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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 09/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 14, 17 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based United States provisional application number 63/588,404, filed on 10/06/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 8, 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “was” should be “were”.
In claim 8, line 1, “the first query” should be “a first query”.
In claim 9, line 2, “the manufacturing process” should be “a manufacturing process”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this office action:
Lee (US 12,061,614 B2, which has a priority date of 11/02/2022), referred to as Lee herein.
Imanari et al. (US 10,996,662 B2, which has a priority date of 05/20/2014), referred to as Imanari herein.
Shanabrook et al. (US 8,713,693 B2, which has a priority date of 07/26/2012), referred to as Shanabrook herein.
Weinrich et al. (US2015/0106506 A1, which has a priority date of 03/052014), referred to as Weinrich herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1 - 4, 9 - 10, 12 - 13, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches an intelligent manufacturing system (IMS), comprising: (“Referring to FIG. 1, a problem action suggestion system 100 according to an exemplary embodiment may be built in a server configured to manage a vehicle production factory or a vehicle product service center,” (Col 6, line 4-7), disclosing a problem action suggestion system 100 that analyzes worker queries about equipment or product abnormalities and outputs a recommended corrective action, can be used for production factory or service center);
at least one processor; (“The controller 130 is a central processing unit adapted to control an overall operation of a recommendation algorithm-based problem action method according to an exemplary embodiment.” (Col 8, line 1-4) and “The controller 130 may be implemented as at least one processor that operate respective modules in the system by a preset program,” (Col 10, line 50-52));
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: (“The term “controller” may refer to a hardware device that includes a memory and a processor. The memory is configured to store program instructions, and the processor is specifically programmed to execute the program instructions to perform one or more processes which are described further below.” (Col 5, line 41-46), disclosing the memory and the memory stores program instructions that the processor executes to carry out the disclosed processes. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
receiving a query having first content, wherein the first content relates to an issue regarding a process operation; (“The query input unit 110 is configured to extract text data for each item in user's query information received from a user terminal 10 as abnormality of a device such as a production equipment or a product, and to transmit the extracted text data to the controller 130.” (Col 6, line 9-13), meaning query input unit extracts text data from a user’s query information, submitted via a user terminal, when an abnormality occurs in production equipment. The query information includes device information, degree of deterioration, a state measurement value and abnormality query content);
comparing the first content with a collection of process data, wherein the collection of process data comprises instances of process information collected regarding performance of one or more manufacturing operations; (“The problem action history DB 122 is configured to store a problem action history of cases in which field workers of production factory and service center have taken actions for various problem situations occurring in the device of various equipment and products.” (Col 7, line 30-34) and “The algorithm control module 133 is configured to extract only data meeting a predetermined similarity condition from the problem action history DB 122 by using the pre-processed data, and to provide an action method of a highest similarity among the extracted data as recommendation through the GUI of the user terminal 10.” (Col 9, line 52-57), meaning the controller computes similarity between the processed query data and problem action history database, which stores a history of action field workers took for various problem situations occurring in production equipment or products);
identifying, in the collection of process data, second content substantially similar to the first content, wherein the second content is a potential solution to the issue; (“The algorithm control module 133 is configured to extract only data meeting a predetermined similarity condition from the problem action history DB 122 by using the pre-processed data, and to provide an action method of a highest similarity among the extracted data as recommendation through the GUI of the user terminal 10.” (Col 9, line 52-57), meaning the predetermined similarity condition is the operative similarity threshold that governs which database entries get extracted and only entries meeting that condition is pulled. So, the extracted entry is by definition "substantially similar to the first content" as claimed. And because that entry records an action previously taken for a comparable problem, it functions as a potential solution to the issue);
and generating a recommendation comprising the second content, wherein the recommendation is configured to potentially address the issue regarding the process operation. (“At this time, the algorithm control module 133 may be configured to calculate the similarity between two vectors of the pre-processed data for respective items of the query information and the data of the problem action history DB 122, and to recommend an action method of a highest similarity.” (Col 9, line 58-63) and “FIG. 6 illustrates a GUI screen for recommending a problem action method when an error code exists according to an embodiment.” (Col 10, line 4-6), meaning outputting the highest similarity action method through the GUI is the act of generating a recommendation comprising the second content. Because the output is selected by similarity to a past case rather than a confirmed diagnosis, it is offered as a candidate fix rather than a guaranteed one. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Therefore, claim 1 is anticipated by Lee.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 1, wherein the instances of process information was collected from one or more locations. (“The problem action history DB 122 is configured to store a problem action history of cases in which field workers of production factory and service center have taken actions for various problem situations occurring in the device of various equipment and products.” (Col 7, line 30-34), meaning the database is populated from actions taken at both production factory and service center settings, so the stored process information is expressly drawn from more than one location).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 1, wherein the query is a first query and the operations can further comprise receiving a second query, (“The query input unit 110 is configured to extract text data for each item in user's query information received from a user terminal 10 as abnormality of a device such as a production equipment or a product, and to transmit the extracted text data to the controller 130.” (Col 6, line 9-13) and “the data management module 123 is configured to receive the problem action history from the user terminal 10, and to continuously update the problem action history DB 122 with the received problem action history” (Col 7, line 52-56), meaning that any communication from the user terminal containing issue related content qualifies as a query under the claim. Additionally, separate communication, the action history feedback, is likewise received from the same user terminal and used to update the database. That later communication is therefore properly read as the second query. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
wherein the second query indicates application of the potential solution to the process operation successfully addressed the issue. (“at the step S190, the controller 130 stores a user action history received through the GUI of the user terminal 10 into the problem action history DB 122. The user action history may include an action method that has been actually performed by the worker, whether the action method has successfully solved the problem, an actual action period taken by the worker, the worker's comments, and the like. At this time, the data management module 123 may give a higher preferential point to be considered in future recommendation to the user action history that has successfully solved the problem.” (Col 12, line 29-39), meaning it expressly records whether the previously suggested action successfully solved the problem, which is exactly what the claim requires the second query to indicate).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 1, wherein the query is received via an application interface, and the recommendation is transmitted to the application interface. (“The communication module 111 is connected to the user terminal 10 through wired/wireless communication, and configured to receive query information with respect to problem situation of the device in the form of at least one of text and speech through the GUI.” (Col 6, line 34-38) and “The user terminal 10 is configured to receive an action method suggested by the problem action suggestion system 100 in response to the request for the search for the action suggestion, and to display the suggested action method through the GUI.” (Col 6, line 26-30), disclosing the same GUI on the same user terminal. The query enters through it and the recommended action method is returned and displayed through it. Thereby, disclosing receipt of the query via the application interface, and transmission of the recommendation to that same interface. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 1, wherein the second content was generated during prior execution of the process operation at the manufacturing process. (“The problem action history DB 122 is configured to store a problem action history of cases in which field workers of production factory and service center have taken actions for various problem situations occurring in the device of various equipment and products. The problem action history DB 122 may be generated based on previous action histories and know-hows of field workers with or without the action manual.” (Col 7, line, 30-38), meaning because the database entries record actions field workers already took in response to problem situations that had already occurred in the equipment, each entry necessarily reflects a prior execution of that process operation, not a hypothetical or future one).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: representing the first content as a first vector; (“the pre-processing module 131 converts the classified words into numerical data usable in the recommendation algorithm by using a word embedding model learned in the algorithm learning module 132. The word embedding is a method of digitizing the classified words to express them as vectors, and a word embedding model is used in the digitization process.” (Col 9, line 34-40), meaning the query's classified words are digitized into vector form through word embedding, the first content is numerically represented as a vector);
and identifying the second content based on similarity between the first vector and a second vector representing the second content. (“the algorithm control module 133 may be configured to calculate the similarity between two vectors of the pre-processed data for respective items of the query information and the data of the problem action history DB 122, and to recommend an action method of a highest similarity.” (Col 9, line 58-62), meaning because similarity is calculated specifically between two vectors, one from the query and one from the database entry, and the highest similarity match determines the recommendation, this shows the second content is identified through vector-to-vector similarity comparison. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a notification of success; or receiving a third query, wherein the third query is received in response to application of the recommendation and comprises a further request for further information. (“at the step S190, the controller 130 stores a user action history received through the GUI of the user terminal 10 into the problem action history DB 122. The user action history may include an action method that has been actually performed by the worker, whether the action method has successfully solved the problem, an actual action period taken by the worker, the worker's comments, and the like. At this time, the data management module 123 may give a higher preferential point to be considered in future recommendation to the user action history that has successfully solved the problem.” (Col 12, line 29-39), meaning because the received user action history explicitly records whether the suggested action successfully solved the problem and the system weights future recommendations based on that outcome, this is a notification of success received by the system. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 1, wherein the query is received with a first format, wherein the operations further comprise: (“The query input unit 110 is configured to extract text data for each item in user's query information received from a user terminal 10 as abnormality of a device such as a production equipment or a product, and to transmit the extracted text data to the controller 130.” (Col 6, line 9-13), meaning this establishes that the query is originally captured and handled as plain text data, the first format in which it's received, before any conversion);
applying a second format to the query, wherein the collection of process data has the second format, and the second format facilitates comparison of the query with the collection of process data. (“the pre-processing module 131 converts the classified words into numerical data usable in the recommendation algorithm by using a word embedding model learned in the algorithm learning module 132. The word embedding is a method of digitizing the classified words to express them as vectors, and a word embedding model is used in the digitization process.” (Col 9, line 34-40), meaning that same originally received text is converted into numerical vector data by the pre-processing module. A second different format applied to the query. Additionally, “the algorithm control module 133 may be configured to calculate the similarity between two vectors of the pre-processed data for respective items of the query information and the data of the problem action history DB 122, and to recommend an action method of a highest similarity.” (Col 9, line 58-62), meaning because similarity is calculated between two vectors, one from the query and one from the database, this shows the database data is represented in that same vector format, and that shared format is precisely what makes the comparison possible. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
Regarding Claim 14, a method claim that incorporates the system of Claim 1, is being rejected using the reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches 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 a query, wherein the query comprises first content regarding an issue encountered at a manufacturing process; (“The query input unit 110 is configured to extract text data for each item in user's query information received from a user terminal 10 as abnormality of a device such as a production equipment or a product, and to transmit the extracted text data to the controller 130.” (Col 6, line 9-13), meaning query input unit extracts text data from a user’s query information, submitted via a user terminal, when an abnormality occurs in production equipment. The query information includes device information, degree of deterioration, a state measurement value and abnormality query content);
identifying, in a collection of manufacturing data, a second content, wherein the second content is threshold similar to the first content and the second content is a potential solution to the issue; (“The algorithm control module 133 is configured to extract only data meeting a predetermined similarity condition from the problem action history DB 122 by using the pre-processed data, and to provide an action method of a highest similarity among the extracted data as recommendation through the GUI of the user terminal 10.” (Col 9, line 52-57), meaning the predetermined similarity condition is the operative similarity threshold that governs which database entries get extracted and only entries meeting that condition is pulled. So, the extracted entry is by definition "substantially similar to the first content" as claimed. And because that entry records an action previously taken for a comparable problem, it functions as a potential solution to the issue);
generating a notification comprising the second content; (“At this time, the algorithm control module 133 may be configured to calculate the similarity between two vectors of the pre-processed data for respective items of the query information and the data of the problem action history DB 122, and to recommend an action method of a highest similarity.” (Col 9, line 58-63) and “FIG. 6 illustrates a GUI screen for recommending a problem action method when an error code exists according to an embodiment.” (Col 10, line 4-6), meaning outputting the highest similarity action method through the GUI is the claimed act of generating a recommendation comprising the second content. Because the output is selected by similarity to a past case rather than a confirmed diagnosis, it is offered as a candidate fix rather than a guaranteed one. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
and transmitting the notification comprising the second content, wherein the notification comprises an instruction to implement the second content at the manufacturing process. (“That is, at the step S190, the controller 130 stores a user action history received through the GUI of the user terminal 10 into the problem action history DB 122. The user action history may include an action method that has been actually performed by the worker, whether the action method has successfully solved the problem, an actual action period taken by the worker, the worker's comments, and the like.” (Col 12, line 28-35), meaning the recommended action method is displayed to the worker via the GUI and showing the displayed recommendation functions as a directive the worker acts on, that is an instruction to implement it. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 - 6, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Imanari.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 1, wherein the query is received via a first application interface located at a first manufacturing process, (“The communication module 111 is connected to the user terminal 10 through wired/wireless communication, and configured to receive query information with respect to problem situation of the device in the form of at least one of text and speech through the GUI.” (Col 6, line 34-38), meaning the communication module functioning as the GUI's receiving point is the application interface and because it operates at production factory setting, it is the first application interface at the first manufacturing process);
Lee does not teach the second content was received from a second application interface.
However, Imanari teaches and the second content was received from a second application interface, (“the diagnosis support system 1 is connected to a plurality of rolling mills 10A, 10B, 10C and 10D which are placed in places separated from the diagnosis support system 1, through Internet 300.” (Col 12, line 22-25), meaning the system's connection to multiple mills over the Internet shows content can enter from a facility distinct from the querying one. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Imanari teaches wherein the second content was generated during operation of a second manufacturing process, (“the diagnosis support system 1 collects data from apparatuses to be monitored in each of the rolling mills 10A, 10B, 10C and 10D, analyzes the extracted data, and displays the analysis process and the analysis result, on the display device.” (Col 12, line 28-32), meaning because the collected data comes directly from apparatuses while they are being monitored during operation, that data is necessarily generated during operation of the mill it's collected from, which is the second manufacturing process);
Imanari teaches wherein the first manufacturing process and the second manufacturing process are disparate. (“the diagnosis support system 1 is connected to a plurality of rolling mills 10A, 10B, 10C and 10D which are placed in places separated from the diagnosis support system 1, through Internet 300.” (Col 12, line 22-25), meaning the mills are expressly located in places separated from the central system, establishing them as physically distinct, disparate manufacturing sites rather than a single shared location. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to combine Lee’s query and recommendation architecture, a query input unit or GUI, a controller, and a problem action history database, with Imanari’s teaching of networking a shared analysis system to multiple manufacturing facilities located in physically separated places. The combination would extend Lee’s single facility query interface and problem action database so that they operate across more than one manufacturing process of a query submitted through an application interface at one process could be answered using problem action content that was generated during operation of a different separated process, consistent with the multi-facility architecture Imanari discloses for rolling mills.
The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the size and diversity of the historical problem action data available to Lee’s similarity matching algorithm, improving recommendation coverage for problem types that may not have previously occurred at the querying facility. The same benefit Imanari attributes to networking multiple separated facilities to one analysis system, which it describes as increasing the number of comparable data items and thereby the accuracy of anomaly identification. This is a predictable application of a known networking technique to a known recommendation system, yielding the expected result of a larger and more useful comparison pool.
Regarding Claim 6, Imanari teaches wherein the first manufacturing process and the second manufacturing process are remotely located. (“the diagnosis support system 1 is connected to a plurality of rolling mills 10A, 10B, 10C and 10D which are placed in places separated from the diagnosis support system 1, through Internet 300.” (Col 12, line 22-25), meaning connection to the mills occurs only through the Internet rather than a local or on-site link, which is itself what makes the facilities remotely located relative to the central system and each other. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the manufacturing process is a first manufacturing process having a first application interface (“The communication module 111 is connected to the user terminal 10 through wired/wireless communication, and configured to receive query information with respect to problem situation of the device in the form of at least one of text and speech through the GUI.” (Col 6, line 34-38), meaning the communication module functioning as the GUI's receiving point is the application interface and because it operates at production factory setting, it is the first application interface at the first manufacturing process);
Lee does not teach the information is obtained from a second manufacturing process having a second application interface remotely located from the first application interface.
However, Imanari teaches and the information is obtained from a second manufacturing process having a second application interface remotely located from the first application interface, (“the diagnosis support system 1 is connected to a plurality of rolling mills 10A, 10B, 10C and 10D which are placed in places separated from the diagnosis support system 1, through Internet 300.” (Col 12, line 22-25), meaning connection to the mills occurs only through the Internet rather than a local or on-site link, which is itself what makes the facilities remotely located relative to the central system and each other. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Lee teaches wherein the device is located in an intelligent manufacturing system (IMS) communicatively coupled to the first application interface and the second application interface. (“The user terminal 10 is configured to receive an action method suggested by the problem action suggestion system 100 in response to the request for the search for the action suggestion, and to display the suggested action method through the GUI. The query input unit 110 includes a communication module 111, a speech recognition module 112, and a query input module 113. The communication module 111 is connected to the user terminal 10 through wired/wireless communication, and configured to receive query information with respect to problem situation of the device in the form of at least one of text and speech through the GUI.” (Col 6, line 26-38), meaning it is communicatively couple to the user terminal’s GUI via communication module and the device is located in that system. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to combine a query and recommendation system whose controller operates within a central manufacturing support system, receiving queries and returning recommendations through an application interface, with a networked architecture connecting that same central system to multiple manufacturing processes located in physically separate places, each with its own application interface feeding into the shared central system.
The motivation for doing so would have been to draw on problem action data generated at more than one manufacturing process rather than being limited to whichever single process happens to be connected, increasing the range of prior cases available for comparison and improving the odds of finding a closely matching solution for any given query which is a predictable benefit of networking multiple facilities to one central system.
Regarding Claim 18, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim(s) 7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Shanabrook.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee does not teach the IMS is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system.
However, Shanabrook teaches wherein the IMS is located in a multi-tenant, cloud-based system. (“Multi-tenant cloud architectures, in particular, allow different customer organizations (often called "tenants") to share computing resources without sacrificing data security.” (Col 1, line 29-32), disclosing the multi-tenant cloud model by name, multiple distinct customer organizations sharing one computing platform. This is precisely the architecture the claim requires the IMS to be hosted in).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to combine Lee's server based problem action recommendation system with Shanabrook's multi-tenant cloud architecture to host Lee's query input unit, controller, and problem action history database on a shared multi-tenant cloud platform of the kind Shanabrook discloses, rather than on a single dedicated server.
The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the well documented, industry standard benefits of multi-tenant cloud deployment with shared infrastructure costs, elastic scalability, and centralized maintenance benefits Shanabrook explicitly attributes to the multi-tenant cloud model, while using Lee's recommendation system exactly as disclosed. Hosting a known server based application (Lee) on a known deployment architecture (multi-tenant cloud, per Shanabrook) is a predictable substitution yielding no more than the expected result of shared-infrastructure operation.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 1, wherein the query is generated by a first entity and the potential solution is generated by a second entity, (“The query input unit 110 is configured to extract text data for each item in user's query information received from a user terminal 10 as abnormality of a device such as a production equipment or a product, and to transmit the extracted text data to the controller 130.” (Col 6, line 9-13), meaning the query originates from a user at the user terminal, the first entity generating the query. Additionally, “The problem action history DB 122 is configured to store a problem action history of cases in which field workers of production factory and service center have taken actions for various problem situations occurring in the device of various equipment and products.” (Col 7, line 30-34), meaning the stored problem action data was generated by field workers who previously took action on a comparable problem, a different second entity from the current querying user, since the recommended solution reflects someone else's earlier action rather than the querying user's own input. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Lee does not teach the first entity and second entity are disparate manufacturing companies.
However, Shanabrook teaches wherein the first entity and second entity are disparate manufacturing companies. (“Multi-tenant cloud architectures, in particular, allow different customer organizations (often called "tenants") to share computing resources without sacrificing data security.” (Col 1, line 29-32), meaning the multi-tenant model as involving distinct customer organizations sharing one platform; combined with Lee's manufacturing context established above, the querying entity and the entity behind the stored solution can be tenants representing different, disparate manufacturing companies rather than individuals at the same company. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to combine Lee’s recommendation system which is deployable on Shanabrook’s multi-tenant cloud platform. As expressed in Shanabrook, the separate tenants of such a platform are typically separate customer organizations. Extending that combination so that separate manufacturing company tenants submit queries to and contribute problem action data to, the shared platform is a straightforward application of the multi-tenant model, updating whose queries and whose historical data flow through the same architecture.
The motivation for doing so would have been to maximize the pool of troubleshooting data available to Lee’s similarity algorithm beyond what any single manufacturing company generates on its own. More companies contributing more diverse problem action histories increase the likelihood of finding a highly similar prior solution for any given query. This is the express benefit multi-tenant SaaS platform are built to unlock and applying it to Lee’s specific recommendation engine is a predictable extension.
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Imanari and further in view of Shanabrook.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches the IMS of claim 7, wherein the first query is received via a first application interface located at a first manufacturing process, (“The communication module 111 is connected to the user terminal 10 through wired/wireless communication, and configured to receive query information with respect to problem situation of the device in the form of at least one of text and speech through the GUI.” (Col 6, line 34-38), meaning the GUI is the application interface receiving the query at the manufacturing process);
Lee does not teach the second content was received from a second application interface.
However, Imanari teaches and the second content was received from a second application interface, (“the diagnosis support system 1 collects data from apparatuses to be monitored in each of the rolling mills 10A, 10B, 10C and 10D, analyzes the extracted data, and displays the analysis process and the analysis result, on the display device.” (Col 12, line 28-32), meaning each mill's data is collected locally from its own monitored apparatuses before reaching the central system, making that local collection point the facility specific interface the second content is received from. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
Imanari teaches wherein the second content was generated during operation of a second manufacturing process, (“the diagnosis support system 1 collects data from apparatuses to be monitored in each of the rolling mills 10A, 10B, 10C and 10D, analyzes the extracted data, and displays the analysis process and the analysis result, on the display device.” (Col 12, line 28-32), meaning because the collected data comes directly from apparatuses while they are being monitored during operation, that data is necessarily generated during operation of the mill it's collected from, which is the second manufacturing process);
Lee and Imanari do not teach the first application interface and the second application interface are communicatively coupled to the IMS.
However, Shanabrook teaches and the first application interface and the second application interface are communicatively coupled to the IMS. (“Multi-tenant cloud architectures, in particular, allow different customer organizations (often called "tenants") to share computing resources without sacrificing data security.” (Col 1, line 29-32), meaning a multi-tenant cloud platform only functions if every tenant's access point stays connected to the shared platform. Since claim 7 already establishes the IMS as that kind of platform, both application interfaces are necessarily coupled to it by the same architecture. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to combine a manufacturing recommendation system that receives a query, compares it against a database of stored problem action history and returns a similarity based recommendation, with a networked architecture connecting that system to multiple manufacturing facilities located in physically separate places and with a multi-tenant cloud computing platform. The combined system would host the query handling, comparison, and recommendation components on a shared multi-tenant cloud platform, while extending that platform across multiple separately located manufacturing processes so that a query submitted through an application interface at one manufacturing process is answered using content generated during operation of a different, physically separated manufacturing process, with each process's application interface connected to the shared, cloud hosted system.
The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain two complementary, independently well-recognized benefits at once. A broader and more diverse pool of historical problem action data from linking multiple separated manufacturing processes into a single comparison set and the shared infrastructure, scalability, and centralized maintenance that multi-tenant cloud deployment provides. A multi-tenant cloud platform is itself a natural expected way to connect multiple separately located facilities to one backend system, so combining these elements would yield only the predictable and additive result of each individual improvement which is well within the capability of an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding Claim 19, is being rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 and claim 8.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the query is a first query, (“The query input unit 110 is configured to extract text data for each item in user's query information received from a user terminal 10 as abnormality of a device such as a production equipment or a product, and to transmit the extracted text data to the controller 130.” (Col 6, line 9-13), meaning query input unit extracts text data from a user’s query information, submitted via a user terminal, when an abnormality occurs in production equipment. This can be labeled as first query);
the notification is a first notification, (“At this time, the algorithm control module 133 may be configured to calculate the similarity between two vectors of the pre-processed data for respective items of the query information and the data of the problem action history DB 122, and to recommend an action method of a highest similarity.” (Col 9, line 58-63) and “FIG. 6 illustrates a GUI screen for recommending a problem action method when an error code exists according to an embodiment.” (Col 10, line 4-6), meaning outputting the highest similarity action method through the GUI is the claimed act of generating a recommendation comprising the second content. This can labeled as the first notification);
the information in the collection of process data is first information in the collection of process data and is a first potential solution to the issue, (“The algorithm control module 133 is configured to extract only data meeting a predetermined similarity condition from the problem action history DB 122 by using the pre-processed data, and to provide an action method of a highest similarity among the extracted data as recommendation through the GUI of the user terminal 10.” (Col 9, line 52-57), meaning the predetermined similarity condition is the operative similarity threshold that governs which database entries get extracted and only entries meeting that condition is pulled. So, the extracted entry is by definition "substantially similar to the first content" as claimed. And because that entry records an action previously taken for a comparable problem, it functions as a potential solution to the issue. This can also be labeled as first solution. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
wherein method further comprising: receiving, by the device, a second query, wherein the second query is generated in response to application of the first information to the manufacturing process, (“The data management module 123 may be configured to receive a feedback of an action history of the result after the field worker has performed the problem action method suggested by the problem action suggestion system 100 in response to the query information, and may update the problem action history DB 122.” (Col 7, line 47-52), meaning the data management module 123 receives a further communication from the user terminal after the worker performs the previously suggested action which is generated in response to applying that first suggestion);
and the second query indicates application of the first information to the manufacturing process did not successfully address the issue; (“at the step S190, the controller 130 stores a user action history received through the GUI of the user terminal 10 into the problem action history DB 122. The user action history may include an action method that has been actually performed by the worker, whether the action method has successfully solved the problem, an actual action period taken by the worker, the worker's comments, and the like.” (Col 12, line 29-35), meaning the received user action history records "whether" the action successfully solved the problem, which is a field that, by its own terms, captures the negative outcome as much as the positive one. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
comparing, by the device, content of the second query with the collection of process data; (“The problem action history DB 122 is configured to store a problem action history of cases in which field workers of production factory and service center have taken actions for various problem situations occurring in the device of various equipment and products.” (Col 7, line 30-34) and “The algorithm control module 133 is configured to extract only data meeting a predetermined similarity condition from the problem action history DB 122 by using the pre-processed data, and to provide an action method of a highest similarity among the extracted data as recommendation through the GUI of the user terminal 10.” (Col 9, line 52-57), meaning the controller computes similarity between the processed query data and problem action history database, which stores a history of action field workers took for various problem situations occurring in production equipment or products. This second communication is processed through the same controller or algorithm control module pipeline used for the original query);
identifying, by the device, second information in the collection of process data, wherein the second information is threshold similar to content of the second query and is a second potential solution to the issue; (“At this time, the algorithm control module 133 may be configured to calculate the similarity between two vectors of the pre-processed data for respective items of the query information and the data of the problem action history DB 122, and to recommend an action method of a highest similarity.” (Col 9, line 58-63) and “FIG. 6 illustrates a GUI screen for recommending a problem action method when an error code exists according to an embodiment.” (Col 10, line 4-6), meaning outputting the highest similarity action method through the GUI is the claimed act of generating a recommendation comprising the second content. Because the output is selected by similarity to a past case rather than a confirmed diagnosis, it is offered as a candidate fix rather than a guaranteed one. This also applies on the new query context. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
generating, by the device, a second notification comprising the second information; (“at the step S190, the controller 130 stores a user action history received through the GUI of the user terminal 10 into the problem action history DB 122. The user action history may include an action method that has been actually performed by the worker, whether the action method has successfully solved the problem, an actual action period taken by the worker, the worker's comments, and the like. At this time, the data management module 123 may give a higher preferential point to be considered in future recommendation to the user action history that has successfully solved the problem.” (Col 12, line 29-39), meaning because the received user action history explicitly records whether the suggested action successfully solved the problem, and the system weights future recommendations based on that outcome, this is a notification of success received by the system. This same recommendation output function of module will produce a new suggested action method for this second pass);
and transmitting the second notification to an application interface located at the manufacturing process, wherein the second notification is configured for presentment at the application interface. (“At this time, the algorithm control module 133 may be configured to calculate the similarity between two vectors of the pre-processed data for respective items of the query information and the data of the problem action history DB 122, and to recommend an action method of a highest similarity.” (Col 9, line 58-63) and “FIG. 6 illustrates a GUI screen for recommending a problem action method when an error code exists according to an embodiment.” (Col 10, line 4-6), meaning outputting the highest similarity action method through the GUI is the claimed act of generating a recommendation comprising the second content. The same GUI display mechanism used to present the first recommendation will also display the second notification. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to apply Lee's own disclosed query processing pipeline a second time to a follow up communication reporting that a previously suggested action failed, rather than only to the original query using the same receiving, comparing, identifying, and generating functions Lee already discloses, triggered by a second input instead of the first.
The motivation for doing so would have been that Lee's system is expressly designed to record whether a suggested action succeeded or failed and to use that outcome to improve future recommendations. A system built to track failure has an inherent, obvious use case in responding to failure by searching again, rather than simply logging it and stopping. Running the same disclosed pipeline again after a negative outcome is the ordinary, expected way to operate a system with that capability.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Weinrich.
Regarding Claim 20, Lee does not teach the query is received from a human machine interface (HMI) communicatively coupled to a machine on which the manufacturing process is being performed.
However, Weinrich teaches wherein the query is received from a human machine interface (HMI) communicatively coupled to a machine on which the manufacturing process is being performed, (“The exemplary system including the multi-layered application comprising portion 104 is communicatively coupled to the PLC1 112. The PLC 1, in turn, receives plant equipment status information via the plant floor network 115.” (Pg 5, ¶ 0055), meaning this establishes a chain of connectivity running from the HMI down to the physical plant floor equipment on which the process is performed. Combined with Lee's disclosure of a query submitted through a terminal regarding equipment abnormality, substituting Lee's generic user terminal with a Weinrich style HMI and coupled through a PLC to the machine itself);
and the notification is configured to be presented at the HMI. (“Software instructions stored on a tangible, non-transitory media and executable by a processor receive data indicative of a manufacturing/process control system being monitored and display a user interface indicative of a status of the manufacturing/process control system being monitored wherein the status is based on the received data.” (Abstract), meaning whole system is built around presenting aggregated alarm and status information to the operator at the HMI display. Combined with Lee's GUI based recommendation display, presenting Lee's recommendation at a Weinrich style HMI is the same display function Invensys already discloses for alarms, simply carrying a recommendation instead of an alarm. This satisfies the conditional requirement of the claim);
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to combine Lee's query and recommendation system with Weinrich's HMI architecture and substituting Lee's generic user terminal with an HMI of the kind Invensys discloses, physically coupled through a PLC to the specific machine performing the manufacturing process, so that both the query and the resulting recommendation pass through that machine mounted HMI rather than a general purpose computer.
The motivation for doing so would have been that HMIs mounted at or near the actual equipment were already the standard, well-established way operators interacted with manufacturing machines at the time of the invention. Weinrich's own system exists specifically to present operational and alarm information at that point of interaction. Using a known, standard interface type (HMI) in its known role (presenting information at the machine) to carry Lee's recommendation output is a straightforward substitution yielding the predictable result of getting the recommendation in front of the operator exactly where they are already working.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDNI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm, every other Friday off.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571)272-3644. 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.
/CHANDNI PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights