DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 18/866284 filed on November 15, 2024 in which Claims 1 and 12-21 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-11 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 12-21 have been amended. Claims 1 and 12-21 are pending, of which Claims 1 and 12-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 103. Claim 20 is rejected under 101 and 112(a). Claim 16 is allowed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Upon searching a variety of databases, the examiner considers “ascertaining an average distance, in particular a Wasserstein distance, alternatively with an intersection-over-unit metric, for different error classes”, in Claim 16; in conjunction with all other limitations of the dependent and independent claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record (PTO-892). Therefore, claim 16 is hereby allowed.
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 claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 20, the claimed system has been read in view of applicant’s specification (see pages 14-15). The claimed apparatus appears to include elements which could be interpreted as including only software. Software is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore these claims are not statutory. Software is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Software is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Software is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 is 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. A “machine controller” is not found in the specification.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khorrami (US Patent Application 2019/0340392) in view of Beish (US Patent Application 2009/0012748) in view of Kamp (US Patent Application 2005/0204274) and further in view of Unnikrishnan (US Patent Application 2009/0049338).
Claim 1, Khorrami teaches a method for evaluating and/or monitoring a process and/or a multi-axis machine (View Khorrami ¶ 43, 62, 71; monitor software processes, runtime monitoring), the method comprising: the at least one data time series comprises at least one channel describing at least one parameter of the process and/or of the multi-axis machine (View Khorrami ¶ 39, 49; runtime characteristics), and wherein the at least one data time series is caused by the process (View Khorrami ¶ 37, 43, 45; multidimensional time-series generated by HPC monitoring of the target process); determining an interpretable result using a machine learning algorithm based on the at least one data time series (View Khorrami ¶ 46, 134, 135; Trace formulates output of machine learning), wherein the result describes a classification value of a state in the process and/or of a state of the multi-axis machine (View Khorrami ¶ 43, 45; train a machine learning based classifier).
Khorrami does not explicitly teach recording at least one data time series obtained from the multi-axis machine or from a process performed by the multi-axis machine; outputting a warning when determining the result in response to the classification value being assigned to a value of an error class that is in a warning range or corresponds to a warning range; and outputting an all-clear signal in response to the classification value being assigned to a value of an error class that is in an all-clear range or corresponds to an all-clear range.
However, Beish teaches outputting a warning when determining the result in response to the classification value being assigned to a value of an error class that is in a warning range or corresponds to a warning range (View Beish ¶ 18; event classified as a warning event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Khorrami with outputting a warning when determining the result in response to the classification value being assigned to a value of an error class that is in a warning range or corresponds to a warning range since it is known in the art that a warning notification can be output (View Beish ¶ 18). Such modification would have allowed a warning notification to be output after evaluating a process.
Khorrami and Beish do not explicitly teach outputting an all-clear signal in response to the classification value being assigned to a value of an error class that is in an all-clear range or corresponds to an all-clear range.
However, Kamp teaches outputting an all-clear signal in response to the classification value being assigned to a value of an error class that is in an all-clear range or corresponds to an all-clear range (View Kamp ¶ 18; second state class characterizes normal operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with outputting an all-clear signal in response to the classification value being assigned to a value of an error class that is in an all-clear range or corresponds to an all-clear range since it is known in the art that an all-clear notification can be output (View Kamp ¶ 18). Such modification would have allowed an all-clear notification to be output after evaluating a process.
Khorrami, Beish and Kamp do not explicitly teach recording at least one data time series obtained from the multi-axis machine or from a process performed by the multi-axis machine.
However, Unnikrishnan teaches recording at least one data time series obtained from the multi-axis machine or from a process performed by the multi-axis machine (View Unnikrishnan ¶ 2; the sequence of events surrounding each fault can be monitored and recorded in data series; a manufacturing or other machine-based environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with recording at least one data time series obtained from the multi-axis machine or from a process performed by the multi-axis machine since it is known in the art that time series data can be recorded (View Unnikrishnan ¶ 2). Such modification would have allowed time series data to be recorded for a multi-axis machine.
Claim 20 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 21 is the medium corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khorrami (US Patent Application 2019/0340392) in view of Beish (US Patent Application 2009/0012748) in view of Kamp (US Patent Application 2005/0204274) in view of Unnikrishnan (US Patent Application 2009/0049338) and further in view of Ueno (US Patent Application 2011/0276823).
Claim 12, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach determining a probability with which the classification value of the state of the process and/or the state of the multi-axis machine corresponds to a value of an error class which lies in a warning range or corresponds to a warning range, in particular for the at least one channel and/or for a time interval of the process.
However, Ueno teaches determining a probability with which the classification value of the state of the process and/or the state of the multi-axis machine corresponds to a value of an error class which lies in a warning range or corresponds to a warning range, in particular for the at least one channel and/or for a time interval of the process (View Ueno ¶ 77, 126; failure information, setting may be performed in the order of probability for the failure i.e. warning ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with determining a probability with which the classification value of the state of the process and/or the state of the multi-axis machine corresponds to a value of an error class which lies in a warning range or corresponds to a warning range, in particular for the at least one channel and/or for a time interval of the process since it is known in the art that a probability for a warning can be determined (View Ueno ¶ 77, 126). Such modification would have allowed a probability for a warning determined by the error class.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khorrami (US Patent Application 2019/0340392) in view of Beish (US Patent Application 2009/0012748) in view of Kamp (US Patent Application 2005/0204274) in view of Unnikrishnan (US Patent Application 2009/0049338) and further in view of Jambigi (US Patent Application 2023/0244674).
Claim 13, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach ascertaining an average distance of different error classes with respect to a classification value.
However, Jambigi ascertaining an average distance of different error classes with respect to a classification value (View Jambigi ¶ 52; distance between two failed events (i.e. categorical and error message) of the events).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with ascertaining an average distance of different error classes with respect to a classification value since it is known in the art that a distance between two failures can be determined (View Jambigi ¶ 52). Such modification would have allowed an average distance to be determined between error classes.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khorrami (US Patent Application 2019/0340392) in view of Beish (US Patent Application 2009/0012748) in view of Kamp (US Patent Application 2005/0204274) in view of Unnikrishnan (US Patent Application 2009/0049338) and further in view of Verma (US Patent Application 2021/0357282).
Claim 14, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach ascertaining a probability distribution per error class for a contribution of the at least one channel to the classification value.
However, Verma teaches ascertaining a probability distribution per error class for a contribution of the at least one channel to the classification value (View Verma ¶ 4, 70; probability distribution on normal logs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with teaches ascertaining a probability distribution per error class for a contribution of the at least one channel to the classification value since it is known in the art that a probability distribution between two error classes can be determined (View Verma ¶ 4, 70). Such modification would have allowed a probability distribution to be determined between error classes.
Claim 15, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 14. Verma further teaches normalizing the probability distribution of values of the error class; and determining a probability with which a classification value is assigned to a warning range or an all-clear range, in particular based on the probability distribution (View Verma ¶ 4, 70; probability distribution on normal logs).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khorrami (US Patent Application 2019/0340392) in view of Beish (US Patent Application 2009/0012748) in view of Kamp (US Patent Application 2005/0204274) in view of Unnikrishnan (US Patent Application 2009/0049338) and further in view of Raumann (US Patent Application 2022/0197714).
Claim 17, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach the machine learning algorithm is an artificial neural network, in particular a convolutional neural network.
However, Raumann teaches the machine learning algorithm is an artificial neural network, in particular a convolutional neural network (View Raumann ¶ 332; CNN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the machine learning algorithm is an artificial neural network, in particular a convolutional neural network since it is known in the art that convolutional neural network can be used generate a result (View Raumann ¶ 332). Such modification would have allowed a CNN to be used to determine an error class.
Claim 18, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 17. Raumann further teaches the convolutional neural network comprises a max-pooling layer as a last layer, in particular a max-pooling layer over the time dimension (View Raumann ¶ 332; max pool layer).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khorrami (US Patent Application 2019/0340392) in view of Beish (US Patent Application 2009/0012748) in view of Kamp (US Patent Application 2005/0204274) in view of Unnikrishnan (US Patent Application 2009/0049338) and further in view of Adkisson (US Patent Application 2004/0237005).
Claim 19, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach evaluating and/or monitoring the process and/or the multi-axis machine; and in response to if a warning being output when determining the result, then at least one of: stopping the process, changing the process, maintaining the multi-axis machine, repeating the process, or repeating the process in a modified form.
However, Adkisson teaches evaluating and/or monitoring the process and/or the multi-axis machine; and in response to if a warning being output when determining the result, then at least one of: stopping the process, changing the process, maintaining the multi-axis machine, repeating the process, or repeating the process in a modified form (View
Adkisson ¶ 24; non-critical error, repeat operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with evaluating and/or monitoring the process and/or the multi-axis machine; and in response to if a warning being output when determining the result, then at least one of: stopping the process, changing the process, maintaining the multi-axis machine, repeating the process, or repeating the process in a modified form since it is known in the art that a process can be repeated (View Adkisson ¶ 24). Such modification would have allowed a process to be repeated after a warning signal is generated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 20 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Rope et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0114214); teaches enabling the system to 1) identify the common feature (that particular bit) that is causing the manufacturing device errors/variations (and thus introducing the defect into the product) in order to 2) remove that bit from the CNC machining tool.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights