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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to for ambiguity as to the scope of “at least one particular variable.” The limitation ‘particular variable’ should be amended to ‘predetermined variable.’ Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Production Device for Self-Monitoring Tool Variations in Material Production.
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:
a variable acquisition section which acquires a first variable inputted to the production device and second variables including at least one state variable related to the target product and an intermediate produced in a process of obtaining the target product from the raw material, 0101 , Figure 5
an estimation section which estimates the state of the production device on the basis of the first variable and the second variables acquired by the variable acquisition section. 0064, Figure 5
an order section for ordering a replacement part for the part that reaches the end of its life on the basis of an output of the life estimation section. 0070-71, Figure 5
a changing section which changes the first variable inputted to the production device on the basis of an output of the estimation section. 0103, figure 5
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 1-6 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 “section” 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. The specification does not describe the particular structures corresponding to each section as claimed. The BRI of each section encompasses at least software. Software lacks a definitive structure. Accordingly, 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 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) an abstract idea directed to a mental process including an estimating the state of the production device on the basis of the first variable and the second variables acquired by the variable acquisition section, claim 1; estimating a life of a part which constitutes the production device.
, claim 2; estimates the life of the part on the basis of the first variable and the particular variable, claim 3; a pre-learned neural network which has undergone machine learning for relating the particular variable to the life of the part, claim 4; ordering a replacement part for the part that reaches the end of its life on the basis of an output of the life estimation section., claim 5; and changing the first variable inputted to the production device on the basis of an output of the estimation section.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the following combination of limitations represent insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.05(g)
a variable acquisition section which acquires a first variable inputted to the production device and second variables including at least one state variable related to the target product and an intermediate produced in a process of obtaining the target product from the raw material, claim 1 (e.g. see tangential data gathering activities, MPEP 2106.05(g) Moreover, each of the sections represent mere instructions to apply the abstract via providing means for computing, MPEP 2106.05(f)
The following combination of limitations generally link the abstract idea to the field of production, MPEP 2106.05(g)
each of the sections, production device, replacement part, neural model, chemical reaction, raw material, and first/second/and intermediate variables, claims 1-6 respectively.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra solution activity is well understood, conventional, and routine, MPEP 2106.05(d).
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(s) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotte et al. (PG/PUB 20180286141) in view over Discenzo (PG/PUB 20030061004).
Claim 1. Cotte et al. teaches a production device (Figure 11A) for obtaining a target product (e.g. chemical, 0037-39) from at least one type of raw material selected from liquid and gaseous materials through a chemical reaction or purification (Figure 1, ABSTRACT, 0037-0040, e,g, see production levels in chemical production), but does not expressly teach estimating the state of the production device itself (e.g. as applied below, a single machine is adapted with the variable and estimation sections for identify abnormal/reduced lifetime of the machine itself). Discenzo teaches estimating the state of the production device described below, the production device comprising:
a variable acquisition section (Figure 1-1002) which acquires a first variable inputted to the
production device (e.g. state or other condition information, wear, efficiency, 0072, see also temperature, vibration, leaks 0082) and second variables including at least one state variable related to the target product (0081, 0070 e.g. see production rates/levels for final product) and an intermediate produced (e.g. see moisture, water, corrosion factors, chemicals produced during processing in final product, 0072) in a process of obtaining the target product from the raw material (0070, 0081 e.g. see the combination of both equipment states, production changes, and intermediate variables contributing to equipment degradation for identifying equipment problems and/or severity, 0082)
an estimation section (Figure 1-1004) which estimates the state of the production device (0073, 0082 e.g. see predicted behavior or problems) on the basis of the first variable and the second variables acquired by the variable acquisition section (e.g. see predicting behavior or problems in rotating equipment, 0039-40, 0073, 0081-82, 0084, 0094, 0113, 0119-0120, 0125 e.g. see combination of equipment states such as wear and other state variables including at least moisture and production rate decline that are used to predict equipment life)
Discenzo teaches an estimation section which estimates a state of a production device based on first and second state variables (Figure 1-122, machine 1 e.g. see diagnostic component for estimating a component life/machine (e.g. production device) based on state variables (0072, 0080, and see the variable acquisition section and estimating section of Cotte et al. for predicting a failure state of equipment.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Discenzo, namely providing an integrating an estimating section and variable acquisition section within the same production device, to the teachings of Cotte, namely providing a distributed estimating section and variable acquisition section for estimating the life of plant equipment, would achieve an expected and predictable result via integrating the estimation section and variable acquisition section within the same machine/production device. Whether the sections are integral or separate, an expected and predictable result is rezlied. Discenzo is reasonably pertinent to a problem of machine diagnostics and would commend itself to identifying production device failures in chemical manufacturing, see Discenzo, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claim 2.
The production device according to claim 1 but does not expressly teach the life estimation limitations described below. Discenzo teaches the life estimation section described below, wherein
the estimation section includes a life estimation section which estimates a life of a part which
constitutes the production device (Discenzo, 0070, 0082, 0125, 0131, e.g. see prognostic and control for estimating remaining useful life)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Discenzo, namely providing a life estimating section, to the teachings of Cotte, namely providing an estimation section (e.g. analysis section), would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Whether the life estimation section is separate or integral to the estimation section, an expected and predictable result is realized.
Claim 3. The production device according to claim 2, wherein
the second variables include at least one particular variable selected from the load factor of a
compressor for compressing the gas (Cotte, 0114, 0122) the concentration of the intermediate, the production amount of the intermediate, the concentration of the target product, the production amount of the target product (0070, 0106), and the amount of water produced in a process of obtaining the target product (e.g. claim 1 0044 0054 0072)
the life estimation section estimates the life of the part on the basis of the first
variable and the particular variable (supra claim 1, supra claim 2)
Claim 5. The production device according to claim 2, further comprising an order section for ordering a replacement part for the part that reaches the end of its life on the basis of an output of the life estimation section (Cotte, 0072, see also Discenzo, 0100, 0121)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotte et al. (PG/PUB 20180286141) in view over Discenzo (PG/PUB 20030061004) in view over Tang et al. (PG/PUB 20220284278)
Claim 4. The production device according to claim 3 but does not teach the neural limitations describe below. Tang teaches the neural limitations described below , wherein
the life estimation section includes a pre-learned neural network which has undergone
machine learning for relating the particular variable to the life of the part (Tang, 0044, 0066, Figure 2)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Tang, namely providing a trained neural network to predict remaining component life, to the teachings of Cotte, as modified, namely estimating machine remaining useful life based on state variables, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting the neural network inputs to comprise the state variables of claim one for developing a correlation with a remaining useful life of the machine. Tang is pertinent to a problem of predicting component life using trained neural networks, as described, ABSTRACT, summary of invention)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotte et al. (PG/PUB 20180286141) in view over Discenzo (PG/PUB 20030061004) in view over Quinton et al. (PG/PUB 20220019944)
Claim 6. The production device according to claim 1 but does not teach the change limitations descried below. Quinton teaches the change limitations described below
further comprising a changing section which changes the first variable inputted to the production device on the basis of an output of the estimation section (supra claim 1, Discenzo teaches a prediction model for life expectancy based on input data, 0082, 0086, see Quinton for adjusting training data applied to model in response to erroneous model output, ABSTRACT, 0087-0090 and see the model output of Discenzo)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Quinto for adjusting input data responsive to model prediction error, to the teachings of Cotte, as modified, namely predicting component life based on relating model output to data input, would achieve an expected and predictable result of changing the input data to minimize estimation error. Qunton is pertinent to a problem of accurate modelling and would commend itself to providing accurate lifetime predictions for multiple components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 1 relevancy
11796993 see equipment fault prediction Methods, systems, and devices for equipment monitoring and fault prediction are described, including: receiving measurement data associated with a set of equipment; providing at least a portion of the measurement data to a machine learning network; receiving an output from the machine learning network in response to the machine learning network processing at least the portion of the measurement data; and outputting a notification based on the output from the machine learning network, the notification including an indication of the predicted status. The processing of at least the portion of the measurement data may be based on a predictive model associated with the set of equipment. The output from the machine learning network may include a predicted status of the set of equipment.
11752844 see chemical equipment fault prediction “A plant or refinery may include equipment such as condensers, regenerators, distillation columns, rotating equipment, compressors, pumps, turbines, or the like. Different operating methods may impact deterioration in equipment condition, thereby prolonging equipment life, extending production operating time, or providing other benefits. Mechanical or digital sensors may be used for monitoring equipment to determine whether problems are developing. For example, sensors may be used in conjunction with one or more system components to perform invariant mapping, monitor system operating characteristics, and/or predict pressure, volume, surges, reactor loop fouling, gas quality, or the like. An operating condition (e.g., of one or more pieces of equipment in the plant or refinery) may be adjusted to prolong equipment life or avoid equipment failure.
Claim 4 relevancy
20240184282 see predictive maintenance Among other things, systems and techniques are described for predictive maintenance of industrial equipment. Sensor data is obtained, e.g., using sensor hubs that are configured to capture sensor data associated with one or more operating conditions of the industrial equipment. The sensor data is input to a trained machine learning model. The trained machine learning model includes a physics based feature extraction model and a deep learning based automatic feature extraction model. Operating conditions associated with operation of the industrial equipment are predicted using the trained machine learning models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights