DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/897,767 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Application No. 18/897,807
(hereinafter Burke)
Application No. 18/897,767
(hereinafter Burke2)
1. An intelligent manufacturing system (IMS), comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions, the instructions facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
receiving first content, wherein the first content is process data regarding a manufacturing process;
comparing the first content with a collection of operation data, wherein the collection of operation data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes;
identifying, in the collection of operation data, second content, wherein the second content is substantially similar to the first content, and the second content has an associated quality control issue; and
generating a notification comprising the quality control issue; and
transmitting the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue.
1. An intelligent manufacturing system (IMS), comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions, the instructions facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
receiving first content, wherein the first content is process data regarding a manufacturing process;
comparing the first content with a collection of operation data, wherein the collection of operation data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes;
identifying, in the collection of operation data, second content, wherein the second content is substantially similar to the first content, and the second content has an associated quality control issue; and
generating a notification comprising the quality control issue; and
transmitting the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue.
2. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the first content is received from a process monitoring system configured to monitor operation of the manufacturing process.
2. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the first content is received from a process monitoring system configured to monitor operation of the manufacturing process.
3. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the quality control issue notification is transmitted to a process monitoring system, wherein the first content was compiled and generated by the process monitoring system.
3. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the quality control issue notification is transmitted to a process monitoring system, wherein the first content was compiled and generated by the process monitoring system.
4. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
representing the first content as a first vector;
representing the second content as a second vector; and
determining similarity between the first content and the second content based on a distance between the first vector representation and the second vector representation, wherein similarity is determined based on a similarity threshold.
4. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
representing the first content as a first vector;
representing the second content as a second vector; and
determining similarity between the first content and the second content based on a distance between the first vector representation and the second vector representation, wherein similarity is determined based on a similarity threshold.
5. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the IMS is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system.
5. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the IMS is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system.
6. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the first content is generated at a first manufacturing operation and the second content is generated at a second manufacturing operation, wherein the first manufacturing operation is located at a first location and the second manufacturing operation is located at a second location, wherein the first location is remotely located to the second location.
6. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the first content is generated at a first manufacturing operation and the second content is generated at a second manufacturing operation, wherein the first manufacturing operation is located at a first location and the second manufacturing operation is located at a second location, wherein the first location is remotely located to the second location.
7. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the first content comprises at least one of data generated by a product design system, data generated by a process monitoring system, a process checksheet, statistical process control (SPC) data, a machine setting, an operation parameter, inventory data, environmental data, a physical property of a material, a chemical property of a material, or an equipment specification.
7. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the first content comprises at least one of data generated by a product design system, data generated by a process monitoring system, a process checksheet, statistical process control (SPC) data, a machine setting, an operation parameter, inventory data, environmental data, a physical property of a material, a chemical property of a material, or an equipment specification.
8. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the quality control issue notification comprises a first recommendation to adjust operation of the manufacturing process from which the first content is generated or a second recommendation to terminate operation of the manufacturing process from which the first content is generated.
8. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the quality control issue notification comprises a first recommendation to adjust operation of the manufacturing process from which the first content is generated or a second recommendation to terminate operation of the manufacturing process from which the first content is generated.
9. The IMS of claim 8, wherein the notification is a first notification and the operations further comprise:
receiving third content, wherein the third content is third process data captured in response to the first recommendation being applied to the manufacturing process;
comparing the third content with the collection of operation data; identifying, in the collection of operation data, fourth content, wherein the fourth content is substantially similar to the third content;
identifying a quality control measure associated with the fourth content; and
generating a second notification comprising the quality control measure, wherein the quality control measure indicates success of applying the first recommendation to the process associated with the first process data.
9. The IMS of claim 8, wherein the notification is a first notification and the operations further comprise:
receiving third content, wherein the third content is third process data captured in response to the first recommendation being applied to the manufacturing process;
comparing the third content with the collection of operation data; identifying, in the collection of operation data, fourth content, wherein the fourth content is substantially similar to the third content;
identifying a quality control measure associated with the fourth content; and
generating a second notification comprising the quality control measure, wherein the quality control measure indicates success of applying the first recommendation to the process associated with the first process data.
10. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the first content represents an operating condition and relates to a departure of the manufacturing process from a nominal condition, wherein the operating condition deleteriously affects a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process.
10. The IMS of claim 1, wherein the first content represents an operating condition and relates to a departure of the manufacturing process from a nominal condition, wherein the operating condition deleteriously affects a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process.
11. The IMS of claim 10, wherein the second content identifies the deleteriously affected property.
11. The IMS of claim 10, wherein the second content identifies the deleteriously affected property.
12. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a device comprising at least one processor, first process control data relating to an operating condition of a manufacturing process;
comparing, by the device, the first process control data with a collection of process control data, wherein the collection of process control data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes;
identifying, by the device, in the collection of operation data, second process control data, wherein the second process control data is substantially similar to the first process control data;
identifying, by the device, a quality control issue associated with the second process control data;
generating, by the device, a notification comprising the quality control issue; and
transmitting, by the device, the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue.
12. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a device comprising at least one processor, first process control data relating to an operating condition of a manufacturing process;
comparing, by the device, the first process control data with a collection of process control data, wherein the collection of process control data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes;
identifying, by the device, in the collection of operation data, second process control data, wherein the second process control data is substantially similar to the first process control data;
identifying, by the device, a quality control issue associated with the second process control data;
generating, by the device, a notification comprising the quality control issue; and
transmitting, by the device, the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the quality control issue details a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process during a duration at which the second process control data was obtained.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the quality control issue details a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process during a duration at which the second process control data was obtained.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the device is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the device is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the manufacturing process from which the first process control data is a first manufacturing process and the second process control data is obtained from a second manufacturing process, wherein the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a second application interface, wherein the first application interface and the second application interface are disparate.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the manufacturing process from which the first process control data is a first manufacturing process and the second process control data is obtained from a second manufacturing process, wherein the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a second application interface, wherein the first application interface and the second application interface are disparate.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the quality control issue represented by the second process control data indicates:
the manufacturing process, when the first process control data was captured, does not deleteriously affect a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process, or
the manufacturing process, when the first process control data was captured, has potential to deleteriously affect the property of a component produced by the manufacturing process.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the quality control issue represented by the second process control data indicates:
the manufacturing process, when the first process control data was captured, does not deleteriously affect a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process, or
the manufacturing process, when the first process control data was captured, has potential to deleteriously affect the property of a component produced by the manufacturing process.
17. A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, wherein, in response to being executed, the machine-executable instructions cause an intelligent manufacturing system (IMS) to perform operations, comprising:
receiving first data from a first manufacturing process, wherein the first manufacturing process is manufacturing a first component;
comparing the first data with a collection of process data, wherein the collection of process data was obtained from a second manufacturing process manufacturing a second component, wherein the second component is substantially similar to the first component;
identifying second data in the collection of process data, wherein the second data is threshold similar to the first data, and the second data has an associated product quality measured during manufacture of the second component; and
in the event of the associated product quality of the second component is outside of an acceptable tolerance, transmitting a recommendation to the first manufacturing process regarding subsequent operation of the first manufacturing process.
17. A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, wherein, in response to being executed, the machine-executable instructions cause an intelligent manufacturing system (IMS) to perform operations, comprising:
receiving first data from a first manufacturing process, wherein the first manufacturing process is manufacturing a first component;
comparing the first data with a collection of process data, wherein the collection of process data was obtained from a second manufacturing process manufacturing a second component, wherein the second component is substantially similar to the first component;
identifying second data in the collection of process data, wherein the second data is threshold similar to the first data, and the second data has an associated product quality measured during manufacture of the second component; and
in the event of the associated product quality of the second component is outside of an acceptable tolerance, transmitting a recommendation to the first manufacturing process regarding subsequent operation of the first manufacturing process.
18. The computer-program product of claim 17, wherein the IMS is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system, the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a second application interface.
18. The computer-program product of claim 17, wherein the IMS is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system, the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a second application interface.
19. The computer-program product of claim 17, wherein the recommendation is one of adjust operation of the first manufacturing process or terminate operation of the first manufacturing process.
19. The computer-program product of claim 17, wherein the recommendation is one of adjust operation of the first manufacturing process or terminate operation of the first manufacturing process.
20. The computer-program product of claim 17, wherein:
the first manufacturing process and second manufacturing process are co-located in a common facility, or
the first manufacturing process is located at a first location and the second manufacturing process is located at a second location, and the first location is remote to the second location.
20. The computer-program product of claim 17, wherein:
the first manufacturing process and second manufacturing process are co-located in a common facility, or
the first manufacturing process is located at a first location and the second manufacturing process is located at a second location, and the first location is remote to the second location.
In summary, claims 1-20 are unpatentable as being anticipated by claims 1-20 of Burke2 as represented by the direct correlation of Burke as set forth above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, 12, 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the punctuation issue “… (IMS), comprising: …” in line 1. Suggested claim language: “… (IMS) comprising”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites “… a notification comprising the quality control issue … ” in line 14 and claims 3 and 8 recite “the quality control issue notification” in line 1. The claims recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims the same term should be used for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the quality control issue notification” in claims 3 and 8; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 12 includes the punctuation issue “A computer-implemented method, comprising: …” in line 1. Suggested claim language: “A computer-implemented method, comprising: …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 15 recites the grammatical issue of “… the manufacturing process from which the first process control data is a first manufacturing process …” in lines 1-2.
Claim 17 includes the punctuation issue “… to perform operations, comprising: …” in lines 3-4. Suggested claim language: “… to perform operations comprising: …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 17 includes the grammatical issue “… the second data is threshold similar to the first data” in lines 11-12.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “(an) intelligent manufacturing (IMS)” comprising of concrete devices (i.e. a processor and memory), and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “comparing the first content with a collection of operation data, wherein the collection of operation data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes” and “identifying, in the collection of operation data, second content, wherein the second content is substantially similar to the first content, and the second content has an associated quality control issue”.
The limitation of “comparing the first content with a collection of operation data, wherein the collection of operation data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis of recognizing a similarity or dissimilarity of data to obtain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying, in the collection of operation data, second content, wherein the second content is substantially similar to the first content, and the second content has an associated quality control issue”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses recognizing data from a collection of information to obtain desired data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “at least one processor”; “a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions, the instructions facilitate performance of operations …”; “receiving first content, wherein the first content is process data regarding a manufacturing process”; “… the collection of operation data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes”; “generating a notification comprising the quality control issue”; and “transmitting the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue”.
The limitations “at least one processor” and “a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions, the instructions facilitate performance of operations …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations “… a manufacturing process” and “one or more manufacturing processes” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “receiving first content, wherein the first content is process data regarding a manufacturing process”, “generating a notification comprising the quality control issue”, and “… the collection of operation data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes”, represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “receiving”; “generating”; and “obtained” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “transmitting the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue” represents the mere output of data. The “transmitting” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “at least one processor” and “a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions, the instructions facilitate performance of operations …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations “… a manufacturing process” and “one or more manufacturing processes” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “receiving first content, wherein the first content is process data regarding a manufacturing process”; “generating a notification comprising the quality control issue”; and “… the collection of operation data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “transmitting the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the first content is received from a process monitoring system configured to monitor operation of the manufacturing process”.
The limitation “… a process monitoring system configured to monitor operation of the manufacturing process” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… the first content is received from a process monitoring system …” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “received” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… a process monitoring system configured to monitor operation of the manufacturing process” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… the first content is received from a process monitoring system …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… the quality control issue notification is transmitted to a process monitoring system, wherein the first content was compiled and generated by the process monitoring system”.
The limitation “… a process monitoring system …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “the first content was compiled and generated by the process monitoring system” represents mere data gathering. The limitation of “complied and generated” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… the quality control issue notification is transmitted …” represents the mere output of data. The “transmitted” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… a process monitoring system …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “the first content was compiled and generated by the process monitoring system”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… the quality control issue notification is transmitted …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
The limitations “… representing the first content as a first vector” and “representing the second content as a second vector” further detail “first content” and “second content” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Additionally, at Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “determining similarity between the first content and the second content based on a distance between the first vector representation and the second vector representation, wherein similarity is determined based on a similarity threshold”.
The limitation of “determining similarity between the first content and the second content based on a distance between the first vector representation and the second vector representation, wherein similarity is determined based on a similarity threshold”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing, per a comparison, data to ascertain other information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5:
The limitation “… located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system” further details “(an) intelligent manufacturing system” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Further, at step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… a multi-tenant, cloud-based system”.
The limitation “… a multi-tenant, cloud-based system” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… a multi-tenant, cloud-based system” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
At Step 2A, prong two the claim recites “the first content is generated at a first manufacturing operation and the second content is generated at a second manufacturing operation, wherein the first manufacturing operation is located at a first location and the second manufacturing operation is located at a second location, wherein the first location is remotely located to the second location”.
The limitations “… the first manufacturing operation is located at a first location and the second manufacturing operation is located at a second location, wherein the first location is remotely located to the second location” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… the first content is generated at a first manufacturing operation and the second content is generated at a second manufacturing operation” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “generating” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “… the first manufacturing operation is located at a first location and the second manufacturing operation is located at a second location, wherein the first location is remotely located to the second location”, as discussed above, merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… the first content is generated at a first manufacturing operation and the second content is generated at a second manufacturing operation”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
The limitation “… the first content comprises at least one of data generated by a product design system, data generated by a process monitoring system, a process checksheet, statistical process control (SPC) data, a machine setting, an operation parameter, inventory data, environmental data, a physical property of a material, a chemical property of a material, or an equipment specification” further details “first content” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 8:
The limitation “… the quality control issue notification comprises a first recommendation to adjust operation of the manufacturing process from which the first content is generated or a second recommendation to terminate operation of the manufacturing process from which the first content is generated” further details “a notification comprising the quality control issue” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 9:
The limitation “… the notification is a first notification” further details “a notification comprising the quality control issue” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Additionally, at Step 2A, prong one the claim recites “comparing the third content with the collection of operation data”; “identifying, in the collection of operation data, fourth content, wherein the fourth content is substantially similar to the third content”;
and “identifying a quality control measure associated with the fourth content”
The limitation of “comparing the third content with the collection of operation data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses evaluating data to ascertain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying, in the collection of operation data, fourth content, wherein the fourth content is substantially similar to the third content”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses recognizing data from a collection of information to obtain desired data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying a quality control measure associated with the fourth content”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain desired data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “receiving third content, wherein the third content is third process data captured in response to the first recommendation being applied to the manufacturing process” and “generating a second notification comprising the quality control measure, wherein the quality control measure indicates success of applying the first recommendation to the process associated with the first process data”.
The limitations of “receiving third content, wherein the third content is third process data captured in response to the first recommendation being applied to the manufacturing process” and “generating a second notification comprising the quality control measure, wherein the quality control measure indicates success of applying the first recommendation to the process associated with the first process data” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “receiving” and “generating” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “receiving third content, wherein the third content is third process data captured in response to the first recommendation being applied to the manufacturing process” and “generating a second notification comprising the quality control measure, wherein the quality control measure indicates success of applying the first recommendation to the process associated with the first process data”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
The limitation “… the first content represents an operating condition and relates to a departure of the manufacturing process from a nominal condition, wherein the operating condition deleteriously affects a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process” further details “first content” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 11:
The limitation “… the second content identifies the deleteriously affected property” further details “second content” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 12:
At step 1, the recites a method for comprising of a plurality of “actions”; and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “comparing, by the device, the first process control data with a collection of process control data, wherein the collection of process control data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes”; “identifying, by the device, in the collection of operation data, second process control data, wherein the second process control data is substantially similar to the first process control data”; and “identifying, by the device, a quality control issue associated with the second process control data”.
The limitation of “comparing, … , the first process control data with a collection of process control data, wherein the collection of process control data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis of recognizing a similarity or dissimilarity of data to obtain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying, … , in the collection of operation data, second process control data, wherein the second process control data is substantially similar to the first process control data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses recognizing data from a collection of information to obtain desired data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying, … , a quality control issue associated with the second process control data”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain desired data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “receiving, by a device comprising at least one processor, first process control data relating to an operating condition of a manufacturing process”; “… the collection of process control data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes”; and “generating, by the device, a notification comprising the quality control issue”; and “transmitting, by the device, the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue”.
The limitation “… a device comprising at least one processor …” recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations “… a manufacturing process” and “… one or more manufacturing processes” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “receiving, … , first process control data relating to an operating condition of a manufacturing process”; “… the collection of process control data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes”; and “generating, … , a notification comprising the quality control issue” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “receiving” and “generating” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “transmitting, … , the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue” represents the mere output of data. The “transmitting” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… a device comprising at least one processor …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “… a manufacturing process” and “… one or more manufacturing processes” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “receiving, … , first process control data relating to an operating condition of a manufacturing process”; “… the collection of process control data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes”; and “generating, … , a notification comprising the quality control issue”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “transmitting, … , the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13:
The limitation “… the quality control issue details a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process during a duration at which the second process control data was obtained” further details “a quality control issue” in claim 12; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 12.
Claim 14:
The limitation “… located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system” further details “a device comprising at least one processor” in claim 12; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 12.
Further, at step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… a multi-tenant, cloud-based system”.
The limitation “… a multi-tenant, cloud-based system” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… a multi-tenant, cloud-based system” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15:
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “the manufacturing process from which
the first process control data is a first manufacturing process and the second process control data is obtained from a second manufacturing process, wherein the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a second application interface, wherein the first application interface and the second application interface are disparate”.
The limitations “… the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a second application interface, wherein the first application interface and the second application interface are disparate” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations “… the first manufacturing process …” and “a second manufacturing process” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “the manufacturing process from which the first process
control data is a first manufacturing process and the second process control data is obtained from a second manufacturing process” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “from which” (i.e. interpreted as “receiving” in light of claim 12) and “obtained” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “… the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a second application interface, wherein the first application interface and the second application interface are disparate” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “… the first manufacturing process …” and “a second manufacturing process” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “the manufacturing process from which the first process
control data is a first manufacturing process and the second process control data is obtained from a second manufacturing process”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16:
The limitations “… the manufacturing process, when the first process control data was captured, does not deleteriously affect a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process, or the manufacturing process, when the first process control data was captured, has potential to deleteriously affect the property of a component produced by the manufacturing process” further details “… a quality control issue associated with the second process control data” in claim 12; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 12.
Claim 17:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions”, and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “comparing the first data with a collection of process data, wherein the collection of process data was obtained from a second manufacturing process manufacturing a second component, wherein the second component is substantially similar to the first component” and “identifying second data in the collection of process data, wherein the second data is threshold similar to the first data, and the second data has an associated product quality measured during manufacture of the second component”.
The limitation of “comparing the first data with a collection of process data, wherein the collection of process data was obtained from a second manufacturing process manufacturing a second component, wherein the second component is substantially similar to the first component”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses an analysis of recognizing a similarity or dissimilarity of data to obtain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying second data in the collection of process data, wherein the second data is threshold similar to the first data, and the second data has an associated product quality measured during manufacture of the second component”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claims precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses recognizing data from a collection of information to obtain desired data. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.”).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “receiving first data from a first manufacturing process, wherein the first manufacturing process is manufacturing a first component” and “in the event of the associated product quality of the second component is outside of an acceptable tolerance, transmitting a recommendation to the first manufacturing process regarding subsequent operation of the first manufacturing process”.
The limitations “… a first manufacturing process …” and “… a second manufacturing process …” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receiving first data from a first manufacturing process, wherein the first manufacturing process is manufacturing a first component” represent mere data gathering. The limitation of “receiving” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “in the event of the associated product quality of the second component is outside of an acceptable tolerance, transmitting a recommendation to the first manufacturing process regarding subsequent operation of the first manufacturing process” represents the mere output of data. The “transmitting” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “… a first manufacturing process …” and “… a second manufacturing process …”, as discussed above, merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “receiving first data from a first manufacturing process, wherein the first manufacturing process is manufacturing a first component”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “in the event of the associated product quality of the second component is outside of an acceptable tolerance, transmitting a recommendation to the first manufacturing process regarding subsequent operation of the first manufacturing process”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18:
The limitation “… the IMS is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system …” further details “(an) intelligent manufacturing system” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Further, at step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “… a multi-tenant, cloud-based system, the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a second application interface”.
The limitations “… a multi-tenant, cloud-based system, the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a second application interface” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations “… the first manufacturing process …” and “… the second manufacturing process …” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “… a multi-tenant, cloud-based system, the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a second application interface” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “… the first manufacturing process …” and “… the second manufacturing process …” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19:
The limitation “… the recommendation is one of adjust operation of the first manufacturing process or terminate operation of the first manufacturing process” further details “… a recommendation to the first manufacturing process …” in claim 17; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 17.
Claim 20:
The limitation “… the first manufacturing process and second manufacturing process are co-located in a common facility, or the first manufacturing process is located at a first location and the second manufacturing process is located at a second location, and the first location is remote to the second location” further details “a first manufacturing process” and “a second manufacturing process” in claim 17; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 17.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0351226 A1 (hereinafter Bliss).
As per claim 1, Bliss discloses an intelligent manufacturing system (IMS) (pg. 4, par. [0044] and [0047] and Fig. 3, element 302; i.e. an industrial diagnosis and maintenance system), comprising:
at least one processor (pg. 4, par. [0046] and [0047] and Fig. 3, element 320; i.e. [0046]: “… industrial diagnosis and maintenance system 302 according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure. Aspects of the systems, apparatuses, or processes explained in this disclosure can constitute machine-executable components embodied within machine(s), e.g., embodied in one or more computer-readable mediums (or media) associated with one or more machines. Such components, when executed by one or more machines, e.g., computer(s), computing device(s), automation device(s), virtual machine(s), etc., can cause the machine(s) to perform the operations described.”); and
a memory (Fig. 3, element 322) coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions, the instructions facilitate performance of operations (pg. 4, par. [0046] and [0047]; i.e. [0047]: “… industrial diagnosis and maintenance system 302 according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure. Aspects of the systems, apparatuses, or processes explained in this disclosure can constitute machine-executable components embodied within machine(s), e.g., embodied in one or more computer-readable mediums (or media) associated with one or more machines. Such components, when executed by one or more machines, e.g., computer(s), computing device(s), automation device(s), virtual machine(s), etc., can cause the machine(s) to perform the operations described.”), comprising:
receiving first content, wherein the first content is process data regarding a manufacturing process (pg. 4, par. [0044] and [0048]; i.e. [0044]: “… the diagnosis and maintenance system indexes data from multiple sources both across the industrial facilities and external to the facility, including but not limited to industrial controllers, HMIs, intelligent industrial devices, motor drives, industrial safety systems, data historians, device and system documentation repositories (e.g., drawings, manuals, knowledgebase articles, etc.), system inventory management systems, computer-based control applications (e.g., enterprise resource planning systems, batch process management systems, etc.), batch software, product control software, structured query language (SQL) databases that interact with the control system, and/or other such platforms. ” and [0048]: “Discovery component 304 can be configured to gather information from one or more industrial automation systems and other data sources both internal and external to an industrial environment.”);
comparing the first content with a collection of operation data, wherein the collection of operation data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes (pg. 4, par. [0045] and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. “a cloud-based analytics service can identify similar machines or workcells at different plant facilities, and compare the relative performance of these machines.”);
identifying, in the collection of operation data, second content, wherein the second content is substantially similar to the first content, and the second content has an associated quality control issue (pg. 4, par. [0043] and [0045], pg. 5, par. [0051], and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0043]: “ As a result, different facilities that perform similar industrial operations may observe different results as a function of their individualized system configurations or management practices. Given the geographical separation between the facilities, identifying the system configurations that yield the best results—e.g., in terms of product quality or throughput, minimized machine downtimes, energy efficiency, etc.—and communicating these preferred configurations to other facilities carrying out similar processes is challenging.”, [0045]: “Further analysis can determine which location is achieving the best performance metrics for the machine, and identify factors that may contribute to that machine's superior performance (e.g., a particular operator workflow, configuration settings, maintenance schedules, firmware versions, programming changes etc.).”, [0051]: “analysis component 314 may be configured to identify data associated with similar industrial systems at different facilities, and to identify differences in the configurations of these systems. By correlating these configuration differences with specified performance metrics for the respective systems, the analysis component 314 can identify system configurations that may produce superior results, and generate recommendations to reconfigure similar systems at other facilities to conform to the preferred configuration.”, and [0131]: “The comparative analysis can also identify differences in performance metrics between the different automation systems. These performance metrics may include, for example, product throughput, average or total system downtimes, product quality, energy efficiency, operating costs, etc.”); and
generating a notification comprising the quality control issue (pg. 4, par. [0045], pg. 5, par. [0052], and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0045]: “The system can then generate recommendations for bringing similar assets at other locations in line with the best performing version of the asset.” and [0052]: “Notification component 316 can be configured to generate and deliver notifications of the detected issues or analytical results to one or more client devices associated with selected plant personnel.”]); and
transmitting the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue (pg. 5, par. [0052] and pg. 17, par. [0132]; i.e. [0052]: “Notification component 316 can be configured to generate and deliver notifications of the detected issues or analytical results to one or more client devices associated with selected plant personnel.”).
As per claim 2, Bliss discloses the first content is received from a process monitoring system (Fig. 1, element 118; i.e. industrial controllers) configured to monitor operation of the manufacturing process (pgs. 2-3, par. [0037] and [0038], pg. 4, par. [0048], and pg. 16, par. [0128]; i.e. [0037]: “… a number of industrial controllers 118 are deployed throughout an industrial plant environment to monitor and control respective industrial systems or processes relating to product manufacture, machining, motion control, batch processing, material handling, or other such industrial functions. Industrial controllers 118 typically execute respective control programs to facilitate monitoring and control of industrial devices 120 making up the controlled industrial systems.” and [0048]: “Discovery component 304 can be configured to gather information from one or more industrial automation systems and other data sources both internal and external to an industrial environment.”).
As per claim 3, Bliss discloses the quality control issue notification is transmitted to a process monitoring system, wherein the first content was compiled and generated by the process monitoring system (pg. 9, par. [0081] and pg. 10, par. [0087]; i.e. [0081]: “… industrial controller 802 is implemented with indexing functionality, the controller can pre-discover the available devices and data within the control cabinet 812 before the control system 814 is installed at the customer facility. For example, the indexing system can examine the controller's configuration, tag list, and programming information to identify some or all of the I/O devices 806 and sub-devices 808 connected to the controller, data items that are available on the controller, the location of the data items within the controller's program routines, interdependencies between the data items, etc. In addition, the industrial controller 802 can deploy a discovery agent 810 on its local network to discover additional devices and available data below the controller level.” and [0087]: “Smart device 1102—which may comprise substantially any type of industrial device or data storage unit (e.g., an industrial controller, an HMI terminal, a motor drive, device documentation storage, etc.)—includes an index system interface component 1112 configured to communicatively couple smart device 1102 to the indexing system 502 and exchange data therewith; e.g., via a plant network or over a public network such as the Internet (for configurations in which the indexing system resides on a web server or cloud platform).”).
As per claim 5, Bliss discloses the IMS is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system (pg. 4, par. [0043]-[0045]; i.e. [0044]: “… a cloud-based industrial diagnosis and maintenance system that discovers system configuration data available across multiple heterogeneous data platforms at diverse industrial facilities …” and [0045]: “… the system's analytics tools can analyze the federated namespace on the cloud platform in order to compare performance metrics for similar machines or industrial systems at different plant facilities. For example, a cloud-based analytics service can identify similar machines or workcells at different plant facilities, and compare the relative performance of these machines.”).
As per claim 6, Bliss discloses the first content is generated at a first manufacturing operation and the second content is generated at a second manufacturing operation, wherein the first manufacturing operation is located at a first location and the second manufacturing operation is located at a second location, wherein the first location is remotely located to the second location (pg. 4, par. [0043] and [0045]; i.e. [0043]: “… many industrial enterprises distribute their operations across multiple geographically diverse plant facilities …” and [0045]: “… the system's analytics tools can analyze the federated namespace on the cloud platform in order to compare performance metrics for similar machines or industrial systems at different plant facilities.”).
As per claim 7, Bliss discloses the first content comprises at least one of data generated by a product design system, data generated by a process monitoring system, a process checksheet, statistical process control (SPC) data, a machine setting, an operation parameter, inventory data, environmental data, a physical property of a material, a chemical property of a material, or an equipment specification (pg. 3, par. [0039] and pg. 4, par. [0044]; i.e. [0039]: “The industrial controllers 118 can also store persisted data values that can be referenced by the control program and used for control decisions, including but not limited to measured or calculated values representing operational states of a controlled machine or process (e.g., tank levels, positions, alarms, etc.) or captured time series data that is collected during operation of the automation system (e.g., status information for multiple points in time, diagnostic occurrences, etc.).”).
As per claim 8, Bliss discloses the quality control issue notification comprises a first recommendation to adjust operation of the manufacturing process from which the first content is generated or a second recommendation to terminate operation of the manufacturing process from which the first content is generated (pg. 4, par. [0045] and pg. 5, par. [0051]; i.e. [0045]: “The system can then generate recommendations for bringing similar assets at other locations in line with the best performing version of the asset.” and [0051]: “… generate recommendations to reconfigure similar systems at other facilities to conform to the preferred configuration.”).
As per claim 10, Bliss discloses the first content represents an operating condition and relates to a departure of the manufacturing process from a nominal condition, wherein the operating condition deleteriously affects a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process (pg. 8, par. [0071] and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0131]: “The comparative analysis can also identify differences in performance metrics between the different automation systems. These performance metrics may include, for example, product throughput, average or total system downtimes, product quality, energy efficiency, operating costs, etc.”).
As per claim 11, Bliss discloses the second content identifies the deleteriously affected property (pg. 8, par. [0071] and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0131]: “The comparative analysis can also identify differences in performance metrics between the different automation systems. These performance metrics may include, for example, product throughput, average or total system downtimes, product quality, energy efficiency, operating costs, etc.”).
As per claim 12, Bliss discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a device comprising at least one processor (pg. 4, par. [0044], [0046] and [0047] and Fig. 3, element 302; i.e. [0046]: “… industrial diagnosis and maintenance system 302 according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure. Aspects of the systems, apparatuses, or processes explained in this disclosure can constitute machine-executable components embodied within machine(s), e.g., embodied in one or more computer-readable mediums (or media) associated with one or more machines. Such components, when executed by one or more machines, e.g., computer(s), computing device(s), automation device(s), virtual machine(s), etc., can cause the machine(s) to perform the operations described.”)), first process control data relating to an operating condition of a manufacturing process (pg. 3, par. [0039] and pg. 4, par. [0044] and [0048]; i.e. [0039]: “The industrial controllers 118 can also store persisted data values that can be referenced by the control program and used for control decisions, including but not limited to measured or calculated values representing operational states of a controlled machine or process (e.g., tank levels, positions, alarms, etc.) or captured time series data that is collected during operation of the automation system (e.g., status information for multiple points in time, diagnostic occurrences, etc.).”)”, [0044]: “… the diagnosis and maintenance system indexes data from multiple sources both across the industrial facilities and external to the facility, including but not limited to industrial controllers, HMIs, intelligent industrial devices, motor drives, industrial safety systems, data historians, device and system documentation repositories (e.g., drawings, manuals, knowledgebase articles, etc.), system inventory management systems, computer-based control applications (e.g., enterprise resource planning systems, batch process management systems, etc.), batch software, product control software, structured query language (SQL) databases that interact with the control system, and/or other such platforms. ”, and [0048]: “Discovery component 304 can be configured to gather information from one or more industrial automation systems and other data sources both internal and external to an industrial environment.”);
comparing, by the device (Fig. 3, element 302; i.e. the industrial diagnosis and maintenance system), the first process control data with a collection of process control data, wherein the collection of process control data comprises process data obtained from one or more manufacturing processes (pg. 4, par. [0045] and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0045]: “a cloud-based analytics service can identify similar machines or workcells at different plant facilities, and compare the relative performance of these machines.”);
identifying, by the device, in the collection of operation data, second process control data, wherein the second process control data is substantially similar to the first process control data (pg. 4, par. [0043] and [0045], pg. 5, par. [0051], and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0043]: “ As a result, different facilities that perform similar industrial operations may observe different results as a function of their individualized system configurations or management practices. Given the geographical separation between the facilities, identifying the system configurations that yield the best results—e.g., in terms of product quality or throughput, minimized machine downtimes, energy efficiency, etc.—and communicating these preferred configurations to other facilities carrying out similar processes is challenging.”, [0045]: “Further analysis can determine which location is achieving the best performance metrics for the machine, and identify factors that may contribute to that machine's superior performance (e.g., a particular operator workflow, configuration settings, maintenance schedules, firmware versions, programming changes etc.).”, and [0051]: “analysis component 314 may be configured to identify data associated with similar industrial systems at different facilities, and to identify differences in the configurations of these systems. By correlating these configuration differences with specified performance metrics for the respective systems, the analysis component 314 can identify system configurations that may produce superior results, and generate recommendations to reconfigure similar systems at other facilities to conform to the preferred configuration.”);
identifying, by the device, a quality control issue associated with the second process control data (pg. 4, par. [0045], pg. 5, par. [0052], and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0045]: “The system can then generate recommendations for bringing similar assets at other locations in line with the best performing version of the asset.”, [0052]: “Notification component 316 can be configured to generate and deliver notifications of the detected issues or analytical results to one or more client devices associated with selected plant personnel.”, and [0131]: “The comparative analysis can also identify differences in performance metrics between the different automation systems. These performance metrics may include, for example, product throughput, average or total system downtimes, product quality, energy efficiency, operating costs, etc.”);
generating, by the device, a notification comprising the quality control issue (pg. 4, par. [0045], pg. 5, par. [0052], and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0045]: “The system can then generate recommendations for bringing similar assets at other locations in line with the best performing version of the asset.” and [0052]: “Notification component 316 can be configured to generate and deliver notifications of the detected issues or analytical results to one or more client devices associated with selected plant personnel.”); and
transmitting, by the device, the notification to facilitate presentment of the quality control issue (pg. 4, par. [0045], pg. 5, par. [0052], and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0045]: “The system can then generate recommendations for bringing similar assets at other locations in line with the best performing version of the asset.” and [0052]: “Notification component 316 can be configured to generate and deliver notifications of the detected issues or analytical results to one or more client devices associated with selected plant personnel.”).
As per claim 13, Bliss discloses the quality control issue details a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process during a duration at which the second process control data was obtained (pg. 3, par. [0039, pg. 4, par. [0043] and [0045], pg. 5, par. [0051], and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0039]: “Such devices may also capture time-series data or events on a log for later retrieval and viewing.”, [0043]: “ As a result, different facilities that perform similar industrial operations may observe different results as a function of their individualized system configurations or management practices. Given the geographical separation between the facilities, identifying the system configurations that yield the best results—e.g., in terms of product quality or throughput, minimized machine downtimes, energy efficiency, etc.—and communicating these preferred configurations to other facilities carrying out similar processes is challenging.”, [0045]: “Further analysis can determine which location is achieving the best performance metrics for the machine, and identify factors that may contribute to that machine's superior performance (e.g., a particular operator workflow, configuration settings, maintenance schedules, firmware versions, programming changes etc.).”, and [0051]: “analysis component 314 may be configured to identify data associated with similar industrial systems at different facilities, and to identify differences in the configurations of these systems. By correlating these configuration differences with specified performance metrics for the respective systems, the analysis component 314 can identify system configurations that may produce superior results, and generate recommendations to reconfigure similar systems at other facilities to conform to the preferred configuration.”).
As per claim 14, Bliss discloses the device is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system (pg. 4, par. [0043]-[0044]; i.e. [0044]: “… a cloud-based industrial diagnosis and maintenance system that discovers system configuration data available across multiple heterogeneous data platforms at diverse industrial facilities …” and [0045]: “… the system's analytics tools can analyze the federated namespace on the cloud platform in order to compare performance metrics for similar machines or industrial systems at different plant facilities. For example, a cloud-based analytics service can identify similar machines or workcells at different plant facilities, and compare the relative performance of these machines.”).
As per claim 15, Bliss discloses the manufacturing process from which the first process control data is a first manufacturing process and the second process control data is obtained from a second manufacturing process (pg. 4, par. [0043] and [0045]; i.e. [0043]: “… many industrial enterprises distribute their operations across multiple geographically diverse plant facilities …” and [0045]: “… the system's analytics tools can analyze the federated namespace on the cloud platform in order to compare performance metrics for similar machines or industrial systems at different plant facilities.”), wherein the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the device via a second application interface, wherein the first application interface and the second application interface are disparate (pg. 6, par. [0057],and pg. 8, par. [0071]; i.e. [0057]: “Example industrial assets residing at the various facilities 520 can include, but are not limited to, industrial controllers 504, HMIs, databases (e.g., data historians, employee databases, inventory databases, etc.), device documentation repositories, product inventory tracking systems, work order management systems, etc.” and [0071]: “In addition to processing search queries submitted by the user via a client device (or in association with such search queries), the diagnosis and maintenance system 302 can also perform cross-facility analysis on the data model 202 and generate statistics or recommendations based on results of the analysis.”).
As per claim 16, Bliss discloses the quality control issue represented by the second process control data indicates:
the manufacturing process, when the first process control data was captured, does not deleteriously affect a property of a component produced by the manufacturing process (pg. 8, par. [0071] and [0073] and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0073]; i.e. “… the analysis component 314 may be configured to perform automatic, periodic cross-facility analysis on federated data model 202, and generate recommendations or notifications in response to determining that the analysis results satisfy a defined notification criterion. Such notification criteria may include, for example, a determination that a machine, production line, or facility having a performance metric (e.g., product output, product quality, energy consumption, machine downtimes, revenue, etc.) that has fallen below that of the other machines, lines, or facilities by a defined degree.” and [0131]: “The comparative analysis can also identify differences in performance metrics between the different automation systems. These performance metrics may include, for example, product throughput, average or total system downtimes, product quality, energy efficiency, operating costs, etc.”), or
the manufacturing process, when the first process control data was captured, has potential to deleteriously affect the property of a component produced by the manufacturing process (pg. 8, par. [0071] and [0073] and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0073]; i.e. “… the analysis component 314 may be configured to perform automatic, periodic cross-facility analysis on federated data model 202, and generate recommendations or notifications in response to determining that the analysis results satisfy a defined notification criterion. Such notification criteria may include, for example, a determination that a machine, production line, or facility having a performance metric (e.g., product output, product quality, energy consumption, machine downtimes, revenue, etc.) that has fallen below that of the other machines, lines, or facilities by a defined degree.” and [0131]: “The comparative analysis can also identify differences in performance metrics between the different automation systems. These performance metrics may include, for example, product throughput, average or total system downtimes, product quality, energy efficiency, operating costs, etc.”).
As per claim 17, Bliss discloses a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, wherein, in response to being executed, the machine-executable instructions cause an intelligent manufacturing system (IMS) (Fig. 3, element 302; i.e. an industrial diagnosis and maintenance system) to perform operations (pg. 4, par. [0044] and [0047]), comprising:
receiving first data from a first manufacturing process, wherein the first manufacturing process is manufacturing a first component (pg. 4, par. [0044] and [0048]; i.e. [0044]: “… the diagnosis and maintenance system indexes data from multiple sources both across the industrial facilities and external to the facility, including but not limited to industrial controllers, HMIs, intelligent industrial devices, motor drives, industrial safety systems, data historians, device and system documentation repositories (e.g., drawings, manuals, knowledgebase articles, etc.), system inventory management systems, computer-based control applications (e.g., enterprise resource planning systems, batch process management systems, etc.), batch software, product control software, structured query language (SQL) databases that interact with the control system, and/or other such platforms. ” and [0048]: “Discovery component 304 can be configured to gather information from one or more industrial automation systems and other data sources both internal and external to an industrial environment.”);
comparing the first data with a collection of process data, wherein the collection of process data was obtained from a second manufacturing process manufacturing a second component, wherein the second component is substantially similar to the first component (pg. 4, par. [0045] and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. “a cloud-based analytics service can identify similar machines or workcells at different plant facilities, and compare the relative performance of these machines.”);
identifying second data in the collection of process data, wherein the second data is threshold similar to the first data, and the second data has an associated product quality measured during manufacture of the second component (pg. 4, par. [0043] and [0045], pg. 5, par. [0051], pg. 8, par. [0073], and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0043]: “ As a result, different facilities that perform similar industrial operations may observe different results as a function of their individualized system configurations or management practices. Given the geographical separation between the facilities, identifying the system configurations that yield the best results—e.g., in terms of product quality or throughput, minimized machine downtimes, energy efficiency, etc.—and communicating these preferred configurations to other facilities carrying out similar processes is challenging.”, [0045]: “Further analysis can determine which location is achieving the best performance metrics for the machine, and identify factors that may contribute to that machine's superior performance (e.g., a particular operator workflow, configuration settings, maintenance schedules, firmware versions, programming changes etc.).”, [0051]: “analysis component 314 may be configured to identify data associated with similar industrial systems at different facilities, and to identify differences in the configurations of these systems. By correlating these configuration differences with specified performance metrics for the respective systems, the analysis component 314 can identify system configurations that may produce superior results, and generate recommendations to reconfigure similar systems at other facilities to conform to the preferred configuration.”, [0073]; i.e. “… the analysis component 314 may be configured to perform automatic, periodic cross-facility analysis on federated data model 202, and generate recommendations or notifications in response to determining that the analysis results satisfy a defined notification criterion. Such notification criteria may include, for example, a determination that a machine, production line, or facility having a performance metric (e.g., product output, product quality, energy consumption, machine downtimes, revenue, etc.) that has fallen below that of the other machines, lines, or facilities by a defined degree.”, and [0131]: “The comparative analysis can also identify differences in performance metrics between the different automation systems. These performance metrics may include, for example, product throughput, average or total system downtimes, product quality, energy efficiency, operating costs, etc.”); and
in the event of the associated product quality of the second component is outside of an acceptable tolerance (pg. 8, par. [0073]; i.e. “… the analysis component 314 may be configured to perform automatic, periodic cross-facility analysis on federated data model 202, and generate recommendations or notifications in response to determining that the analysis results satisfy a defined notification criterion. Such notification criteria may include, for example, a determination that a machine, production line, or facility having a performance metric (e.g., product output, product quality, energy consumption, machine downtimes, revenue, etc.) that has fallen below that of the other machines, lines, or facilities by a defined degree.”) transmitting a recommendation to the first manufacturing process regarding subsequent operation of the first manufacturing process (pg. 4, par. [0045], pg. 5, par. [0052], and pg. 17, par. [0131]; i.e. [0045]: “The system can then generate recommendations for bringing similar assets at other locations in line with the best performing version of the asset.” and [0052]: “Notification component 316 can be configured to generate and deliver notifications of the detected issues or analytical results to one or more client devices associated with selected plant personnel.”).
As per claim 18, Bliss discloses the IMS is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system (pg. 4, par. [0043]-[0044]; i.e. [0044]: “… a cloud-based industrial diagnosis and maintenance system that discovers system configuration data available across multiple heterogeneous data platforms at diverse industrial facilities …” and [0045]: “… the system's analytics tools can analyze the federated namespace on the cloud platform in order to compare performance metrics for similar machines or industrial systems at different plant facilities. For example, a cloud-based analytics service can identify similar machines or workcells at different plant facilities, and compare the relative performance of these machines.”), the first manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a first application interface and the second manufacturing process is communicatively coupled to the IMS via a second application interface (pg. 6, par. [0057],and pg. 8, par. [0071]; i.e. [0057]: “Example industrial assets residing at the various facilities 520 can include, but are not limited to, industrial controllers 504, HMIs, databases (e.g., data historians, employee databases, inventory databases, etc.), device documentation repositories, product inventory tracking systems, work order management systems, etc.” and [0071]: In addition to processing search queries submitted by the user via a client device (or in association with such search queries), the diagnosis and maintenance system 302 can also perform cross-facility analysis on the data model 202 and generate statistics or recommendations based on results of the analysis.”).
.
As per claim 19, Bliss discloses the recommendation is one of adjust operation of the first manufacturing process or terminate operation of the first manufacturing process (pg. 4, par. [0045] and pg. 5, par. [0051]; i.e. [0045]: “The system can then generate recommendations for bringing similar assets at other locations in line with the best performing version of the asset.” and [0051]: “… generate recommendations to reconfigure similar systems at other facilities to conform to the preferred configuration.”).
As per claim 20, Bliss discloses the first manufacturing process and second manufacturing process are co-located in a common facility, or the first manufacturing process is located at a first location and the second manufacturing process is located at a second location, and the first location is remote to the second location (pg. 4, par. [0043] and [0045]; i.e. [0043]: “… many industrial enterprises distribute their operations across multiple geographically diverse plant facilities …” and [0045]: “… the system's analytics tools can analyze the federated namespace on the cloud platform in order to compare performance metrics for similar machines or industrial systems at different plant facilities.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bliss in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0315062 A1 (hereinafter Shao).
As per claim 4, Bliss does not expressly teach the operations further comprise:
representing the first content as a first vector;
representing the second content as a second vector; and
determining similarity between the first content and the second content based on a distance between the first vector representation and the second vector representation, wherein similarity is determined based on a similarity threshold.
However Shao, in an analogous art of manufacturing systems (pg. 2, par. [0027]), teaches the missing limitations of operations further comprise:
representing a first content as a first vector (pg. 8, par. [0106]; i.e. “… the management platform may obtain the real-time image of the produced food in the production task and the preset standard image of the produced food through the camera device, and input them into the first image recognition model, the two convolutional neural network models process the real-time image and the standard image respectively based on the feature extraction layer, and output the output food feature vector and the standard food feature vector respectively. The food feature vector may be used to represent the expansion degree (such as length, width, height characteristics, etc.) and shape (such as contour, area) features of the food.”);
representing a second content as a second vector (pg. 8, par. [0106]; i.e. “… the management platform may obtain the real-time image of the produced food in the production task and the preset standard image of the produced food through the camera device, and input them into the first image recognition model, the two convolutional neural network models process the real-time image and the standard image respectively based on the feature extraction layer, and output the output food feature vector and the standard food feature vector respectively. The food feature vector may be used to represent the expansion degree (such as length, width, height characteristics, etc.) and shape (such as contour, area) features of the food.”); and
determining similarity between the first content and the second content based on a distance between the first vector representation and the second vector representation, wherein similarity is determined based on a similarity threshold (pg. 8, par. [0107]; i.e. “For example, the judgment layer may calculate the vector distance (such as Euclidean distance) of the food feature vector between the output food and the standard food. When the vector distance is less than the preset threshold, it means that the similarity between the output food and the standard food meets the preset requirements, so it is determined that the expansion degree and shape of the output food meet the standard requirements, and the output food is determined to be qualified food.”) for the purpose of determining a quality of a product (pg. 8, par. [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Bliss to include the addition of the limitations of representing a first content as a first vector; representing a second content as a second vector; and determining similarity between the first content and the second content based on a distance between the first vector representation and the second vector representation, wherein similarity is determined based on a similarity threshold to ensure a normal use of production equipment and production efficiency (Shao: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to data analysis system and manufacturing systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0318934 A1 discloses methods and apparatus to predict process quality in a process control system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0159205 A1 discloses a system and method for processing manufacturing data.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0113095 A1 discloses a system and method for verification of one or more maintenance operations for improving quality of maintenance of manufacturing equipment.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0085899 A1 discloses a data analysis apparatus includes processing circuitry.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0103030 A1 discloses an extensible data model which can be applied to multiple applications to a variety of industry areas.
U.S. Patent No. 6,804,569 B1 discloses methods and apparatus implementing a technique for assembling a device, such as a digital convergence monitor, at more than one site where data is supplied from a first site to a second site and then the data is used in assembly of the device at the second site.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights