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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are those that are labelled as a “module” such as “an acquisition module” and “determination module” in claim 9. The claims describe the various units in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Examiner was able to find in the Specification a sufficient structure in [0017] of the present application.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The term "Intelligent operation" in claim 1 line 7 and claim 9 line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "intelligent" 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. It is impossible to determine what the difference between Intelligent operations versus non-Intelligent operations would be. Without an understanding of the bounds of the word the claim is indefinite. Thus, the dependent claims 2-8, and 10-17, are indefinite as well. For continued prosecution the examiner takes “intelligent” to indicate appropriate use of the device/apparatus being monitored.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed at the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
Claim 1. A method for evaluating a health state of a sintering device, comprising the following steps:
acquiring state information of a sintering device, wherein the state information of the sintering device comprises at least one state parameter of the sintering device; and
determining a health state of the sintering device according to the state information of the sintering device and a preset health state evaluation rule, wherein the health state of the sintering device is used for indicating intelligent operation and maintenance for the sintering device.
Claim 9. An apparatus for evaluating a health state of a sintering device, comprising:
an acquisition module, configured to acquire state information of a sintering device, wherein the state information of the sintering device comprises at least one state parameter of the sintering device; and
a determination module, configured to determine a health state of the sintering device according to the state information of the sintering device and a preset health state evaluation rule; wherein the health state of the sintering device is used for indicating intelligent operation and maintenance for the sintering device.
Under 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 claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under 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 limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
Next, under 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because an apparatus, an acquisition module and a determination module are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
Claims 10-17 recite a memory, a processor, and an executable program code. These claims recite what is considered generic computer elements and not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 2-8 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
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) 1-3, 7, 9-12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 108320112 B) hereinafter Liu in view of Chen et al (CN 104654793 B) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches acquiring state information of a device, wherein the state information of the device comprises at least one state parameter of the device ([n0028] “The normalization unit is used to normalize the detection data of equipment-related parameter characteristics;”); and determining a health state of the sintering device according to the state information of the device and a preset health state evaluation rule ([n0057] “ Based on the weights of the parameter features and the evaluation set of multiple parameter features, determine the health status of the device using the following formula.”), wherein the health state of the device is used for indicating intelligent operation and maintenance for the device ([n0048] “Wherein, S_H represents the health status of the equipment, w_1 represents the weight of the first parameter feature, w_n represents the weight of the nth parameter feature, is the evaluation set of n parameter features, and s_1, s_2, s_3, and s_4 represent the scores for four levels: critically healthy, normal, good, and healthy, respectively.”, where in the background discussion of [n002] the art discusses how current ways to monitor the health state of a device hinders the ability to adapt the changes to equipment dynamically and in [n0005] the art states they fix the monitoring of the health state of a device. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the monitoring of the health state would lead to the determination on if maintenance and operational changes should be made.).
Liu does not teach a sintering device.
Chen teaches a sintering device ([0004] “Sintering is one of the important processes in steel production. The existing sintering method uses a belt sintering machine.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a sintering device as found in Chen to the method of determining the health state of equipment as discussed in Liu for the purpose of determining the health state of a sintering device. This is advantageous because sintering is an important industrial process in steel making and determining the health state of sintering equipment allows for the determination and carry out of maintenance to be less time consuming and safer for the worker (e.g., [0004], Chen).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu teaches, an acquisition module, configured to acquire state information, wherein the state information of the sintering device comprises at least one state parameter of the device ([n0028] “The normalization unit is used to normalize the detection data of equipment-related parameter characteristics;”); and a determination module, configured to determine a health state of the device according to the state information of the device and a preset health state evaluation rule; wherein the health state of the device is used for indicating intelligent operation and maintenance for the device ([n0030] “A determining unit is configured to determine the weights of the parameter features using an average weighting method and an entropy weighting method, and to determine the health status of the device using the following formula based on the weights of the parameter features and an evaluation set of multiple parameter features;” where in the background discussion of [n002] the art discusses how current ways to monitor the health state of a device hinders the ability to adapt the changes to equipment dynamically and in [n0005] the art states they fix the monitoring of the health state of a device. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the monitoring of the health state would lead to the determination on if maintenance and operational changes should be made.).
Liu does not teach a sintering device.
Chen teaches a sintering device ([0004] “Sintering is one of the important processes in steel production. The existing sintering method uses a belt sintering machine.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a sintering device as found in Chen to the method of determining the health state of equipment as discussed in Liu for the purpose of determining the health state of a sintering device. This is advantageous because sintering is an important industrial process in steel making and determining the health state of sintering equipment allows for the determination and carry out of maintenance to be less time consuming and safer for the worker (e.g., [0004], Chen).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Liu further teaches determining a parameter health state set according to the state information of the device, wherein the parameter health state set comprises a deviation value corresponding to at least one state parameter of the device ([n0061] “Before normalizing the detection data of equipment-related parameter features, it is necessary to first determine how many equipment-related parameter features there are, and how many sets of detection data correspond to each parameter feature. Then, each parameter feature and the corresponding detection data are processed separately.”; [n0073] “Here, the parameter weights are determined based on how close each parameter characteristic is to its limit value. The closer the parameter characteristic is to the limit value, the worse the health status of the equipment, and the greater the weight of the parameter in assessing the health status of the equipment.”); and determining the health state of the device according to the parameter health state set ([n0048] “Wherein, S_H represents the health status of the equipment, w_1 represents the weight of the first parameter feature, w_n represents the weight of the nth parameter feature, is the evaluation set of n parameter features, and s_1, s_2, s_3, and s_4 represent the scores for four levels: critically healthy, normal, good, and healthy, respectively.”).
Liu does not teach a sintering device.
Chen teaches a sintering device ([0004] “Sintering is one of the important processes in steel production. The existing sintering method uses a belt sintering machine.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a sintering device as found in Chen to the method of determining the health state of equipment as discussed in Liu for the purpose of determining the health state of a sintering device. This is advantageous because sintering is an important industrial process in steel making and determining the health state of sintering equipment allows for the determination and carry out of maintenance to be less time consuming and safer for the worker (e.g., [0004], Chen).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Liu further teaches for any state parameter of the device, determining a deviation value corresponding to the state parameter of the device according to the state parameter of the device and a preset reference value corresponding to the state parameter of the device ([n0060] “the design of data normalization ensures that the greater the deviation of the detected value of a feature from the standard value, the smaller its normalized value, which indicates that the health status of the device is worse.”).
Liu does not teach a sintering device.
Chen teaches a sintering device ([0004] “Sintering is one of the important processes in steel production. The existing sintering method uses a belt sintering machine.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a sintering device as found in Chen to the method of determining the health state of equipment as discussed in Liu for the purpose of determining the health state of a sintering device. This is advantageous because sintering is an important industrial process in steel making and determining the health state of sintering equipment allows for the determination and carry out of maintenance to be less time consuming and safer for the worker (e.g., [0004], Chen).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Liu further teaches acquiring initial state parameter information, wherein the initial state parameter information comprises at least one initial state parameter ([n0048] “The method includes: normalizing detection data of equipment-related parameter features;”, where one of ordinary skill in the art would see it obvious to use this method with any data set intended to be monitored, like the initial data from the device); and determining state information of the sintering device according to the initial state parameter information ([n0048] “determining a single-parameter evaluation set of the parameter features using a fuzzy membership function based on the normalized detection data; determining multiple evaluation sets of the parameter features based on the single-parameter evaluation sets; determining the weights of the parameter features using an average weighting method and an entropy weighting method; and determining the health status of the parameter features using a formula based on the weights of the parameter features and the multiple evaluation sets of the parameter features.” where one of ordinary skill in the art would see it obvious to use this method with any data set intended to be monitored, like the initial data from the device).
Liu does not teach a sintering device.
Chen teaches a sintering device ([0004] “Sintering is one of the important processes in steel production. The existing sintering method uses a belt sintering machine.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a sintering device as found in Chen to the method of determining the health state of equipment as discussed in Liu for the purpose of determining the health state of a sintering device. This is advantageous because sintering is an important industrial process in steel making and determining the health state of sintering equipment allows for the determination and carry out of maintenance to be less time consuming and safer for the worker (e.g., [0004], Chen).
Regarding Claims 10, 11, 12, and 16, Liu and Chen teach the limitations of claims 1, 2, 3, and 7, respectively.
Liu further teaches a memory, in which executable program codes are stored; and a processor coupled to the memory; wherein the processor calls the executable program codes stored in the memory to execute the method for evaluating a health state of a device ([n0131] “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium (i.e., memory) that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device (i.e., processor) to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium produce an article of manufacture including instruction (i.e., executable program codes) means that implement the functions specified in one or more flowcharts and/or one or more block diagrams.”)
Liu does not teach a sintering device.
Chen teaches a sintering device ([0004] “Sintering is one of the important processes in steel production. The existing sintering method uses a belt sintering machine.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a sintering device as found in Chen to the method of determining the health state of equipment as discussed in Liu for the purpose of determining the health state of a sintering device. This is advantageous because sintering is an important industrial process in steel making and determining the health state of sintering equipment allows for the determination and carry out of maintenance to be less time consuming and safer for the worker (e.g., [0004], Chen).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 4, 5, and 8, the closest prior art Liu and Chen teach several limitations, and their specifications are rejected below.
Regarding Claim 4, Liu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Liu further teaches determining a device parameter state type according to the parameter health state set ([n0048] “Wherein, S_H represents the health status of the equipment, w_1 represents the weight of the first parameter feature, w_n represents the weight of the nth parameter feature, is the evaluation set of n parameter features, and s_1, s_2, s_3, and s_4 represent the scores for four levels: critically healthy, normal, good, and healthy, respectively.”); determining a parameter deviation set according to the state information of the device, wherein the parameter deviation set comprises a deviation change rate corresponding to at least one state parameter of the device ([n0061] “For example, if there are m sets of detection data for parameter feature x, the normalized value λ_i (i.e., parameter health value data sets) corresponding to the detection data x_i (i.e., parameter health data sets) can be determined according to the following formula (1):”; [n0065] “In formulas (1) and (2), x_s is the ideal standard value, x_u is the upper limit threshold of the parameter, x_l is the lower limit threshold of the parameter (i.e., parameter deviation set), λ_i is the normalized value corresponding to the parameter feature x_i, and is the normalized value of the m groups of detection values corresponding to the parameter feature x_i.”; [n0089] “According to the calculation method of weight w_x2, the greater the degree of change of parameter feature x, the greater its role in state assessment.”); and determining the health state of the device according to the parameter health state set and the parameter deviation set ([n0061] “For example, if there are m sets of detection data for parameter feature x, the normalized value λ_i (i.e., parameter health value data sets) corresponding to the detection data x_i (i.e., parameter health data sets) can be determined according to the following formula (1):”; [n0065] “In formulas (1) and (2), x_s is the ideal standard value, x_u is the upper limit threshold of the parameter, x_l is the lower limit threshold of the parameter (i.e., parameter deviation set), λ_i is the normalized value corresponding to the parameter feature x_i, and is the normalized value of the m groups of detection values corresponding to the parameter feature x_i.”).
Chen teaches a sintering device ([0004] “Sintering is one of the important processes in steel production. The existing sintering method uses a belt sintering machine.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a sintering device as found in Chen to the method of determining the health state of equipment as discussed in Liu for the purpose of determining the health state of a sintering device. This is advantageous because sintering is an important industrial process in steel making and determining the health state of sintering equipment allows for the determination and carry out of maintenance to be less time consuming and safer for the worker (e.g., [0004], Chen).
However, Liu and Chen do not teach determining whether the device parameter state type is matched with a fault type to obtain a first matching result; the first matching result indicates that the device parameter state type is matched with the fault type; the first matching result indicates that the device parameter state type is mismatched with the fault type. There is no evidence to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to modify the prior arts in such a way to arrive at the amended claim invention.
Similarly, no art rejection is applied to further dependent claims 5, 6, and 13-15.
Regarding Claim 8, Liu and Chen teach the limitations of claim 1.
Liu further teaches determining an initial state parameter type set according to the initial state parameter information, wherein the initial state parameter type set comprises a parameter type corresponding to at least one initial state parameter ([n0048] “determining a single-parameter evaluation set of the parameter features using a fuzzy membership function based on the normalized detection data; determining multiple evaluation sets of the parameter features based on the single-parameter evaluation sets; determining the weights of the parameter features using an average weighting method and an entropy weighting method; and determining the health status of the parameter features using a formula based on the weights of the parameter features and the multiple evaluation sets of the parameter features.” where one of ordinary skill in the art would see it obvious to use this method with any data set intended to be monitored, like the initial data from the device);
Chen teaches a sintering device ([0004] “Sintering is one of the important processes in steel production. The existing sintering method uses a belt sintering machine.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a sintering device as found in Chen to the method of determining the health state of equipment as discussed in Liu for the purpose of determining the health state of a sintering device. This is advantageous because sintering is an important industrial process in steel making and determining the health state of sintering equipment allows for the determination and carry out of maintenance to be less time consuming and safer for the worker (e.g., [0004], Chen).
However, Liu and Chen do not teach any initial state parameter, determining whether the parameter type corresponding to the initial state parameter satisfies a processing condition or not, so as to obtain a first determination result. There is no evidence to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to modify the prior arts in such a way to arrive at the amended claim invention.
Similarly, no art rejection is applied to further dependent claim 17.
Since claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, 103 and 112(b), claims 4-6, 8, 13-15, and 17 are not allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma L. Alexander whose telephone number is (571)270-0323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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 T 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.
/EMMA ALEXANDER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights