DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uchida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0307480 A1) (hereinafter "UCHIDA").
Regarding claim 1
UCHIDA discloses a diagnostic device configured to diagnose a predetermined state related to an industrial machine (see para. [0042] "A machine 1000 is a machine comprised in, e.g., railroad or construction equipment. Values of, e.g., engine pressure, cooling water temperature, and revolving speed are measured from sensors installed on respective parts of the machine and sent to an analysis device 1100”), the diagnostic device comprising:
a data acquisition unit configured to acquire data indicating a predetermined state related to the industrial machine (see para. [0054], UCHIDA teaches a trend data storing unit that collects and stores sensor data representing the operating state of the industrial machine, disclosing that "A trend data storing unit 1140 in FIG. 1 is a database storing data sensed by sensors such as engine pressure and revolving speed measured from the machine 1000 comprised in, e.g., railroad or construction equipment");
a diagnostic unit configured to calculate an abnormality degree of the state for the data acquired by the data acquisition unit based on a deviation degree from a distribution of the data acquired in a reference state (see para. [0004], UCHIDA teaches a diagnosis unit that calculates an abnormality degree using a cluster-based distance calculation measuring deviation from a reference distribution, disclosing that "A distance 16120 from the clusters is calculated as a degree of abnormality, i.e., an abnormality degree and compared with a threshold value of abnormality degree; if it is larger, the machine is diagnosed to be abnormal");
a change rate calculation unit configured to calculate a change degree of the abnormality degree as a change rate (see para. [0081], UCHIDA teaches a display data filtering calculation unit that calculates the abnormality degree change rate based on mathematical formulations of changes in abnormality values, disclosing that "At S9300, the process calculates an abnormality degree change rate= 'a change amount of abnormality degree/a change amount of a parameter' ");
a first alert generation unit configured to compare the abnormality degree with an abnormality degree threshold and determine whether or not a predetermined notification is necessary (see para. [0064], UCHIDA teaches comparing the abnormality degree against an abnormality degree threshold to diagnose abnormalities, disclosing that "False alert: the abnormality degree is above or at the abnormality degree threshold value 12700, whereas no abnormality occurs according to the maintenance history");
a second alert generation unit configured to compare the change rate with a change rate threshold and determine whether or not the predetermined notification is necessary (see para. [0080] - [0081], UCHIDA teaches comparing the abnormality degree change rate with a threshold value to decide if data should be displayed, disclosing that "If a narrow down condition 7200 for display by abnormality degree change rate is enabled at S9250, the process proceeds to S9300. At S9300, the process calculates an abnormality degree change rate... and, if the calculated rate is larger than the threshold value of abnormality degree change rate 12600 in FIG. 12, the process permits displaying data"); and
a notification unit configured to output the predetermined notification based on results of determinations by the first alert generation unit and the second alert generation unit (see para. [0044], UCHIDA teaches a display unit serving as the notification unit that outputs visual data and alerts to the operator based on the combined threshold judgments of abnormality degrees and abnormality degree change rates, disclosing that "A display unit 1190 is comprised of a liquid crystal display or the like and is a device that displays screens illustrated in FIGS. 3 through 8, which will be described later").
Regarding claim 8
UCHIDA teaches a computer-readable recording medium recording a program causing a computer to execute processing for diagnosing a predetermined state related to an industrial machine, the computer-readable recording medium recording the program causing the computer to operate as:
a data acquisition unit configured to acquire data indicating a predetermined state related to the industrial machine (see para. [0054], UCHIDA teaches a trend data storing unit that collects and stores sensor data representing the operating state of the industrial machine, disclosing that "A trend data storing unit 1140 in FIG. 1 is a database storing data sensed by sensors such as engine pressure and revolving speed measured from the machine 1000 comprised in, e.g., railroad or construction equipment");
a diagnostic unit configured to calculate an abnormality degree of the state for the data acquired by the data acquisition unit based on a deviation degree from a distribution of the data acquired in a reference state (see para. [0004], UCHIDA teaches a diagnosis unit that calculates an abnormality degree using a cluster-based distance calculation measuring deviation from a reference distribution, disclosing that "A distance 16120 from the clusters is calculated as a degree of abnormality, i.e., an abnormality degree and compared with a threshold value of abnormality degree; if it is larger, the machine is diagnosed to be abnormal");
a change rate calculation unit configured to calculate a change degree of the abnormality degree as a change rate (see para. [0081], UCHIDA teaches a display data filtering calculation unit that calculates the abnormality degree change rate based on mathematical formulations of changes in abnormality values, disclosing that "At S9300, the process calculates an abnormality degree change rate= 'a change amount of abnormality degree/a change amount of a parameter' ");
a first alert generation unit configured to compare the abnormality degree with an abnormality degree threshold and determine whether or not a predetermined notification is necessary (see para. [0064], UCHIDA teaches comparing the abnormality degree against an abnormality degree threshold to diagnose abnormalities, disclosing that "False alert: the abnormality degree is above or at the abnormality degree threshold value 12700, whereas no abnormality occurs according to the maintenance history");
a second alert generation unit configured to compare the change rate with a change rate threshold and determine whether or not the predetermined notification is necessary (see para. [0080] - [0081], UCHIDA teaches comparing the abnormality degree change rate with a threshold value to decide if data should be displayed, disclosing that "If a narrow down condition 7200 for display by abnormality degree change rate is enabled at S9250, the process proceeds to S9300. At S9300, the process calculates an abnormality degree change rate... and, if the calculated rate is larger than the threshold value of abnormality degree change rate 12600 in FIG. 12, the process permits displaying data"); and
a notification unit configured to output the predetermined notification based on results of determinations by the first alert generation unit and the second alert generation unit (see para. [0044], UCHIDA teaches a display unit serving as the notification unit that outputs visual data and alerts to the operator based on the combined threshold judgments of abnormality degrees and abnormality degree change rates, disclosing that "A display unit 1190 is comprised of a liquid crystal display or the like and is a device that displays screens illustrated in FIGS. 3 through 8, which will be described later").
Regarding claim 4
UCHIDA discloses the diagnostic device according to claim 1, wherein the change rate calculation unit calculates the change rate based on a statistic with at least one most recently calculated abnormality degree (see para. [0081], UCHIDA teaches calculating an abnormality degree change rate using a change amount of abnormality degree derived from the most recently calculated abnormality degree values, disclosing that "At S9300, the process calculates an abnormality degree change rate='a change amount of abnormality degree/a change amount of a parameter' and, if the calculated rate is larger than the threshold value of abnormality degree change rate 12600 in FIG. 12, the process permits displaying data and proceeds to S9350. Because a numerator in calculating the abnormality degree change rate is a change amount of abnormality degree, it can be calculated similarly as in S9200").
Regarding claim 5
UCHIDA discloses the diagnostic device according to claim 1, further comprising a user interface unit for setting the abnormality degree threshold and the change rate threshold (see para. [0072], UCHIDA teaches a diagnostic system featuring a user interface that enables an operator to configure and set both the abnormality degree threshold and the change rate threshold, disclosing that "Besides, a threshold value of abnormality degree difference for a narrow down condition 7100 and a threshold value of abnormality degree change rate for a narrow down condition 7200 are settable").
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over UCHIDA in view of Maekawa et al. (US-20040068394-A1) (hereinafter "MAEKAWA").
Regarding claim 2
UCHIDA discloses the diagnostic device of claim 1 but lacks an explicit disclosure of calculating a statistic of abnormality degrees at certain time intervals and treating the calculated statistic as the abnormality degree.
However, in the same field of endeavor, MAEKAWA discloses calculating a statistic (such as a moving average or cycle average) over set time intervals (sampling periods or machining cycles) to mitigate noise. MAEKAWA discloses: "In such machining, in order to keep track of a load condition of a cutting tool during machining, a load needs to be sampled at short sampling intervals of about several milliseconds or less to subject these several loads to processing of moving averages and the like so as to eliminate variations in data due to noise signals..." (para. [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify UCHIDA's diagnostic device to incorporate MAEKAWA's teaching of calculating a statistic of abnormality degrees over certain time intervals and treating it as the abnormality degree to eliminate noise and improve diagnostic accuracy. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because applying standard statistical smoothing techniques like moving averages to time-series diagnostic data was a well-known, predictable method in the art of machine diagnostics.
Regarding claim 3
UCHIDA discloses the diagnostic device of claim 1 but lacks an explicit disclosure of calculating the change rate based on a difference from an abnormality degree calculated before one time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, MAEKAWA discloses calculating a change rate based on a difference from an abnormality degree calculated before one time by comparing values from the current machining cycle to the cycle immediately before. MAEKAWA discloses: "Therefore, by comparing values T, S, and G of a machining cycle with values T, S, and G of a machining cycle immediately before the cycle, a tool breakage can be detected." (para. [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify UCHIDA's change rate calculation unit to calculate the change rate based on a difference from an abnormality degree calculated before one time as taught by MAEKAWA. One of ordinary skill in the art, recognizing the goal of detecting rapid changes or tool breakages as identified in MAEKAWA, would have been motivated to apply this simple difference calculation to UCHIDA's time-series abnormality degrees to identify sudden operational shifts. A reasonable expectation of success existed because calculating a difference between consecutive time-series data points is a standard mathematical operation that yields highly predictable results when implemented in computer-based diagnostic software.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over UCHIDA in view of Henricks et al. (US-20060077607-A1) (hereinafter "HENRICKS").
Regarding claim 7
UCHIDA discloses the diagnostic device of claim 1 but lacks an explicit disclosure of managing whether or not a user has confirmed the predetermined notification for each predetermined notification.
However, in the same field of endeavor, HENRICKS discloses an alarm management and response dispatch system that actively manages the confirmation status of each individual alarm notification by monitoring user acknowledgments. HENRICKS discloses: "When a responder receives the message and is able to investigate the alarm condition, the responder may select the acknowledge alarm link 884, and if so selected, a circuit protector alarm acknowledgement window 940 is displayed." (para. [0270]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify UCHIDA's notification unit to incorporate HENRICKS's teaching of managing notification confirmation status for each notification. HENRICKS teaches that managing user acknowledgment of alarms ensures that "affected circuitry may be quickly evaluated" and allows the system to "escalate the alarm" if not acknowledged within a reasonable time frame (paras. [0243], [0247]). One of skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate this acknowledgment tracking into UCHIDA's diagnostic device to ensure that critical machine alerts are actually seen and acted upon by operators, preventing catastrophic machine failures due to ignored notifications. A reasonable expectation of success existed because alarm acknowledgment and escalation protocols were standard administrative features of industrial monitoring software and their integration into UCHIDA's notification system would utilize conventional programming methods to achieve predictable tracking results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, taken either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the user interface unit displays the abnormality degree calculated by the diagnostic unit in time series, and receives input of timing of notification from display content and an allowable over-detection frequency, wherein the diagnostic device further comprises a parameter adjustment unit configured to automatically adjust the abnormality degree threshold, the change rate threshold, and other parameters based on the received input of the notification timing and the allowable over-detection frequency, and the abnormality degree, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 would be improper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 572‐3689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday ‐ Thursday 7 AM ‐ 4 PM.
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.
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.
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights