in a dataset comprising fewest data items
with a rationale to effectively tracking process events in a battery manufacturing process, analyzing manufacturing data … to identify problem conditions in a timely manner.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Bhat in view of Jindal (US 20220366188 A1) best understood by the examiner.
As per claims 4 and 10, Kim and Bhat disclose claim 2 and 8 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding map the number of data items by repeating a dataset comprising fewer data items among the datasets for each group.
Jindal discloses (recording of … maps … can be repeated for … fewer sentences in the … dataset [0024]).
Jindal is in the same data processing art like the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Jindal to map the number of data items by repeating a dataset comprising fewer data items among the datasets for each group with a rationale to effectively tracking process events in a battery manufacturing process, analyzing manufacturing data to identify problem conditions in a timely manner.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Bhat in view of Xiao (WO 2023115896 A1) best understood by the examiner.
As per claims 5 and 11, Kim and Bhat disclose claim 2 and 8 set forth above.
Baht discloses assigning IDs for each process factor (an identification data set including an electrode identifier, ID [0007], identification data set … comprise at least one of: 1) first electrode ID-related data including coordinate value(s) on the electrode in one of the plurality of sub-processes [0014], traceability of a roll map, relationship between a process of assembling an intermediate product and a subsequent process after the assembly process [0069], lamination process … sub-process subsequent to the notching process, the electrode IDs EID, [0069]).
However, the combined prior art is silent regarding assigning a linkage ID in response to data connection for each process factor by sequentially connecting the IDs to each other.
Xiao discloses (process parameter [Fig. 3], sequentially connected by linker … sequence ID).
Although Xiao is not in the same art as Kim, Xiao is in the same data processing art by assigning IDs to the datasets like the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Xiao to assign IDs for each process factor and to assign a linkage ID in response to data connection for each process factor by sequentially connecting the IDs to each other with a rationale to effectively tracking process events in a battery manufacturing process, analyzing manufacturing data … to identify problem conditions in a timely manner.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Bhat in view of Magge (WO 2025109554 A1) best understood by the examiner.
As per claims 6 and 12, Kim and Bhat disclose claim 2 and 8 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding generate a prediction model through machine learning based on the preprocessed data for each process factor to analyze causes of errors.
Maggie discloses machine learning model to generate the output feature vector predicting whether the CAR T drug product would undergo a manufacturing failure.
Although Maggie is not in the same art as Kim, Maggie is in the same data processing art by analyzing the datasets like the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Maggie to generate a prediction model through machine learning based on the preprocessed data for each process factor to analyze causes of errors with a rationale to effectively tracking process events in a battery manufacturing process, analyzing manufacturing data … to identify problem conditions in a timely manner.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Bhat and Magge in view of Hauser (US 20230185652 A1) best understood by the examiner
As per claims 7 and 13, Kim, Bhat and Maggie disclose claim 6 and 12 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regarding generating the prediction model using a machine learning model comprising at least one of a ridge regression model, a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) model, a chi-square automatic interaction detector (CHAID) model, a classification and regression tree (CART) model, or a random forest model.
Hauser discloses (process … parameters [0002], machine leaning model … Random Forests … for anomaly detection, and prediction and adaptive control [0058], anomaly … failure prediction analysis [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Hauser to generate a prediction model using machine learning comprising a random forest model with a rationale to effectively tracking process events in a battery manufacturing process, analyzing manufacturing data … to identify problem conditions in a timely manner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights