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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/02/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 7, claim limitation “data selection circuitry for an operator to select an arbitrary data range of a first graph in the first graph and a second graph displayed on a display to be operated by the operator” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. It is unclear to indicate if the arbitrary data range is selected in both the first graph and the second graph, or if the arbitrary data range of the first graph is selected in both the first graph and the second graph. Examiner note that paragraphs 0014 and 0018 of the instant application describes “a data selection means 110 to select an arbitrary data range in the graph” and “the operator selects arbitrary data on the graph, the data range can also be designated by inputting a numerical expression such as a threshold value or an inequality.”
In claim 7, claim limitation “creating guidance for visualizing and displaying the history recorded in the data selection history database, the guidance indicating the operation information that is operation content and an operation procedure performed by the operator” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. It is unclear to indicate how and/or at what reference/data/values/features the guidance is created, and/or what previous features of claim 7 is associated with the feature of creating the guidance.
Claims 8-16 are also rejected by virtue of each dependency on claim 7.
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 7
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A plant operation assistance device comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
data selection circuitry for an operator to select an arbitrary data range of a first graph in the first graph and a second graph displayed on a display to be operated by the operator;
“select an arbitrary data range …” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (i.e., the arbitrary data range) used to perform mathematical processes.
“data selection circuitry” and “a display” are high level of generalities.
a data selection database to record operation information of the operator including the selection of the data range performed through the data selection circuitry;
“record operation information of the operator ~” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
“a data selection database” is a high level of generality.
a measurement data database to accumulate measurement data measured by a measurement device;
“accumulate measurement data measured by a measurement device” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (i.e., the measurement data) used to perform mathematical processes.
“a measurement data database” and “a measurement device” are high level of generalities.
a data selection history database to record a history of the operation information performed through the data selection circuitry;
“record a history of the operation information performed through the data selection circuitry” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
“a data selection history database” is a high level of generality.
a processor to execute a program; and
a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of,
“execute a program” and “store the program” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to perform generic computer functions of a generic computer component.
“a processor” and “a memory” are high level of generalities.
collecting the operation information recorded in the data selection database and the measurement data accumulated in the measurement data database,
“collecting the operation information recorded in the data selection database and the measurement data accumulated …” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (i.e., the operation information and the measurement data) used to perform mathematical processes.
creating a data analysis graph in which the data related to operator selected data of the first graph is highlighted in the second graph, by using the operation information and the collected measurement data, and
abstract idea
mathematical concept
“creating a data analysis graph ~” is a math process based on the collected data.
creating guidance for visualizing and displaying the history recorded in the data selection history database, the guidance indicating the operation information that is operation content and an operation procedure performed by the operator.
abstract idea
mathematical concept
“creating guidance for visualizing and displaying the history” is a math process based on the collected data.
Claims 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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. Claims 7-16 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations recited in Claim 7, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “creating a data analysis graph in which the data related to operator selected data of the first graph is highlighted in the second graph, by using the operation information and the collected measurement data” and “creating guidance for visualizing and displaying the history recorded in the data selection history database, the guidance indicating the operation information that is operation content and an operation procedure performed by the operator” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring data analysis graph based on the collected routine data (i.e., the operation information and the collected measurement data) to thereby determine or calculate the guidance by performing mathematical calculations and/or data processing related to data analysis using a mathematical algorithm/arithmetic model (see paragraphs 0025-0027 in the instant application).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a processor to perform mathematical calculations of “creating a data analysis graph in which the data related to operator selected data of the first graph is highlighted in the second graph, by using the operation information and the collected measurement data” and “creating guidance for visualizing and displaying the history recorded in the data selection history database, the guidance indicating the operation information that is operation content and an operation procedure performed by the operator”. The additional elements of the data selection circuitry, the display, the data selection database, the measurement data database, the measurement device, the data selection history database, the processor, and the memory are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., the arbitrary data range, the operation information and the collected measurement data) and to perform generic computer functions related to mathematical calculations and/or data processing itself of a generic computer component. The limitations of “select an arbitrary data range of a first graph in the first graph and a second graph displayed on a display to be operated by the operator”, “accumulate measurement data measured by a measurement device” and “collecting the operation information recorded in the data selection database and the measurement data accumulated in the measurement data database” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary merely recited to collect routine data (i.e., the arbitrary data range, the operation information and the collected measurement data) to be used for performing abstract idea of mathematical calculations. The limitations of “record a history of the operation information performed through the data selection circuitry” and “execute a program; and … to store the program” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to merely perform generic computer functions of a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As addressed above, the limitations of “select an arbitrary data range of a first graph in the first graph and a second graph displayed on a display to be operated by the operator”, “accumulate measurement data measured by a measurement device”, “collecting the operation information recorded in the data selection database and the measurement data accumulated in the measurement data database”, “record a history of the operation information performed through the data selection circuitry” and “execute a program; and … to store the program” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary merely recited to collect routine data (i.e., the arbitrary data range, the operation information and the collected measurement data) to be used for performing abstract idea of mathematical calculations and/or to merely perform generic computer functions of a generic computer component, where these limitations do not present an inventive concept which may be indicative of specifying a feature related to creating the data analysis graphs and creating the guidance for visualizing and displaying the history. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the processor to perform “creating a data analysis graph in which the data related to operator selected data of the first graph is highlighted in the second graph, by using the operation information and the collected measurement data” and “creating guidance for visualizing and displaying the history recorded in the data selection history database, the guidance indicating the operation information that is operation content and an operation procedure performed by the operator” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 8-16, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 7. The limitations of “records the operation information including the selection of the data range performed by the operator in the data analysis graph” in claim 7, and “records the calculated analysis results in an analysis result database” in claims 9 and 10 are insignificant extra-solution activities to merely perform generic computer functions, such as storing data in a memory, of a generic computer component. The limitation of “calculates a correlation between the collected data” in claims 9 and 10 may encompass mathematically calculating the correlation based on the collected routine data. The limitation of “collects and links the operation information recorded in the data selection history database and the analysis results recorded in the analysis result database, and performs guidance display thereof” in claim 11 and 12 is an insignificant extra-solution activity to merely collect routine data and perform generic computer functions of a generic computer component. The limitation of “classifies the analysis results recorded in the analysis result database by analysis method” in claims 13 and 14 may encompass mathematically calculation related to classifying the analysis results. The limitation of “continuously displays time-series changes of data by an animation method” in claims 15 and 16 is an insignificant extra-solution activity to merely perform generic computer functions, such as displaying data in a displayer, of a generic computer component. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 8-16, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to 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.
Claims 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMANAKA et al. (JP 2012138044 A, hereinafter referred to as “YAMANAKA”, cited in IDS dated 04/02/2024) in view of NAKAJIMA et al. (JP 2013008234 A, hereinafter referred to as “NAKAJIMA”, cited in IDS dated 04/02/2024).
Regarding Claim 7, YAMANAKA teaches a plant operation assistance device (Abstract, “a processing state change monitoring device displaying an abnormality diagnosis main screen 40”), comprising:
data selection circuitry for an operator to select an arbitrary data range of a first graph in the first graph (trend graph) and a second graph (graphs in Fig. 16-18) displayed on a display to be operated by the operator (at least paragraphs 0018, 0058-0059, 0060-0061 and 0080 teach selecting the display range, data range of trend graph and graphs in Fig. 16-18 by entering the latest display time and the display period, as well as the minimum and maximum values for the statistic base (vertical axis); para 0058, “the user can change the conditions of the horizontal axis and the vertical axis of the trend graph displayed on the abnormality diagnostic main”; para 0061, “the display period and the display range of the state change detection trigger information display units 44 and 45 are arbitrarily switched”);
a data selection database (database 20) to record operation information (a measurement value and a measurement time) of the operator including the selection of the data range performed through the data selection circuitry (at least paragraphs 0021-0022 teach “the database 20 receives the measurement value transmitted by the monitoring target 30 and records, for example, a measurement time and a measurement time for each item);
a measurement data database (database 20) to accumulate measurement data (values relating to state quantities and operation quantities) measured by a measurement device (a monitoring target (process) 30, sensors) (at least paragraphs 0021-0022 teach “a database 20 in which values relating to state quantities and operation quantities measured by a monitoring target (process) 30 via a network are accumulated”);
a data selection history database (database 20) to record a history of the operation information performed through the data selection circuitry (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the feature of recording a history of the operation information is indicative of recording accumulated, time-series data, which is taught by “values relating to state quantities and operation quantities measured by a monitoring target (process) 30 via a network are accumulated” in at least paragraphs 0021-0024. At least paragraphs 0021-0024 further teach “a database 20 in which values relating to state quantities and operation quantities measured by a monitoring target (process) 30 via a network are accumulated”);
a processor (a calculation unit 16) to execute a program; and
… which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of,
collecting the operation information recorded in the data selection database and the measurement data accumulated in the measurement data database (at least paragraphs 0021-0022 teach the operation information (i.e., measurement value and time) transmitted from sensors and measurement data (i.e., values relating to state quantities and operation quantities); “a database 20 in which values relating to state quantities and operation quantities measured by a monitoring target (process) 30 via a network are accumulated. … a database 20 in which values relating to state quantities and operation quantities measured by a monitoring target (process) 30 via a network are accumulated”).
YAMANAKA fails to explicitly disclose, but NAKAJIMA teaches a memory to store the program (para 00656, “storage unit 12 stores a program, data, and the like referred to by the control unit 11”) … creating a data analysis graph (comparison graph) in which the data related to operator selected data of the first graph is highlighted in the second graph, by using the operation information and the collected measurement data (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least paragraphs 0065-0077 teach creating a comparison graph based on the selected time series data and the elapsed time data, which applies to the claimed feature related to creating the data analysis graph), and
creating guidance for visualizing and displaying the history recorded in the data selection history database, the guidance indicating the operation information that is operation content and an operation procedure performed by the operator (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the creating guidance may be indicative of updating or acquiring data to be displayed on a displayer, which is taught by acquiring and/or updating types of time-series data to be displayed in the display unit 14 at least at paragraphs 0064, 0067-0068; “When acquiring the updated elapsed time data … updates the comparison graph on the basis of the updated elapsed time data. … causes the display unit 14 to display the comparison graph updated … the display control unit 27 causes the display unit 14 to display a list of types of the time-series data acquired by the data acquisition unit 21”, “the display control unit 27 causes the display unit 14 to display a list of types of the time-series data acquired by the data acquisition unit 21 … When the user operates the operation unit 15 and selects the predetermined time-series data D in a state where the list of time-series data types is displayed on the display unit 14, …. It is displayed on the display unit 14”).
YAMANAKA and NAKAJIMA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a process state monitoring apparatus and data analysis system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YAMANAKA to incorporate the teachings of NAKAJIMA by providing a memory to store a program, and operations for creating a data analysis graph (i.e., comparison graph) and creating (i.e., acquiring and/or updating) data to be displayed, as taught by NAKAJIMA at least at paragraphs 0064-0077.
Regarding Claim 8, YAMANAKA teaches wherein the data selection database records the operation information including the selection of the data range performed by the operator in the data analysis graph (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recoding the operation information may be indicative of a general function of a generic storage, which is taught by the database 20 to store operation data at least at paragraphs 0021-0022).
Regarding Claim 9, YAMANAKA teaches wherein the processor calculates a correlation between the collected data (At least paragraphs 0024-0025 teach calculating one or more pieces of diagnostic data generate a small number (usually two) of statistical amount data using correlation information between a plurality of pieces of process measurement data received from the database 20), and
records the calculated analysis results in an analysis result database (At least paragraphs 0024-0025 teach calculating the diagnostic data to estimate the calculated diagnostic data (i.e., the calculated analysis results) and the data are recorded in the database 20).
Regarding Claim 10, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 11, YAMANAKA teaches wherein the processor collects and links the operation information recorded in the data selection history database and the analysis results recorded in the analysis result database, and performs guidance display there (at least paragraphs 0021-0022 teach the operation information (i.e., measurement value and time) transmitted from sensors and measurement data (i.e., values relating to state quantities and operation quantities; “a database 20 in which values relating to state quantities and operation quantities measured by a monitoring target (process) 30 via a network are accumulated. … a database 20 in which values relating to state quantities and operation quantities measured by a monitoring target (process) 30 via a network are accumulated”; At least paragraphs 0067 and 0071, and Fig. 9 teach displaying some operation change; “The user can display the trend graph of the selected candidate variable by selecting the display selection field of the candidate variable for which the trend graph is desired to be displayed and then selecting …. a trend graph or the like of the operation amount in which the plant operator has performed some operation change is displayed”)
Regarding Claim 12, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 11 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 13, YAMANAKA teaches wherein the processor classifies (estimate) the analysis results recorded in the analysis result database by analysis method (Q statistics) (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed feature of classifying the analysis results may be indicative of estimating and/or diagnosing the measurement data (values and time), which is taught, by estimating the measurement variable that is the factor (factor separation) using Q statistics, at least at paragraphs 0026-0027; in particular para 0027, “the calculation unit 16 estimates the measurement variable that is the factor (factor separation). In this cause separation, usually, the T2 statistics and the Q statistics are decomposed into components called contribution amounts of the respective measurement variables, and those having large contribution amounts of the respective measurement variables are estimated as variables having a high possibility of being anomaly causes”).
Regarding Claim 14, it is dependent on claim 10 and has similar limitations as of claim 13 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 13 above.
Regarding Claim 15, YAMANAKA teaches wherein the processor continuously displays time-series changes of data by an animation method (At least paragraph 0024 teaches time-series change of data, “calculate one or more pieces of diagnostic data for providing trigger information for detecting a state change or an abnormality of a process, which is selected or synthesized from time-series data of a processing variable converted or synthesized from at least two or more measurement variables related to a state quantity or a manipulated variable obtained from a given monitoring target (process), detect a state change or an abnormality occurring in the plurality of pieces of time-series data by the diagnostic data”).
Regarding Claim 16, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 15 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 15 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SHIBUYA et al. (US 20150363925 A1) teaches anomaly diagnostic method and their equipment detecting an anomaly early based on a multi-dimensional time series data be output by anomaly sensors, such as plant and equipment, and identifying the sensors related to the detected anomaly, where it comprise a step for calculating the anomaly measure of observation vectors on the basis of the created reference vector for anomaly diagnosis; a step for determining whether the observation vector is abnormal or normal based on the calculated anomaly measure and the calculated threshold value calculated in the step for storing and creating the learning data; a step for displaying an image which the point corresponding to the observation vector determined to be abnormal is plotted superimposed in a time series graph of the anomaly measure, the threshold value and the determinant result, in a time series graph of the sensor signal output from the sensor related with the identified anomaly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights