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 . Claims 1-10 filed on 4/25/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 4/25/2024 and 7/24/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 4/25/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 4/25/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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: “anomaly detection data acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 9; “anomaly detection unit” in claims 1-3 and 9; “anomaly notification unit”, in claims 1-3, 7, and 9; “anomaly analysis data acquisition unit”, in claims 1 and 9; “anomaly analysis unit” in claims 1 and 9; “anomaly detection condition selection unit”, in claims 4 and 6; “anomaly analysis condition selection unit”, in claim 5; “diagnosis history storage unit”, in claim 8; and “diagnosis history presentation unit”, in claim 8.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Claim limitations “anomaly detection data acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 9; “anomaly detection unit” in claims 1-3 and 9; “anomaly notification unit”, in claims 1-3, 7, and 9; “anomaly analysis data acquisition unit”, in claims 1 and 9; “anomaly analysis unit” in claims 1 and 9; “anomaly detection condition selection unit”, in claims 4 and 6; “anomaly analysis condition selection unit”, in claim 5; “diagnosis history storage unit”, in claim 8; and “diagnosis history presentation unit”, in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-8 each depend upon rejected claim 1 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The generic placeholders, “anomaly detection data acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 9; “anomaly detection unit” in claims 1-3 and 9; “anomaly notification unit”, in claims 1-3, 7, and 9; “anomaly analysis data acquisition unit”, in claims 1 and 9; “anomaly analysis unit” in claims 1 and 9; “anomaly detection condition selection unit”, in claims 4 and 6; “anomaly analysis condition selection unit”, in claim 5; “diagnosis history storage unit”, in claim 8; and “diagnosis history presentation unit”, in claim 8; do not contain sufficient written description within the scope of the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-8 each depend upon rejected claim 1 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “an anomaly detection unit that uses the data acquired by the anomaly detection data acquisition unit to detect an anomaly to be diagnosed;” and “an anomaly analysis unit that uses the data to be used for the anomaly analysis obtained in a period including a time of occurrence of the anomaly or uses the data to be used for the anomaly detection and the data to be used for the anomaly analysis obtained in a period including a time of detection of the anomaly to analyze a candidate factor of the anomaly.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of detecting an anomaly based upon acquired data and determining a candidate factor based on the determined anomaly which are all limitations that can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus, fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 additionally recites, “an anomaly notification unit that notifies the anomaly detected by the anomaly detection unit;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just provides a notification of a detected anomaly which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 further recites, “an anomaly detection data acquisition unit that acquires data to be used for anomaly detection;” and “an anomaly analysis data acquisition unit that acquires data to be used for anomaly analysis;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, the limitation of, “An anomaly diagnosis device that is designed to diagnose anomalies occurring in a factory,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering anomaly data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claims 9 and 10 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above. Claim 10 includes the additional limitations of, “one or a plurality of processors” and “a storage medium”, which as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2-5 include limitations of, identifying feature data of an anomaly, determines a degree of abnormality, and determines a selection of data to be used for analysis, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include limitations that can all reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus, fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2-3 and 7-8, each include further limitations of displaying resulting data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely apply the use of the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further claim 8 includes additional limitations of gathering data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering anomaly data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 10 recites, “A storage medium storing a computer readable instruction that causes one or a plurality of processors to…”, wherein a storage medium storing a computer readable instructions, can broadly be interpreted as being directed towards signals per se. Please amend the claims to recite, “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer readable instruction, which when run on one or more processors:”, in order to overcome the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satou et al. (US PGPUB 20190265673).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9-10; Satou teaches; An anomaly diagnosis device that is designed to diagnose anomalies occurring in a factory, the anomaly diagnosis device comprising: (Satou; at least Abstract; paragraph [0046]; disclose an anomaly diagnosis device for detecting/analyzing an abnormality in a machine installed in a factory)
an anomaly detection data acquisition unit that acquires data to be used for anomaly detection; (Satou; at least Fig. 2; paragraph [0030]; disclose a sensor signal obtaining unit (38) (i.e. anomaly detection data acquisition unit) that receives sensor data that is utilized for abnormality/anomaly detection)
an anomaly detection unit that uses the data acquired by the anomaly detection data acquisition unit to detect an anomaly to be diagnosed; (Satou; at least Fig. 2; paragraph [0030]; disclose a abnormality level calculation unit (42) that uses the sensor data to calculate operational abnormality/anomaly levels based on the received data that is then stored to be analyzed by a factor identification unit (44))
an anomaly notification unit that notifies the anomaly detected by the anomaly detection unit; (Satou; at least paragraph [0031]; disclose a control unit that displays a warning based on a detected abnormality/anomaly)
an anomaly analysis data acquisition unit that acquires data to be used for anomaly analysis; and (Satou; at least Fig. 2; paragraph [0030]; disclose a factor identification unit that acquires the stored data generated by the abnormality level calculation unit)
an anomaly analysis unit that uses the data to be used for the anomaly analysis obtained in a period including a time of occurrence of the anomaly or uses the data to be used for the anomaly detection and the data to be used for the anomaly analysis obtained in a period including a time of detection of the anomaly to analyze a candidate factor of the anomaly. (Satou; at least paragraphs [0030]-[0031] and [0037]; disclose wherein the factor identification unit includes determining time-series data associated with the abnormality/anomaly to identify a time of occurrence during a detection period as well as determines various factors that cause the abnormality/anomaly).
Regarding Claim 2; Satou teaches; The anomaly diagnosis device according to claim 1, wherein the anomaly detection unit identifies a feature of data associated with an anomaly based on data in a normal state and an abnormal state, and wherein the anomaly notification unit notifies the feature. (Satou; at least claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3; Satou teaches; The anomaly diagnosis device according to claim 2, wherein the anomaly detection unit determines a degree of abnormality for each feature, and wherein the anomaly notification unit notifies a feature for which the degree of abnormality is high. (Satou; at least paragraphs [0035]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 4; Satou teaches; The anomaly diagnosis device according to claim 1 further comprising an anomaly detection condition selection unit that accepts selection of data to be used for the anomaly detection and an anomaly detection condition to be used for the anomaly detection. (Satou; at least paragraphs [0035]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 5; Satou teaches; The anomaly diagnosis device according to claim 1 further comprising an anomaly analysis condition selection unit that accepts selection of data to be used for the anomaly analysis and an anomaly analysis condition to be used for the anomaly analysis. (Satou; at least paragraphs [0035]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 7; Satou teaches; The anomaly diagnosis device according to claim 1, wherein the anomaly notification unit notifies a degree of abnormality of the data to be used for the anomaly detection in real time. (Satou; at least paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 8; Satou teaches; The anomaly diagnosis device according to claim 1 further comprising: a diagnosis history storage unit that stores a result of anomaly diagnosis; and a diagnosis history presentation unit that presents the result of anomaly diagnosis. (Satou; at least paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al. (US PGPUB 20190265673) in view of Natsumeda (US PGPUB 20170315961).
Regarding Claim 6; Satou appears to be silent on; The anomaly diagnosis device according to claim 3, wherein the anomaly detection condition selection unit accepts selection as to whether the anomaly detection is to prioritize accuracy or prioritize speed and, based on the selection, determines data to be used for the anomaly detection and a model to be used for the anomaly detection.
However, Natsumeda teaches; The anomaly diagnosis device according to claim 3, wherein the anomaly detection condition selection unit accepts selection as to whether the anomaly detection is to prioritize accuracy or prioritize speed and, based on the selection, determines data to be used for the anomaly detection and a model to be used for the anomaly detection. (Natsumeda; at least paragraphs [0070]-[0071]; disclose an anomaly detection and analysis system in which a detection condition can accept input regarding a number of data items to extract for analysis, wherein a greater number of data points extracted result in more accurate anomaly detection and wherein a lower number increases the speed at which the data can be analyzed).
Satou and Natsumeda are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, anomaly detection control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of adjusting anomaly detection based upon the need for speed or accuracy as taught by Natsumeda with the known system of an anomaly detection and identification system as taught by Satou in order to minimize the chance for an erroneous occurrence of an anomaly report as taught by Natsumeda (paragraph [0071]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuo et al. (US PGPUB 2020037009): The invention first performs anomaly detection over data from multiple devices, then calculates contribution indices for the data items associated with the detected anomaly, and finally feeds those indices into a causal-model-based localization algorithm. This bridges system-level anomaly detection and device-level root-cause identification in one pipeline. By using contribution indices instead of only alerts, the system can localize anomalies even when no single device clearly triggered an alert. It can also restrict the causal analysis to devices near the strongest contributors, reducing computation.
Yamamoto et al. (US PGPUB 20220294811): The system first acquires the relevant attribute value for the subject being monitored. It then selects the normal model that matches that attribute value from a set of prebuilt normal models. The selected model is used to judge whether the observed log data is abnormal. In one embodiment, if an attribute changes over time, the system can use both the old and new attribute values during detection. It can also weight those two models based on how long ago the change occurred.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights