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 1-18 filed on 7/26/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-017726, filed on 2/8/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 7/26/2024 and 10/19/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/26/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 7/26/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites, “The test condition determination device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the test condition associated with a higher degree of similarity to the tag information when there is no match with the tag information in the database.”. In particular, it is not clear what constitutes how to ascertain what it means by “higher degree of similarity”? Does the system determine a component type that is the same/similar to the tag information? Does the system compare operation data to determine that it would be associated with a particular test? In order to further prosecution, any prior art that discloses any function of selecting test information for a device that does not exist in a database as reading on the limitation until corrections are made.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “determine the test condition from the acquired tag information and the database.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of simply determining a test condition associated with an acquired tag from a database which can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus, falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 additionally recites, “acquire the tag information from the facility device,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 1 further recites, “A test condition determination device configured to determine a test condition for a facility device, the facility device being assigned with tag information for each item of data,”, “a control unit;”, and “a storage unit that stores a database in which the tag information and the test condition are associated with each other,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, describes the structural aspects of the system and their functions which just generally applies the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “a control unit” and “a storage unit”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
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 tag 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”).
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 3-4 and 11-12 include limitations of determine a test condition with a high degree of similarity to the tag and update a database, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, include limitations which can reasonably be performed in the human mind/with pen and paper which fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For instance, claims 8 and 16, include a display device for displaying various information regarding the tag/test condition, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply displays data to a user which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claims 6 and 14, include limitations of receiving a test condition, 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, claims 2, 7, 9-10, 15, and 17-18, each include limitations of, describing contents of the test condition to include time and signal pattern, tag information is associated with data while a device is operating, providing a new button when a test condition is not available, and the test condition determines the level of communication between a controlled device and monitoring device, 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 test condition 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”).
***Examiner’s note: the office would like to make note that claims 5 and 13, each include limitations that include performing a test based on the test condition, which if incorporated in its entirety into the independent claims would show significantly more than the abstract idea and overcome the current 101 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 1-2, 4-7, 10, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokota et al. (US PGPUB 20190369611).
Regarding Claim 1; Yokota teaches; A test condition determination device configured to determine a test condition for a facility device, the facility device being assigned with tag information for each item of data, the test condition determination device comprising: (Yokota; at least paragraphs [0008] and [0058]; disclose a maintenance device for determining a test condition for a field device)
a control unit; and (Yokota; at least Fig. 1; paragraph [0030]; disclose a device maintenance apparatus (1) which contains a CPU (11))
a storage unit that stores a database in which the tag information and the test condition are associated with each other, the control unit being configured to acquire the tag information from the facility device, and (Yokota; at least Fig. 1; paragraphs [0030], [0045], and [0058]; disclose memory units (12-14) which store test patterns associated with specific identification/tag information for respective field devices)
determine the test condition from the acquired tag information and the database. (Yokota; at least paragraph [0058]; disclose wherein when an inexperienced operator selects a specific device tag, the system loads an associated test pattern with the selected field device).
Regarding Claim 2; Yokota teaches; The test condition determination device according to claim 1, wherein the test condition includes an elapsed time and a signal pattern output by the facility device. (Yokota; at least paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12; Yokota teaches; The test condition determination device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to update the database to allow the test condition that has been determined or the test condition that a user has desirably set to be associated with the tag information assigned to the item. (Yokota; at least paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13; Yokota teaches; The test condition determination device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the facility device to perform a test based on the test condition. (Yokota; at least paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14; Yokota teaches; The test condition determination device according to claim 1, wherein the tag information in the database is associated with a plurality of the test conditions that are selectable, and the control unit receives one of the test conditions, the one of the test conditions being selected from the plurality of test conditions. (Yokota; at least paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 15; Yokota teaches; The test condition determination device according to claim 1, wherein the tag information is information that is assigned to the item of data measured and stored while the facility device is operating and that includes one or more tags representing a meaning of the data. (Yokota; at least paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18; Yokota teaches; The test condition determination device according to claim 1, wherein the test condition is a condition usable to evaluate soundness of content of communication between the facility device and a monitoring device that monitors the facility device. (Yokota; at least paragraphs [0052]-[0058]).
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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et al. (US PGPUB 20190369611) in view of Tange (JP6865942).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11; Yokota appears to be silent on; The test condition determination device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the test condition associated with a higher degree of similarity to the tag information when there is no match with the tag information in the database.
However, Tange teaches; The test condition determination device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the test condition associated with a higher degree of similarity to the tag information when there is no match with the tag information in the database. (Tange; at least paragraphs [0120]-[0122]; disclose a system and method for creating test designs (i.e. test patterns of Yokota) for associated equipment and wherein when a user wants to perform a new test with a selected piece of equipment, the system can retrieve stored test designs that are similar or the same to other pieces of equipment, and present the saved designs ranked based on how highly similar/same they correspond to the selected equipment).
Yokota and Tange are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, equipment test pattern creation, selection, and 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 providing ranked designs for equipment that do not have preexisting associations as taught by Tange with the known system of a test pattern selection and control system as taught by Yokota in order to provide a system for providing quality and budge conscious design development as disclosed by Tange (paragraph [0002]).
Claims 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et al. (US PGPUB 20190369611) in view of Tange (JP6865942) in further view of Furihata et al. (US PGPUB 20190384685).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16; Yokota teaches; The test condition determination device according to claim 1, further comprising: a display unit, (Yokota; at least Figs. 1 and 3-4B; disclose a touch panel display for displaying test pattern selection and execution)
the test condition that the control unit has determined. (Yokota; at least Figs. 3-6; disclose displaying the test condition selected).
Yokota appears to be silent on; the display unit being configured to display the tag information that the control unit has acquired,
a degree of similarity between the tag information and the tag information in the database, and
However, Tange teaches; a degree of similarity between the tag information and the tag information in the database, and (Tange; at least paragraph [0122]; disclose displaying a list of design patterns ranked that are similar to a device)
Yokota and Tange are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, equipment test pattern creation, selection, and 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 displaying a ranking of design specifications for equipment that do not have preexisting associations as taught by Tange with the known system of a test pattern selection and control system as taught by Yokota in order to provide a system for providing quality and budge conscious design development as disclosed by Tange (paragraph [0002]).
The combination of Yokota and Tange appear to be silent on; the display unit being configured to display the tag information that the control unit has acquired,
However, Furihata teaches; the display unit being configured to display the tag information that the control unit has acquired, (Furihata; at least Fig. 4; paragraph [0087]; disclose a display device for displaying a testing pattern as well as providing a display of the tag number (i.e. FI-1002A) within the respective display).
Yokota, Tange, and Furihata are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, equipment test pattern creation, selection, and 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 displaying tag information for selected equipment as taught by Furihata with the known system of a test pattern selection and control system as taught by Yokota and Tange in order to provide a system for providing a way to quickly link testing procedures to associated equipment as disclosed by Furihata (paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17; the combination of Yokota, Tange, and Furihata teach; The test condition determination device according to claim 8, wherein when the test condition is not selectable, the control unit is configured to provide a button for newly setting a test condition via the display unit. (Yokota; at least paragraph [0058]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yokota et al. (US PGPUB 20180204165): disclose a system and method for storing a plurality of maintenance procedures and in response to an operator selecting a piece of equipment on a maintenance operation device, providing the operator with associated maintenance procedures associated with the device.
Wagner et al. (US PGPUB 20230073230): disclose an automated test equipment device for receiving information regarding a device and in response, generating maintenance instructions associated with aspects of the device.
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