Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “estimator” and “identifier” and “notifier” in claim 16.
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.
“estimator” - Fig. 5 processor 212 executes program to estimate productivity using production model, simulation/machine learning model, statistical model. Spec. paras 0099, 0104.
“identifier” - Fig. 5 processor 212 executes program to identify equipment with highest set priority as target. Spec. para. 0100.
“notifier” - Fig. 5 processor 212 executes program to receive identified target and transmits to terminal device 300. Spec. para. 0196.
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 § 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s):
16. (Original) An equipment recovery notification device comprising:
(a) an estimator that, when two or more units of equipment among units of equipment that execute a first process are stopped, estimates, from among one or more units of subsequent-process equipment that execute a second process subsequent to the first process, a productivity of one or more units of the subsequent-process equipment that use at least one of components produced by the two or more units of equipment;
(b) an identifier that identifies one unit of equipment among the two or more units of equipment as target equipment for recovery work, based on the productivity of the one or more units of subsequent-process equipment; and
(c) a notifier that notifies of the target equipment identified.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim above is directed to the abstract idea- mental process groupings of collecting data, analyzing and displaying the results. The limitations above have all been interpreted to invoke 112(f) and thus include the structure from the specification to carry out the recited functions. Limitation (a) is directed to an abstract idea because it recites a data collection step and a computation step to estimate “productivity” affected by stopped machines, broad enough to encompass a mental process. Limitation (b) sets forth another abstract idea by analyzing the collected data and identifying the top priority target equipment, the mental process of making a judgment or opinion. Limitation (c) merely recites transmitting the results for display to an worker, a mental process of communicating the judgment or opinion. But for the included generic computer elements recited in the claim, the steps amount to no more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer. The claim is similar to those grouped in the “mental processes” cases because each limitation is recited at a high level of generality and could practically be performed in the mind but for the generic computer components. For example, a worker could observe which workstations have stopped and looked up data on production capacity and then judged mentally the first machine to attend, the second, etc. based on opinion. Or by pen and paper computed the machines most affected because of downstream starved machines and rank order the priority list. Thus, the claim sets forth the use of computer as a tool rather than any improvement of the tool itself.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no recitation which results in the actual improvement of the throughput of the production line, merely the suggestion of priorities of stopped machines which might improve throughput. The analysis of the abstract ideas identified are carried over from above. Which, because the limitations are recited at a high level of generality are broad enough to encompass performance in the human mind or on pen and paper to form a judgment or opinion as to which machines should be targeted first. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite collection of data, identifying a priority target, and transmitting the results.
STEP 2B (search for inventive concept):
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not set forth any improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or the technical field of manufacturing. There is no transformation or reduction of an article to a different state or thing. The claims recite insignificant extra-solution in the data gathering step as well as the notifying step. The claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception when considered either individually or in combination. The identification of highest priority machine to repair to improve manufacturing line performance is something which can be characterized as well understood, routine and conventional. In Steinhilper US 2007/0162163 A1, a simulation of throughput depending on events is calculated and work stations are ranked. The disclosure teaches that some machines can be identified which result in no meaningful improvement on throughput and thus less time can be allocated to repair. Para. 0032 teaches, “The ranking may further be with respect to, for example, cost, maintenance priorities, production throughput.”
Regarding claims 2-15 and 17, claim 2 further recites that a threshold value is set to determine priority, again this could be accomplished via human mental judgment on pen and paper and is thus a further mental process - abstract idea. Regarding claim 3, sets forth comparing priorities and identifying target equipment based on higher priority. Again, this is broad enough to encompass judgment via mental process, an abstract idea. Regarding claim 4, this claim puts forth setting priority by comparing component quantity, which could be performed via pen and paper to compute which machine to repair first. Regarding claim 5, this claim puts forth identifying the target machines based on priority via productivity. This claim recites a further abstract idea because again, productivity can be estimated or derived via human judgement. Claim 6 further puts forth a specific quantity which throughput will increase by and further specifies that target machines are downstream. Again, a human can observe a production line and that downstream equipment can be affected by output of machines before, to calculate specific quantities. Claim 7 further recites a mathematical computation using weighting information, an abstract idea. Claim 8 further recites the use of a weight of the target machines and prioritizing machines with more weight, again a computation or calculation that could be performed in the head or pen and paper. Claim 9 further recites a calculation, an mathematical formulae and thus abstract. Claim 10 further recites an abstract idea because it recites the math calculation of summing the estimated quantities. Claim 11 is similarly abstract because it recites setting an input to zero, a data gathering step. Claim 12 is abstract because it further adds inputting data to a machine learning model, insignificant extra solution data gathering. Claim 13 is abstract because it recites the display of the results. Claim 14 similarly further recites displaying the results, abstract. Claim 15 further sets forth targeting the machine with greater component quantity, a mental process via pen and paper. Claim 17 further recites a terminal device for outputting the displayed results, insignificant extra-solution and not significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/GARY COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights